My parents can be goofy. With them, for as long as I can remember the phrase "Happy New Year" has more often than not been proclaimed as "Happy You Near".
Silly, I know.
This funny word turn around strikes a particular chord with me this year. As far as resolutions go I'm not aiming for a clear cut result this time around. I am aiming for an awareness of self. I have a hard time not rolling my eyes on the prior sentence because of the way that it sounds. On the one hand I emote a particularly purposeful "too cool for school", punk rock, f authority attitude and on the other I am intensely spiritual, faithful, superstitious and all around earth mother tree goddess hippie. It goes with the overwhelming dichotomy that is my existence. Roman Catholic by rearing, half of a set of boy and girl twins by birth, opposing internal and external forces by circumstances and overwhelmingly fascinated and terrified by the world outside of my very dwelling place. I often feel like I am two different people.
So, I fear that writing this blog and maybe other outlets of mine may not survive the long term. I am writing less about the "issues" and more about the author. But, at this point I don't know what the future holds.
This Feminist has a resolution of figuring out the You in Her and simultaneously learning to keep that you near.
Happy 2012.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Sexist Marketing and a little girl named Riley
Girls Want Superheroes too!
I think Daddy's doing some coaching- doesn't nullify the powerful sentiment. At least not entirely.
I think Daddy's doing some coaching- doesn't nullify the powerful sentiment. At least not entirely.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The (most) Genderless Gift
Every year I try to donate a toy to some organization that distributes gifts to children who wouldn't otherwise get to open many (or any) presents. It's challenging to find a toy that is not entirely mind numbing, boring or just ridiculous. The harder part is finding a toy that isn't super gender specific.
The best thing that I have come up with thus far is art supplies. A giant box of crayons or markers, colored pencils, a bin of sidewalk chalk or even an etch a sketch- drawing and coloring are safe bets for all. Now, I'm not claiming to be any source of authority but I am speaking from my own search every year to pick out gifts that aren't obviously for a boy or a girl. Of course a girl can be interested in getting a tonka truck or something from "Hot Wheels" but without having any control or say in the gift giving process I don't think organizations have the resources to determine such specifics.
BOOKS. Books are another gift that can avoid gender stereotyping and in fact often address the issue in a comprehensive and appropriate way.
So, if you do have a child on your list that you plan on buying a toy for ask yourself, regardless of gender, what you can gift that doesn't reinforce the lessons that all boys wear blue and play with trucks and all girls wear pink and want to grow up to become princess.
Merry Christmas!
The best thing that I have come up with thus far is art supplies. A giant box of crayons or markers, colored pencils, a bin of sidewalk chalk or even an etch a sketch- drawing and coloring are safe bets for all. Now, I'm not claiming to be any source of authority but I am speaking from my own search every year to pick out gifts that aren't obviously for a boy or a girl. Of course a girl can be interested in getting a tonka truck or something from "Hot Wheels" but without having any control or say in the gift giving process I don't think organizations have the resources to determine such specifics.
BOOKS. Books are another gift that can avoid gender stereotyping and in fact often address the issue in a comprehensive and appropriate way.
So, if you do have a child on your list that you plan on buying a toy for ask yourself, regardless of gender, what you can gift that doesn't reinforce the lessons that all boys wear blue and play with trucks and all girls wear pink and want to grow up to become princess.
Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Gift Guide plus!
A friend suggested a print of this as a great gift for the too cool for school (or sexism) person in your life:
Thanks Friend!
Thanks Friend!
Monday, December 12, 2011
Last Minute Gift Giving Guide
Christmas is a mere two weeks away and this Feminist hopes someone gets her these!
The Feminist Majority Foundation has a great selection of gifts here.
One organization that I support is the Heifer Foundation. You don't have to spend a lot to contribute and because the animals are a long term investment for the family and the community; your gift can reach many people over time. To donate directly to all women's projects you can go here.
A neat company based in Brooklyn, Engage Green makes Eco-friendly bags, pouches and even umbrellas!
Want to get someone an awesome pouch, phone case, pillow or drawstring bag? I love the funky feel and aesthetically pleasing work by Aster and Sage.
Lastly, the company Smart Glass makes beautiful Jewelry out of recycled glass. I love (love love!) these earringsYay!
Don't forget to keep an ongoing list of the things you need to gift yourself after the holidays. I'm thinking new earrings all the way.
The Feminist Majority Foundation has a great selection of gifts here.
One organization that I support is the Heifer Foundation. You don't have to spend a lot to contribute and because the animals are a long term investment for the family and the community; your gift can reach many people over time. To donate directly to all women's projects you can go here.
A neat company based in Brooklyn, Engage Green makes Eco-friendly bags, pouches and even umbrellas!
Want to get someone an awesome pouch, phone case, pillow or drawstring bag? I love the funky feel and aesthetically pleasing work by Aster and Sage.
Lastly, the company Smart Glass makes beautiful Jewelry out of recycled glass. I love (love love!) these earringsYay!
Don't forget to keep an ongoing list of the things you need to gift yourself after the holidays. I'm thinking new earrings all the way.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
What's a Feminist got to be Thankful for?
There is no doubt that reproductive rights have become increasingly under attack this past year. With states like Colorado and Mississippi pushing legislation to grant rights to the unborn, the conservative agenda wanting to strip women's health facilities of funding and the anti-choice using Crisis Pregnancy Centers to pass off fiction as fact; more than ever before we are taking giant steps in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, it can't be said that there isn't a strong and growing opposition to the ever mounting restrictions and erosion of a women's right to choose. The president of NARAL Pro-Choice, Nancy Northup, sent out an e-mail thanking supporters and highlighting some victories in the last year:
Thanks to your support, today in Kansas, a pair of father-daughter OB-GYNs who have served generations of women and their families can keep their practice open—and women seeking abortion services will not have to travel out of state to receive the care they need. And in Texas and North Carolina, women making profoundly private decisions about their pregnancies can do so with the confidential counsel of their doctors—and without the intrusion of a politically-motivated ideological lecture and forced viewing of an ultrasound image.
Check out Emily's List, the pro-women group devoted to electing pro-choice women to see what they're thankful for.
I am, as always, thankful for my family and our health. I am also thankful that when I needed reproductive support I was able to make my own decision- just like every women should be able to.
On the other hand, it can't be said that there isn't a strong and growing opposition to the ever mounting restrictions and erosion of a women's right to choose. The president of NARAL Pro-Choice, Nancy Northup, sent out an e-mail thanking supporters and highlighting some victories in the last year:
Thanks to your support, today in Kansas, a pair of father-daughter OB-GYNs who have served generations of women and their families can keep their practice open—and women seeking abortion services will not have to travel out of state to receive the care they need. And in Texas and North Carolina, women making profoundly private decisions about their pregnancies can do so with the confidential counsel of their doctors—and without the intrusion of a politically-motivated ideological lecture and forced viewing of an ultrasound image.
Check out Emily's List, the pro-women group devoted to electing pro-choice women to see what they're thankful for.
I am, as always, thankful for my family and our health. I am also thankful that when I needed reproductive support I was able to make my own decision- just like every women should be able to.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Mississippi Rejects Personhood
To my great relief late Tuesday night, it finally became clear that Mississippi's "personhood" initiative was not going to pass.
The initiative sought to "define the word 'person' or 'persons' to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The final tally according to Mississippi and Wikipedia marked 58% (464,712)of voters rejecting the initiative to the 42%(333,191) of voters who supported it.
While Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice and other women's reproductive health groups applauded the results, they also made it clear that this small victory is only a small chapter in the ongoing attacks against reproductive freedom. The disturbing trend of legislation aimed at extending legal rights to the "pre-born" over the already born reinforces my fear that once a women becomes pregnant she will no longer have to basic human right to own and make decisions about her body. This type of "pro-life" legislation is anything but supporting the life of the women who are undoubtedly people.
To sign the petition started by Emily's list (a pro women pro democrat organization), click the link above.
For more on Initiative 26 and other "personhood" legislation visit Pro-Choice America
The initiative sought to "define the word 'person' or 'persons' to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The final tally according to Mississippi and Wikipedia marked 58% (464,712)of voters rejecting the initiative to the 42%(333,191) of voters who supported it.
While Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice and other women's reproductive health groups applauded the results, they also made it clear that this small victory is only a small chapter in the ongoing attacks against reproductive freedom. The disturbing trend of legislation aimed at extending legal rights to the "pre-born" over the already born reinforces my fear that once a women becomes pregnant she will no longer have to basic human right to own and make decisions about her body. This type of "pro-life" legislation is anything but supporting the life of the women who are undoubtedly people.
To sign the petition started by Emily's list (a pro women pro democrat organization), click the link above.
For more on Initiative 26 and other "personhood" legislation visit Pro-Choice America
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Initiative 26
Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
As we speak (or as I type) the state of Mississippi is voting on passing the above initiative to redefine person hood in the States constitution.
The reason this particular initiative is so scary is that it legitimizes the idea that women are not people. The tactic of extending legal protection to embryos at the instant of conception isn't new and Mississippi isn't the only state where the concept has gone to ballot.
The Atlantic reports that this initiative doesn't only outlaw abortion but would ban several types of birth control in a state that already has the poorest and least educated population as well.
Roberto Garcia-Jones, a legal analyst for the measure's main sponsor, Personhood USA, claims that the amendment won't go as far as its opponents say it does. He says that the bill only defines "personhood" within the context of existing laws and doesn't contain any call for enforcement or changes to existing laws. According to Garcia-Jones, the ballot initiative would allow Mississippi's legislature to make laws against abortion that carry penalties -- laws that he believes would pass quickly. The Mississippi legislature will pass "abortion-targeted legislation," he predicts, and leave birth control formally alone.
Mississippi voters today are casting ballots for and against Constitutional Initiative 26, the so-called "personhood" amendment to the state constitution seeking to define life "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof." Opponents of the measure warn it would outlaw not only abortion but several forms of birth control, plunging one of America's poorest and least-educated states back into the 1950s on the reproductive rights front and opening a pathway for other states to completely outlaw abortion. A close vote is expected and controversy over the measure has reached such a pitch in the state that Mississippi governor Haley Barbour said that "despite concerns" he'd cast an absentee ballot in favor of the measure last Thursday.
Mississippi has only one operating abortion clinic in the state. The Center for Reproductive Rights has pledged to file suit against the amendment. The organization notes that it "clearly violates the constitution."
The country already is moving toward a nation that doesn't support women reproductive health but the ramifications of stripping funding and passing legislation that restricts reproductive health is dangerous to the overall health of women too.
Mississippi wants to move backwards and it wants to do it now. The trends are scary and the elections of 2012 are rapidly approaching. The anti-choice movement seeks to slowly erode the reproductive rights that women fought so hard for. The victories sought by the anti-choice is simply dehumanizing women and banning any freedom we have to control our on reproductive rights.
As we speak (or as I type) the state of Mississippi is voting on passing the above initiative to redefine person hood in the States constitution.
The reason this particular initiative is so scary is that it legitimizes the idea that women are not people. The tactic of extending legal protection to embryos at the instant of conception isn't new and Mississippi isn't the only state where the concept has gone to ballot.
The Atlantic reports that this initiative doesn't only outlaw abortion but would ban several types of birth control in a state that already has the poorest and least educated population as well.
Roberto Garcia-Jones, a legal analyst for the measure's main sponsor, Personhood USA, claims that the amendment won't go as far as its opponents say it does. He says that the bill only defines "personhood" within the context of existing laws and doesn't contain any call for enforcement or changes to existing laws. According to Garcia-Jones, the ballot initiative would allow Mississippi's legislature to make laws against abortion that carry penalties -- laws that he believes would pass quickly. The Mississippi legislature will pass "abortion-targeted legislation," he predicts, and leave birth control formally alone.
Mississippi voters today are casting ballots for and against Constitutional Initiative 26, the so-called "personhood" amendment to the state constitution seeking to define life "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof." Opponents of the measure warn it would outlaw not only abortion but several forms of birth control, plunging one of America's poorest and least-educated states back into the 1950s on the reproductive rights front and opening a pathway for other states to completely outlaw abortion. A close vote is expected and controversy over the measure has reached such a pitch in the state that Mississippi governor Haley Barbour said that "despite concerns" he'd cast an absentee ballot in favor of the measure last Thursday.
Mississippi has only one operating abortion clinic in the state. The Center for Reproductive Rights has pledged to file suit against the amendment. The organization notes that it "clearly violates the constitution."
The country already is moving toward a nation that doesn't support women reproductive health but the ramifications of stripping funding and passing legislation that restricts reproductive health is dangerous to the overall health of women too.
Mississippi wants to move backwards and it wants to do it now. The trends are scary and the elections of 2012 are rapidly approaching. The anti-choice movement seeks to slowly erode the reproductive rights that women fought so hard for. The victories sought by the anti-choice is simply dehumanizing women and banning any freedom we have to control our on reproductive rights.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Coming soon
So I have been slacking on substantial entries lately and am recommitting myself to at least one entry a week again.
So, here are a few topics you have to look forward to.
Sea Sponges, yes, exactly.
The Cider House Rules according to the "anti-choice."
What do you get the Feminist in your life for Christmas? (I'm offended by everything!)
This and much more to come. I promise.
Update: I haven't had electricity since Sunday am. I have been starting fires for days and am severally under caffeinated, not able to work and losing my optimism quickly. More to come when the power comes back.
So, here are a few topics you have to look forward to.
Sea Sponges, yes, exactly.
The Cider House Rules according to the "anti-choice."
What do you get the Feminist in your life for Christmas? (I'm offended by everything!)
This and much more to come. I promise.
Update: I haven't had electricity since Sunday am. I have been starting fires for days and am severally under caffeinated, not able to work and losing my optimism quickly. More to come when the power comes back.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Commenting on (Feminists) Blogs
Whilst checking on the site feministe.us.blog I came across a blog entry from yesterday that was called "Steven Greenstreet proves he's definitely not a mysogynist by making rape jokes" found here.
In short, Greenstreet created a video-Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street. Perhaps you can see where this is going? My point isn't to deliberate on the rights and wrongs of the video or why and how something like this even comes to fruition, I'd like to point out the comments made on the blog entry and subsequent posts from the author and the public.
I have learned a few times over that online forums are not a great place to get your views across or change peoples mind with witty unheard of arguments. I remember engaging in a heated debate on Facebook 3 or 4 years ago around the holiday times. The current big Facebook thing was themed message boards about all sorts of controversial subjects like the death penalty, women's rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm not positive which one I was arguing at the time but after spending two days and I don't know how many hours going back and forth with a particular user before it was revealed that the person was a seventh grade boy from Texas. I got off my message board kick pretty quickly.
If you look through the comments on the blog about Steven Greenstreet, it's pretty apparent that there is no sense of healthy dialogue or meaningful exchange. What is also apparent is the use of any and all means necessary to negate any legitimacy in what people write.
"You said that misogyny was wrong but you spelled misogyny wrong so you suck and should die in a ditch."
"Women are so uptight, they wouldn't be so angry if they were getting laid. Sexism is fake"
"This is why I hate feminism, I'm a women but I laugh at rape jokes so they should calm the fuck down"
No these are not actual comments, but they are really close and I could go on forever. Even when someone makes an attempt at a reasonable, well thought out and accurate statement the audience cannot see it for what it is. If you disagree with someone in this type of virtual setting you are opening yourself up to all sorts of irrelevant personal attacks on your character. How can anything be achieved by commenting on something and having a dozen strangers tell you you're an idiot and should be struck by a car? You can't engage in conversation, just the back and forth type of exchange where you repeat yourself and spend hours trying to come up with an argument that your fellow virtual commenter may allow for some valuable exchanges.
I don't think it's possible to curtail this sort of ridiculousness because the internet provides you with a forum where you don't really have to take any responsibility for what you say to people. Even to point this very fact out is fruitless because by pointing this out to people you would have to participate in this type of communication. If you were to point out to those commenting that they aren't accomplishing anything or being heard through this form of interaction someone would inevitably challenge that with questioning why you are participating in the venue that you are discrediting. And when you think about it you might realize that they may actually be on to something with that...
In short, Greenstreet created a video-Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street. Perhaps you can see where this is going? My point isn't to deliberate on the rights and wrongs of the video or why and how something like this even comes to fruition, I'd like to point out the comments made on the blog entry and subsequent posts from the author and the public.
I have learned a few times over that online forums are not a great place to get your views across or change peoples mind with witty unheard of arguments. I remember engaging in a heated debate on Facebook 3 or 4 years ago around the holiday times. The current big Facebook thing was themed message boards about all sorts of controversial subjects like the death penalty, women's rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm not positive which one I was arguing at the time but after spending two days and I don't know how many hours going back and forth with a particular user before it was revealed that the person was a seventh grade boy from Texas. I got off my message board kick pretty quickly.
If you look through the comments on the blog about Steven Greenstreet, it's pretty apparent that there is no sense of healthy dialogue or meaningful exchange. What is also apparent is the use of any and all means necessary to negate any legitimacy in what people write.
"You said that misogyny was wrong but you spelled misogyny wrong so you suck and should die in a ditch."
"Women are so uptight, they wouldn't be so angry if they were getting laid. Sexism is fake"
"This is why I hate feminism, I'm a women but I laugh at rape jokes so they should calm the fuck down"
No these are not actual comments, but they are really close and I could go on forever. Even when someone makes an attempt at a reasonable, well thought out and accurate statement the audience cannot see it for what it is. If you disagree with someone in this type of virtual setting you are opening yourself up to all sorts of irrelevant personal attacks on your character. How can anything be achieved by commenting on something and having a dozen strangers tell you you're an idiot and should be struck by a car? You can't engage in conversation, just the back and forth type of exchange where you repeat yourself and spend hours trying to come up with an argument that your fellow virtual commenter may allow for some valuable exchanges.
I don't think it's possible to curtail this sort of ridiculousness because the internet provides you with a forum where you don't really have to take any responsibility for what you say to people. Even to point this very fact out is fruitless because by pointing this out to people you would have to participate in this type of communication. If you were to point out to those commenting that they aren't accomplishing anything or being heard through this form of interaction someone would inevitably challenge that with questioning why you are participating in the venue that you are discrediting. And when you think about it you might realize that they may actually be on to something with that...
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Update
This weekend I have decided to report on the most recent attacks on the the legality of abortion. Roe v. Wade happened 38 years ago and gave women the right to decide what happens to her body, yet that right seems to be in more peril than ever before. While there has always been anti-choice sentiments in this country and to varying degrees in each state, the furor has been intensified to overturn the law of the land. It seems that a total ban of abortion is way off but anti-choice groups will continue to struggle for passing legislation that severely impedes if not out right bans the procedure.
This week a petition initiative was filed in the Nevada courts that would prohibit "the intentional taking of a prenatal persons life."
As you'll see in the article from the Las Vegas Sun, the term prenatal person is defined as "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."
The Nevada pro-life coalition is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to advocate for or against an initiative petition. They would need to file the paperwork and then collect over 70,000 valid signatures from the states three counties to have the initiative placed on a ballot.
The New York Times Sunday opinion article raises an alarm about the erosion of reproductive rights and issued a map displaying the number of harmful restrictions in each state. Also displayed is a graph showing the exponential rise in anti-choice legislation over the last several years.
To end on a more hopeful note, I will leave you with some updated information on the case of Jennie Linn McCormick. McCormick, won a temporary court order barring enforcement of the decades-old law under which she was charged for terminating for own pregnancy. McCormick, aided by her sister, obtained RU-486 from the internet and was charged under a law from 1972 making it a felony for women to end there own pregnancy.
This week a petition initiative was filed in the Nevada courts that would prohibit "the intentional taking of a prenatal persons life."
As you'll see in the article from the Las Vegas Sun, the term prenatal person is defined as "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."
The Nevada pro-life coalition is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office to advocate for or against an initiative petition. They would need to file the paperwork and then collect over 70,000 valid signatures from the states three counties to have the initiative placed on a ballot.
The New York Times Sunday opinion article raises an alarm about the erosion of reproductive rights and issued a map displaying the number of harmful restrictions in each state. Also displayed is a graph showing the exponential rise in anti-choice legislation over the last several years.
To end on a more hopeful note, I will leave you with some updated information on the case of Jennie Linn McCormick. McCormick, won a temporary court order barring enforcement of the decades-old law under which she was charged for terminating for own pregnancy. McCormick, aided by her sister, obtained RU-486 from the internet and was charged under a law from 1972 making it a felony for women to end there own pregnancy.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Porno For PETA
Peta is at again.
Some of you may remember the billboard ad featuring an obese women with the slogan "Save the Whales, Lose Blubber, Go Vegetarian."
I get it, I do. I'm not into torturing, testing, tormenting or any other harmful act towards animals. We are a meat eating culture probably to our determent and definitely to our chagrin of the vegans and veterinarians of the world.
In a somewhat strange turn of events PETA has announced their intentions to debut a pornographic website that they hope will promote veganism by mixing porno with images of animals suffering. Now, call me old fashion but I prefer the old nudity to protest wearing fur as opposed to the new tactic of treating women like the pieces of meat that they are trying to garner support for. Sure, cows don't get to choose to be displayed like this but I don't see why Pamela Anderson choosing to pose likethis has anything to say about why we shouldn't eat the cow. Obviously I understand the point is to remind carnivores that animals aren't entirely made of meat, but what about women being more than meat? PETA is putting animals and women next to each other and saying that animals are the ones that should be treated better.
Shock value may be a valuable selling point and it's true that nothing sells like sex. Given the fact that the internet is filled with every and any type of fetish pornography you can think of (and some you can't), what does PETA hope to accomplish with images that they themselves admit is more cuddly porn than anything already available on the internet. Let's hear from the associate director of campaigns for PETA- "The site, she said, will have nudity and "sexually suggestive content" but not hard-core porn: "A lot of people distinguish between erotica and pornography, and this will be erotica."
I'm not arguing against women having the right to use their bodies as a form of protest or to choose to participate in pornography. If and when women get to choose to engage in either activity more power to her. I am saying that PETA's campaign is dumb. It's dumb because it further marginalizes the group as a bunch of wing nuts who aren't all there. It further alienates supporters who otherwise agree with the cause but can't get on the porno for animal rights wagon.
So, holier than thou veganism, misogyny, mutilated animals and SOFT-CORE porn?
Great idea. Just super. I'm sure the next generation of young animal loving feminist vegans are going to be really inspired by this campaign.
I'm going to go get a cheeseburger, kick a puppy and watch some hard-core porn.
Some of you may remember the billboard ad featuring an obese women with the slogan "Save the Whales, Lose Blubber, Go Vegetarian."
I get it, I do. I'm not into torturing, testing, tormenting or any other harmful act towards animals. We are a meat eating culture probably to our determent and definitely to our chagrin of the vegans and veterinarians of the world.
In a somewhat strange turn of events PETA has announced their intentions to debut a pornographic website that they hope will promote veganism by mixing porno with images of animals suffering. Now, call me old fashion but I prefer the old nudity to protest wearing fur as opposed to the new tactic of treating women like the pieces of meat that they are trying to garner support for. Sure, cows don't get to choose to be displayed like this but I don't see why Pamela Anderson choosing to pose likethis has anything to say about why we shouldn't eat the cow. Obviously I understand the point is to remind carnivores that animals aren't entirely made of meat, but what about women being more than meat? PETA is putting animals and women next to each other and saying that animals are the ones that should be treated better.
Shock value may be a valuable selling point and it's true that nothing sells like sex. Given the fact that the internet is filled with every and any type of fetish pornography you can think of (and some you can't), what does PETA hope to accomplish with images that they themselves admit is more cuddly porn than anything already available on the internet. Let's hear from the associate director of campaigns for PETA- "The site, she said, will have nudity and "sexually suggestive content" but not hard-core porn: "A lot of people distinguish between erotica and pornography, and this will be erotica."
I'm not arguing against women having the right to use their bodies as a form of protest or to choose to participate in pornography. If and when women get to choose to engage in either activity more power to her. I am saying that PETA's campaign is dumb. It's dumb because it further marginalizes the group as a bunch of wing nuts who aren't all there. It further alienates supporters who otherwise agree with the cause but can't get on the porno for animal rights wagon.
So, holier than thou veganism, misogyny, mutilated animals and SOFT-CORE porn?
Great idea. Just super. I'm sure the next generation of young animal loving feminist vegans are going to be really inspired by this campaign.
I'm going to go get a cheeseburger, kick a puppy and watch some hard-core porn.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Fight for the Toughest Restrictions
A woman in Idaho has brought the first lawsuit directly challenging the constitutionality of the “fetal pain” abortion ban.
Jennie Linn McCormack, was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion in June, McCormack and her sister acquired RU-486 (the abortion pill) from the internet where she took said pills and aborted the fetus in her home.
Idaho is one of six states that have banned abortions after 20 weeks due to the belief that that is when the fetus begins to feel pain. In 2010, Nebraska legislation passed the nation’s first fetal pain law which paved the way for the ban. Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians. Furthermore, the state requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
One should note that there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere. McCormack was unemployed and had a monthly income of just $200-$250. Given these circumstances, and the fact that McCormack already had 3 children, there was no way she would have been able to afford the time or money required to travel to Salt Lake City to obtain a “legal” abortion.
Opponents of the ban hold that the law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health or well being. The ban doesn’t take into consideration the unique circumstances of individual women.
McCormack is seeking class action status in her law suit against Mark Hiedeman, the state prosecutor. She is also challenging other aspects of the abortion ban holding that it violates the constitution.
What is so frustrating about these bans is that they are often based on so called scientific claims that are supposedly about protecting the fetus even if it means ignoring the wishes or best interest of the mother. In the case of Danielle Deaver (see link above), she was denied an abortion even after it was discovered that due to a lack of amniotic fluid her uterus was literally crushing the fetus. Deaver had gone through several other miscarriages where the Doctors had been able to induce labor once determining that the fetus had little to no chance of taking a first breath. In these instances the Deavers decided together to spare the pain of Danielle and the fetus by inducing labor.
Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers were forced to wait over a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes. Even though the risk of infection for Danielle was high and the fetus was being crushed by the uterine walls it was impossible to induce legally because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the mother's life was in no immediate danger.
In this particular case one must wonder why such a private tragic situation turned into a very public news item. The Deavers wanted their child and wanted to prevent the pain and suffering of their family; why then, is it okay for the law to prevent them from doing so? Doesn’t the right to privacy equal, privacy? Who was really hurt because of this law?
All part of a disturbing trend, these restrictions do little else except hurt women. In the case of Jennie Linn McCormick, the fact that she lived in an area without an accessible or affordable abortion option led her to seek alternate means. In Idaho, women who cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.
In Oklahoma, a law requires women to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand. There is no exception for sexually assaulted women. Texas and Ohio took steps earlier in the year to enact a law that banned abortion as soon as a doctor could detect a heartbeat. It is generally agreed that a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. Federally, it is legal to have an abortion up to 24 weeks and longer if the mothers health is in jeopardy.
Jennie Linn McCormack, was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion in June, McCormack and her sister acquired RU-486 (the abortion pill) from the internet where she took said pills and aborted the fetus in her home.
Idaho is one of six states that have banned abortions after 20 weeks due to the belief that that is when the fetus begins to feel pain. In 2010, Nebraska legislation passed the nation’s first fetal pain law which paved the way for the ban. Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians. Furthermore, the state requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.
One should note that there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere. McCormack was unemployed and had a monthly income of just $200-$250. Given these circumstances, and the fact that McCormack already had 3 children, there was no way she would have been able to afford the time or money required to travel to Salt Lake City to obtain a “legal” abortion.
Opponents of the ban hold that the law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health or well being. The ban doesn’t take into consideration the unique circumstances of individual women.
McCormack is seeking class action status in her law suit against Mark Hiedeman, the state prosecutor. She is also challenging other aspects of the abortion ban holding that it violates the constitution.
What is so frustrating about these bans is that they are often based on so called scientific claims that are supposedly about protecting the fetus even if it means ignoring the wishes or best interest of the mother. In the case of Danielle Deaver (see link above), she was denied an abortion even after it was discovered that due to a lack of amniotic fluid her uterus was literally crushing the fetus. Deaver had gone through several other miscarriages where the Doctors had been able to induce labor once determining that the fetus had little to no chance of taking a first breath. In these instances the Deavers decided together to spare the pain of Danielle and the fetus by inducing labor.
Nebraska had enacted the nation's first fetal pain legislation, banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation. So the Deavers were forced to wait over a week to deliver baby Elizabeth, who died after just 15 minutes. Even though the risk of infection for Danielle was high and the fetus was being crushed by the uterine walls it was impossible to induce legally because the fetus still had a heartbeat and the mother's life was in no immediate danger.
In this particular case one must wonder why such a private tragic situation turned into a very public news item. The Deavers wanted their child and wanted to prevent the pain and suffering of their family; why then, is it okay for the law to prevent them from doing so? Doesn’t the right to privacy equal, privacy? Who was really hurt because of this law?
All part of a disturbing trend, these restrictions do little else except hurt women. In the case of Jennie Linn McCormick, the fact that she lived in an area without an accessible or affordable abortion option led her to seek alternate means. In Idaho, women who cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.
In Oklahoma, a law requires women to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand. There is no exception for sexually assaulted women. Texas and Ohio took steps earlier in the year to enact a law that banned abortion as soon as a doctor could detect a heartbeat. It is generally agreed that a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. Federally, it is legal to have an abortion up to 24 weeks and longer if the mothers health is in jeopardy.
Monday, September 12, 2011
American Apparel; Soft Core Porn
Yup, for all the great things one can say about American Apparel, for me it always comes down to the creeptacular dude in charge and the soft core porn they call advertisements. I can't support AA nor give them my money regardless of the domestically friendly, sweat-shop free and Eco-friendly practices.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
I like some of the American Apparel clothing, I really do. Between picking up a few items at the Goodwill now and again and being given a t-shirt or two over the years, I have worn several items made by American Apparel. Some of there clothing looks really cool and comfortable and or other desirable attributes, but it's never enough to make me forget about where it's coming from.
Take this for instance, only one of MANY photos of models available on the AA web site. The photo archives section of the web site offers the tag line "Some of the best and most evocative images captured by our staff." It's upsetting that the models are frequently very young looking, objectified and half naked. You can see the straining rib cages of the often topless models and in this ad for leggings the young women is completely naked from the waist up showing off her practically non-existent breasts.
Is this really the only way to show a model in a zip up bathing yellow bathing suit?
It's not evocative to me, in numerous photo's you have shots that don't even include the item of clothing being advertised, just the half open mouth of the model.
There are so many sets of photos that I couldn't even look at them all without spending most of the day viewing creepy voyeuristic images of young women.
The media and AA themselves has been pretty open about the peculiar behavior exhibited by AA founder Dov. Charney. This screwball Canadian is no stranger to sexual harassment law suits and has masturbated in front of a female reporter on at least one occasion. He flouts that he is an nontraditional employer and holds professional meetings in his bedroom. He admits that he has slept with a number of the employees, uses sexual charged lingo (Cunt, Slut) freely and walks around the factory in his underwear.
There are articles dating back to 2004 noting Charney's bizarre behavior and uncouth business practices. This article from 2006 is a great introduction (yes it is 6 pages) to the world that is Dov Charney's mind.
If you want to hear about Charney's take on domestic violence go here.
The sad, but bitingly believable satire from The Onion.
The list goes on and on. Anything good that has come out of American Apparel is tainted in my opinion because of Dov Charney and his pervy ways. I would like to think that given the amount of negative attention, (not to mention the companies money problems) people would either stop buying from American Apparel or insist that the practices be altered. It's all well and good to laud the company for the conditions and wage practices but by ignoring all of the questionable or sexists practices you are saying that it doesn't bother you.
Well, it bothers me.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
In your Face Buffer Zone Laws.
This article came out on Boston.com this morning.
As I read the article the first thing I felt was anger, that was quickly followed by a sense of hopelessness, finally I was irritated and then motivated to write about it.
In terms of Abortion clinics, the buffer-zone law seeks to keep protesters a certain distance from the building and the patients entering it. The specifics of the buffer zone varies according to legislation and most states in the U.S. do not have a buffer zone law in place.
On the Federal level, The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), was past by Bill Clinton in 1994. In response to the rising incidences of violence and attempted (and successful) murders being committed in the 70's, the law specified behavior types that are prohibited in the case of reproductive centers.
You cannot obstruct the entrance to the building or the parking lot. You cannot physically try and stop people from entering. You may not trespass or commit acts of vandalism. Threats of violence, stalking individuals and bomb threats are specifically prohibited as well. The rights guaranteed under the first amendment do allow for protests, disseminating information, shouting or singing and carrying signs or posters.
Massachusetts and California have enacted buffer zone laws that require protestors to remain at least 35-feet away from the entrance to a facility providing abortions. For more specific policies go here.
The article in question opens by referring to a team of abortion opponents aiming to strike down Massachusetts buffer zone laws by claiming that the law infringes on their constitutional right to free speech. As discussed above, the right to free speech remains intact within the law, it just prevents strangers approaching patients or staff trying to enter the building directly. The argument for repealing the buffer zone law due to it being unconstitutional is that the zones prevent protesters from "properly" conveying its message.
“There needs to be a means of true communication," said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case. They include an 84-year-old doctor, an 83-year-old grandmother, and a 30-year-old seminary student.“
They argue that due to logistics, the protesters are pushed much further away (at least in Springfield) and this infringes on their ability to adequately express their views to anyone entering the clinic. Deprimo argues, “There’s no way [one of the protesters] would have any opportunity to go up to that person and talk to that person."
What is specifically upsetting to me is the complete lack of understanding that preventing protesters from directly confronting patients or those entering a clinic is the entire point of the buffer zone law and FACE. In 1994, John C. Salvi III, went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline clinics that ended in the murder of two women. The atrocities committed by so many of those who seek out clinics are too numerous to list here. Arson, bomb threats, shootings, attempted murder and murder are all examples of clinic targeted violence. Dr. George Tiller, probably the most well know individual murdered by abortion foes, was fatally shot once in the face on May 31st 2009 while serving as an usher in Church. This was not the first attempt on his life.
It defies logic that protesters are arguing freedom of speech infractions when they are continually proving the dangers of leaving clinics, their patients and staff, open to the illegal crimes and behaviors displayed by their associates. I'm not saying all protesters are out to murder, but how do you tell which protesters are dangerously unstable? You can't, until they commit a crime. Women entering abortion clinics are not committing a crime. They are NOT committing a crime.
In a grossly oversimplified version of the problem, protesters are not looking to persuade or gently coax women to sources of unbiased, scientifically correct health information. They are aiming to shock, horrify and shame women who are exercising their own rights. Extremists have shown over and over again that they will go to any length in order to prevent legal abortions from taking place, including putting innocent people in the line of fire to prove their point.
Not only is it perfectly legal to carry posters of mutilated fetuses, botched abortions and religious propaganda, the protesters often shout awful things and berate those trying to enter a clinic for whatever reasons. Even after the law was passed groups of protesters have said that they are able to persuade women from having an abortion by offering last minute advise or "help" to provide resources. If their message is that strong and they are that convinced of their mission then they can obviously share the same poignant experiences that miraculously change the decision of a women to have an abortion, from the other side of the parking lot.
As for the status of the move to declare the buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, "US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement."
*Quotations unless noted otherwise are all taken from Miton J. Valencia's article assessable here.
As I read the article the first thing I felt was anger, that was quickly followed by a sense of hopelessness, finally I was irritated and then motivated to write about it.
In terms of Abortion clinics, the buffer-zone law seeks to keep protesters a certain distance from the building and the patients entering it. The specifics of the buffer zone varies according to legislation and most states in the U.S. do not have a buffer zone law in place.
On the Federal level, The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), was past by Bill Clinton in 1994. In response to the rising incidences of violence and attempted (and successful) murders being committed in the 70's, the law specified behavior types that are prohibited in the case of reproductive centers.
You cannot obstruct the entrance to the building or the parking lot. You cannot physically try and stop people from entering. You may not trespass or commit acts of vandalism. Threats of violence, stalking individuals and bomb threats are specifically prohibited as well. The rights guaranteed under the first amendment do allow for protests, disseminating information, shouting or singing and carrying signs or posters.
Massachusetts and California have enacted buffer zone laws that require protestors to remain at least 35-feet away from the entrance to a facility providing abortions. For more specific policies go here.
The article in question opens by referring to a team of abortion opponents aiming to strike down Massachusetts buffer zone laws by claiming that the law infringes on their constitutional right to free speech. As discussed above, the right to free speech remains intact within the law, it just prevents strangers approaching patients or staff trying to enter the building directly. The argument for repealing the buffer zone law due to it being unconstitutional is that the zones prevent protesters from "properly" conveying its message.
“There needs to be a means of true communication," said Michael J. DePrimo, a civil rights lawyer based in Connecticut who represents several of the protesters in the case. They include an 84-year-old doctor, an 83-year-old grandmother, and a 30-year-old seminary student.“
They argue that due to logistics, the protesters are pushed much further away (at least in Springfield) and this infringes on their ability to adequately express their views to anyone entering the clinic. Deprimo argues, “There’s no way [one of the protesters] would have any opportunity to go up to that person and talk to that person."
What is specifically upsetting to me is the complete lack of understanding that preventing protesters from directly confronting patients or those entering a clinic is the entire point of the buffer zone law and FACE. In 1994, John C. Salvi III, went on a shooting rampage at two Brookline clinics that ended in the murder of two women. The atrocities committed by so many of those who seek out clinics are too numerous to list here. Arson, bomb threats, shootings, attempted murder and murder are all examples of clinic targeted violence. Dr. George Tiller, probably the most well know individual murdered by abortion foes, was fatally shot once in the face on May 31st 2009 while serving as an usher in Church. This was not the first attempt on his life.
It defies logic that protesters are arguing freedom of speech infractions when they are continually proving the dangers of leaving clinics, their patients and staff, open to the illegal crimes and behaviors displayed by their associates. I'm not saying all protesters are out to murder, but how do you tell which protesters are dangerously unstable? You can't, until they commit a crime. Women entering abortion clinics are not committing a crime. They are NOT committing a crime.
In a grossly oversimplified version of the problem, protesters are not looking to persuade or gently coax women to sources of unbiased, scientifically correct health information. They are aiming to shock, horrify and shame women who are exercising their own rights. Extremists have shown over and over again that they will go to any length in order to prevent legal abortions from taking place, including putting innocent people in the line of fire to prove their point.
Not only is it perfectly legal to carry posters of mutilated fetuses, botched abortions and religious propaganda, the protesters often shout awful things and berate those trying to enter a clinic for whatever reasons. Even after the law was passed groups of protesters have said that they are able to persuade women from having an abortion by offering last minute advise or "help" to provide resources. If their message is that strong and they are that convinced of their mission then they can obviously share the same poignant experiences that miraculously change the decision of a women to have an abortion, from the other side of the parking lot.
As for the status of the move to declare the buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, "US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro told the lawyers to submit more documents and said he will then take the matter under advisement."
*Quotations unless noted otherwise are all taken from Miton J. Valencia's article assessable here.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Urban Outfitters (again) and the Sexualization of Girls
If you allow your 15 year old daughter to model in questionable poses do you then have the right to sue the photographer if those pictures end up on a t-shirt?
According to the parents of teen model Hailey Clauson, you do.
Clauson's parents filed a $28 million lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry for using images of their daughter on a t-shirt as well as other products.
It's hard to say exactly if the parents consented to the images or not. This one in particular has gotten the parents in a furor over what they call "a blatantly salacious" image of their daughter.
The parents knew about the photo shoot and its racy poses, but object to the retailer’s use of them without their permission. Supposedly, Clausons agent at the time, complained about the provocative pictures and Parry agreed not to publish them. Blood is the New Black is the manufacturer of the questionable t-shirt and according to them they were not aware that the model was 15 at the time. Parry said the images were stolen from him and Blood is the New Black says they have worked with Parry in the past and had his permission to print the t-shirts.
Regardless of the exact story, I have been troubled by the models in urban outfitters catalogs to the extent that I don't even open them anymore, they go straight in the recycle bin and I make a call to ask them to take me off the mailing list.
Obviously, the parents are likely to come under fire for allowing the photographs to be taken in the first place. I think this brings up the bigger issue of how young models are portrayed as sexual beings from alarmingly young ages. It's frustrating to see clothing made for children as if girls as young as 7 have to worry about wearing a padded bikini top.What? Or skinny jeansHuh?
It sickens me to think about women being blamed for sexual abuse, rape, assault and other perverted and violent acts because of how they are dressed. Women who are adults experience this blame game and there are those who would agree that women dressed promiscuously are asking to be raped or assaulted.
Basically young women and girls don't stand a chance against this double standard. There are halter tops for girls as soon as they are out of the womb. Companies make skinny jeans and padded bras for girls that are 7 years old. Where is the outrage? Why aren't parents refusing to buy these things? Instead of buying your 7 year old niece a tube top for her birthday you should give her Mom the $15 to put away for college. If we are taking away the self-esteem of girls at such a young age, what can we expect them to do in the future? How can we expect them to even take themselves seriously?
According to the parents of teen model Hailey Clauson, you do.
Clauson's parents filed a $28 million lawsuit against Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry for using images of their daughter on a t-shirt as well as other products.
It's hard to say exactly if the parents consented to the images or not. This one in particular has gotten the parents in a furor over what they call "a blatantly salacious" image of their daughter.
The parents knew about the photo shoot and its racy poses, but object to the retailer’s use of them without their permission. Supposedly, Clausons agent at the time, complained about the provocative pictures and Parry agreed not to publish them. Blood is the New Black is the manufacturer of the questionable t-shirt and according to them they were not aware that the model was 15 at the time. Parry said the images were stolen from him and Blood is the New Black says they have worked with Parry in the past and had his permission to print the t-shirts.
Regardless of the exact story, I have been troubled by the models in urban outfitters catalogs to the extent that I don't even open them anymore, they go straight in the recycle bin and I make a call to ask them to take me off the mailing list.
Obviously, the parents are likely to come under fire for allowing the photographs to be taken in the first place. I think this brings up the bigger issue of how young models are portrayed as sexual beings from alarmingly young ages. It's frustrating to see clothing made for children as if girls as young as 7 have to worry about wearing a padded bikini top.What? Or skinny jeansHuh?
It sickens me to think about women being blamed for sexual abuse, rape, assault and other perverted and violent acts because of how they are dressed. Women who are adults experience this blame game and there are those who would agree that women dressed promiscuously are asking to be raped or assaulted.
Basically young women and girls don't stand a chance against this double standard. There are halter tops for girls as soon as they are out of the womb. Companies make skinny jeans and padded bras for girls that are 7 years old. Where is the outrage? Why aren't parents refusing to buy these things? Instead of buying your 7 year old niece a tube top for her birthday you should give her Mom the $15 to put away for college. If we are taking away the self-esteem of girls at such a young age, what can we expect them to do in the future? How can we expect them to even take themselves seriously?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Michele Bachmann,
So, yes. It is true. Michele Bachmann became the first women to win the completely fake and entirely unscientific Iowa straw poll. That seems to be a place where she is used to, a magical world where you can fill up with the type of self importance that allows you to make statements based on absolutely no truth what so ever. One doesn't have to search far in order to find the dozens and dozens of incorrect statements made by Michele Bachmann.
To name a few, Obama dipped in to the oil reserves at a time when we have never been as well off in that department and what does Bachmann say? She chastises the President for depleting the entire oil reserves. Try 4%, and as if no one else would have said anything about that before she did? She also has said that the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home." Nothing else accept that. Yup, both illegal and wrong.
For one that comes out of left field, "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." One, she's wrong. Gerald Ford was President in 1976 when there was fear of a swine flu epidemic. Two, to suggest a partisan link with a deadly disease is idiotic not interesting.
Earlier in the year Bachmann stated that she was proud to be making a speech in the town of Waterloo, Iowa, where John Wayne was from, because she embodies his ideals. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the actor John Wayne was not from Waterloo, John Wayne Gacy was and he was a serial killer.
Besides not knowing her history (John Quincy Adams is a founding father? His father is.) Bachmann has thirty ratings on her politifact file and only one of them is rated true. She has two rated mostly true, two rated half true and the other twenty-five break down as five mostly false, thirteen straight up false and seven of her statements are rated "pants on fire." Ladies and Gentlemen, we just might up with Pinocchio as the president.
To name a few, Obama dipped in to the oil reserves at a time when we have never been as well off in that department and what does Bachmann say? She chastises the President for depleting the entire oil reserves. Try 4%, and as if no one else would have said anything about that before she did? She also has said that the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home." Nothing else accept that. Yup, both illegal and wrong.
For one that comes out of left field, "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." One, she's wrong. Gerald Ford was President in 1976 when there was fear of a swine flu epidemic. Two, to suggest a partisan link with a deadly disease is idiotic not interesting.
Earlier in the year Bachmann stated that she was proud to be making a speech in the town of Waterloo, Iowa, where John Wayne was from, because she embodies his ideals. Unfortunately for her, it turns out that the actor John Wayne was not from Waterloo, John Wayne Gacy was and he was a serial killer.
Besides not knowing her history (John Quincy Adams is a founding father? His father is.) Bachmann has thirty ratings on her politifact file and only one of them is rated true. She has two rated mostly true, two rated half true and the other twenty-five break down as five mostly false, thirteen straight up false and seven of her statements are rated "pants on fire." Ladies and Gentlemen, we just might up with Pinocchio as the president.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
No co-pays for Birth Control
Monday brought this announcement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Beginning on Aug. 1, 2012, insurance providers will no longer be able to charge co-pays or other additional fees for government-approved birth control.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need." Read More
After the unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights as a whole this past year this news, at least to this Feminist, couldn't be more welcome.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need." Read More
After the unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights as a whole this past year this news, at least to this Feminist, couldn't be more welcome.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Male Birth Control part II
Women, imagine that you are about to engage in intercourse with a man and right before said act is about to begin you open your mouth to discuss protection but instead the two of you simultaneously utter the sentence "don't worry, I'm on the pill."
Hmmmmmm.
When considering the possibility of a male birth control coming to fruition, one must also consider the likelihood that males would actually take it. Forget the physical ramifications, it is a given that any drug decreasing sexual libido or physically altering the male sexual organs would never make it to the market. Can men really deal with the psychological ramification of halting their "biological destiny?"
While many different forms of contraceptives could be available for male use, the fact remains that women are the ones who literally bear the repercussions from unprotected sex. It's also very probable that in the majority of situations women wouldn't be absolved from the responsibility or the desire of taking contraceptives. In "America and the Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, it is stated that both men and women brought up the issue of trust when faced with the idea of men having contraception as a option.
On page 114, a 45 year old married father of three says this: "It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans. Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women out there from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that"
On the same page, a 28 year old women says "I have heard women say that they'd be against a male pill because they wouldn't trust men to take it. That's just silly. The point of a male pill isn't that it allows you to stop taking it. It's just that you have twice the protection. Also, I think that it will force men to be more responsible towards children they did father. No longer would the 'she tricked me' option be on the table."
The same argument but with very different connotations. It's interesting that some men and women view pregnancy as a trick to be played on one another but hardly reassuring that the two sexes are so suspicious of each others reproductive agenda.
For now we can ask the question, would it be more egalitarian for men to have the option of medically controlling their reproductive options? Of course. However, the science behind a male contraceptive may be getting closer and closer but the fact remains that unless an option was available that in no way effected the sexual function, ability, performance or appearance of the male reproductive organ, there isn't a man alive out there that would take it.
Hmmmmmm.
When considering the possibility of a male birth control coming to fruition, one must also consider the likelihood that males would actually take it. Forget the physical ramifications, it is a given that any drug decreasing sexual libido or physically altering the male sexual organs would never make it to the market. Can men really deal with the psychological ramification of halting their "biological destiny?"
While many different forms of contraceptives could be available for male use, the fact remains that women are the ones who literally bear the repercussions from unprotected sex. It's also very probable that in the majority of situations women wouldn't be absolved from the responsibility or the desire of taking contraceptives. In "America and the Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, it is stated that both men and women brought up the issue of trust when faced with the idea of men having contraception as a option.
On page 114, a 45 year old married father of three says this: "It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans. Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women out there from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that"
On the same page, a 28 year old women says "I have heard women say that they'd be against a male pill because they wouldn't trust men to take it. That's just silly. The point of a male pill isn't that it allows you to stop taking it. It's just that you have twice the protection. Also, I think that it will force men to be more responsible towards children they did father. No longer would the 'she tricked me' option be on the table."
The same argument but with very different connotations. It's interesting that some men and women view pregnancy as a trick to be played on one another but hardly reassuring that the two sexes are so suspicious of each others reproductive agenda.
For now we can ask the question, would it be more egalitarian for men to have the option of medically controlling their reproductive options? Of course. However, the science behind a male contraceptive may be getting closer and closer but the fact remains that unless an option was available that in no way effected the sexual function, ability, performance or appearance of the male reproductive organ, there isn't a man alive out there that would take it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Male Birth Control Part I.
Every so often you hear about how a supposed "male birth control method" is mere moments away from perfection (really?)
The idea of a male contraceptive is not a recent one. In "America and The Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, there is an entire chapter entitled "A Pill for Men?"
Research began in the 1950's out of the goal to treat infertility (as it did for female contraceptives). Several studies were conducted on small groups of prison inmates and mental patients. Unethical to say the least, these test groups differed only slightly and showed some success with reducing and even eliminating sperm count. Unfortunately, the side effects ranged from the small scale decreased libido to the more serious effect of shrunken testicles. Furthermore, the test subjects were not engaging in sexual acts with women and could not replicate how a compound might work in a heterosexual relationship.
Throughout the 1970's, China conducted similar experiments on drugs that could be used to halt sperm production. Worldwide, but especially in China and India, concern was growing about population control and the idea of a contraceptive for men was appealing for numerous reasons. In fact, due to the one-child law, contraceptives were already mandatory in China.
A decade or two after Scientists declared male contraceptive just around the corner, women in America cried foul when the medical community lacked to produce any tangible methods that shared the responsibilities of contraceptives with there male counterparts. After all, if science could finally introduce a way to control the reproductive activities in women, why could they not accomplish the same for men?
What the issue comes down to now as much as it did then is that women can get pregnant and men cannot. Men have nothing, or at least significantly less at stake than women when it comes down to birth control. When the possibility of reduced libido came up as a potential side effect in female contraceptives, it was considered unimportant. In the case of male birth control, preoccupation with sexual side effects is widespread.
In general, the questions and concerns of male contraceptives regarding their safety, effectiveness, and reversibility have led to a widespread lack of interest among men for their use. Some men have suggested that they would be interested in using a male contraceptive as long as it wasn't chemical and didn't effect their hormones. Psychologically speaking, men often equate the ability to impregnate females with the ego relating to masculinity.
So, why else hasn't this male birth control come to fruition?
To be continued...
The idea of a male contraceptive is not a recent one. In "America and The Pill" by Elaine Tyler May, there is an entire chapter entitled "A Pill for Men?"
Research began in the 1950's out of the goal to treat infertility (as it did for female contraceptives). Several studies were conducted on small groups of prison inmates and mental patients. Unethical to say the least, these test groups differed only slightly and showed some success with reducing and even eliminating sperm count. Unfortunately, the side effects ranged from the small scale decreased libido to the more serious effect of shrunken testicles. Furthermore, the test subjects were not engaging in sexual acts with women and could not replicate how a compound might work in a heterosexual relationship.
Throughout the 1970's, China conducted similar experiments on drugs that could be used to halt sperm production. Worldwide, but especially in China and India, concern was growing about population control and the idea of a contraceptive for men was appealing for numerous reasons. In fact, due to the one-child law, contraceptives were already mandatory in China.
A decade or two after Scientists declared male contraceptive just around the corner, women in America cried foul when the medical community lacked to produce any tangible methods that shared the responsibilities of contraceptives with there male counterparts. After all, if science could finally introduce a way to control the reproductive activities in women, why could they not accomplish the same for men?
What the issue comes down to now as much as it did then is that women can get pregnant and men cannot. Men have nothing, or at least significantly less at stake than women when it comes down to birth control. When the possibility of reduced libido came up as a potential side effect in female contraceptives, it was considered unimportant. In the case of male birth control, preoccupation with sexual side effects is widespread.
In general, the questions and concerns of male contraceptives regarding their safety, effectiveness, and reversibility have led to a widespread lack of interest among men for their use. Some men have suggested that they would be interested in using a male contraceptive as long as it wasn't chemical and didn't effect their hormones. Psychologically speaking, men often equate the ability to impregnate females with the ego relating to masculinity.
So, why else hasn't this male birth control come to fruition?
To be continued...
Friday, July 22, 2011
"blog" and "her" part I.
Are blogs for and by Women bad for Women?
Here is what has been in my head floating around of late.
If you are a women and you want to write about cupcakes on your blog where would you sign up and start going all cupcake crazy? Wordpress? Google? Blog her? Do you aim to reach the largest audience by going with the biggest, easiest and most user friendly site or do you put yourself with other foodies who want to live and breathe cupcakes? Should you be investigating how many men have ever sought out a blog written about cupcakes? What about a forum specifically for Moms, Moms like cupcakes and I'm sure some of them are looking for recipe blogs.
At this point I should probably inform my readers that there are so many existing blogs about cupcakes out there that if you were actually planning on blogging about cupcakes you may want to reconsider and go in another direction. Overall, my point is that choosing your blogging associations have a lot to do with what you want to get out of it.
In my brief research about women blogging for women, the general consensus of what I've found is clearly not supportive of women only blogging communities. In fact, most of the pro-women blogosphere comments are really anti-anti women blog sentiments. One women will sound off about how uncool and irrelevant women geared blogs are and some women will agree wholeheartedly, others will jump on the author and those who support her as women hating women. Confused? It's okay, the main division here seems to be about why women would write about anything of value specifically as a women.
I think it's pretty obvious when a site is trying to sell you on some product or advertisement by focusing on a specific demographic. Mom blogs are a different issue for me so I will go there another day. However, women who express Feminist views by any definition, seem to be a downer to some other women. Some criticism asks if the goal of Feminism is equality, why do Feminists segregate themselves from "mainstream male/co-ed" blogging sites by creating separate ones? Is that what the goal is? Preaching to the choir? Women and Feminists are not one in the same and not all blogs are created equal. How far can the argument go?
Until we revisit this topic, I leave you with a recent piece from the blog by Susannah Breslin. The article and the comments following are definitely worth a read through.
Here is what has been in my head floating around of late.
If you are a women and you want to write about cupcakes on your blog where would you sign up and start going all cupcake crazy? Wordpress? Google? Blog her? Do you aim to reach the largest audience by going with the biggest, easiest and most user friendly site or do you put yourself with other foodies who want to live and breathe cupcakes? Should you be investigating how many men have ever sought out a blog written about cupcakes? What about a forum specifically for Moms, Moms like cupcakes and I'm sure some of them are looking for recipe blogs.
At this point I should probably inform my readers that there are so many existing blogs about cupcakes out there that if you were actually planning on blogging about cupcakes you may want to reconsider and go in another direction. Overall, my point is that choosing your blogging associations have a lot to do with what you want to get out of it.
In my brief research about women blogging for women, the general consensus of what I've found is clearly not supportive of women only blogging communities. In fact, most of the pro-women blogosphere comments are really anti-anti women blog sentiments. One women will sound off about how uncool and irrelevant women geared blogs are and some women will agree wholeheartedly, others will jump on the author and those who support her as women hating women. Confused? It's okay, the main division here seems to be about why women would write about anything of value specifically as a women.
I think it's pretty obvious when a site is trying to sell you on some product or advertisement by focusing on a specific demographic. Mom blogs are a different issue for me so I will go there another day. However, women who express Feminist views by any definition, seem to be a downer to some other women. Some criticism asks if the goal of Feminism is equality, why do Feminists segregate themselves from "mainstream male/co-ed" blogging sites by creating separate ones? Is that what the goal is? Preaching to the choir? Women and Feminists are not one in the same and not all blogs are created equal. How far can the argument go?
Until we revisit this topic, I leave you with a recent piece from the blog by Susannah Breslin. The article and the comments following are definitely worth a read through.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
No Cost Birth Control
This article explains how President Obama commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine panel to recommend which preventative health services insurance plans should cover under the Affordable Care Act. One of the main recommendations by the panel was to provide no cost birth control through all insurance companies.
Also reported by the IOM is the option that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.
Of course the ones opposing no cost birth control are the ones who still believe that any type of contraception is going to induce an abortion.
It's hopeful news, especially considering the wave of anti-choice fervor in defunding Planned Parenthood. Keep an eye on this proposal ladies; depending on your insurance (or lack there of) you may end up saving anywhere from $15-$50 a month.
Also reported by the IOM is the option that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.
Of course the ones opposing no cost birth control are the ones who still believe that any type of contraception is going to induce an abortion.
It's hopeful news, especially considering the wave of anti-choice fervor in defunding Planned Parenthood. Keep an eye on this proposal ladies; depending on your insurance (or lack there of) you may end up saving anywhere from $15-$50 a month.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
I got a feeling (or this mystique ain't my mystique).
After World War II, American Middle Class women were supposed to be the happiest people on the planet. Why then were so many women experiencing depression, neurosis and a growing sense of unfulfilled potential? The phrase the "problem with no name" was coined by Betty Friedan in the wake of an unspoken epidemic sweeping through the suburban homes in the 1950's and 1960's. Friedan wrote the book that would finally offer a title to this problem in 1963; "The Feminine Mystique."
In the 1950's women had everything they could dream of and little stress to boot. Willingly removed from the public sphere they finally had time to bake their own bread, sew clothing for themselves and their children and get dinner on the table promptly at 5:15pm. The only fight for the modern day women was to find and keep a husband and be responsible for the happiness of him and her five children. Women were thrilled about the new way to wax their floors and microwave dinner. With no unfeminine concerns like the economy and politics, women everywhere were joyously filling in the census blank with the occupation of "housewife."
Freudian theories cannot be entirely blamed for the creation of the feminine mystique but it can be said that the ideas put forth by Freud significantly contributed to its conception. For instance "Penis Envy", was a concept used as an explanation of what was wrong with American women. Men and Women were different and women strove to compensate for her lacking phallus. More to blame was the overwhelming acceptance of Freudian psychology as ideology for the decades following World War II. This allowed the masses to perpetuate the school of thought found in Frued's theories. Legitimizing the mindset that women couldn't possibly want more than to satisfy the needs of her husband and children led to a movement reshaping the way several generations of women were raised. Women were taught that their main goal in life was fulfilling the wants and needs of her superior. A daughter is ruled by her father first and her husband second. The repressive arrangement led to women being herded back into the home and into Victorian era prejudice.
If this were the 50's and 60's, women my age would have long since become wives and mothers. I have peers that are married and a lot of 26 year old women I know are already or in the process of becoming Mothers. I've heard some say that the Feminist movement has put women in a more undesirable place now than when they had fewer choices. The idea that women are supposed to be able to do it all seems like a mixed bag when considering Friedan's time versus the present. Sure, women should be able to have a career and a family and juggle everything perfectly while maintaining a sense of fulfillment. However, women are human beings. Women are not exempt from the basic human desires and feelings of selfishness and occasional lethargy. Feminism is about choice. Though that simplifies it significantly it doesn't change the fact that for most of history women have been told what their roles are and what they need to do to find fulfillment. Betty Friedan's book comes right out and says that women cannot be faulted for seeking happiness and fulfillment outside the private sphere. Women are not inferior to men, they are different and equal. Humans need to learn and thrive and be challenged in order to function successfully and women are not an exception.
Stephanie Coontz revisits Friedan’s work in her new book "A Strange Stirring." Published in the beginning of this year, Coontz argues that the same problems facing women in 1963 are still very relevant today. Coontz also examines the obvious gap in The Feminine Mystique which is of course, the omission of women of color and the working class. Coontz does praise the condemnation of the Freudian psychiatric methods that suggested women need not search for meaning beyond that of their roles of mothers and wives. Stay tuned for a more in depth review of Coontz's book after I acquire it here and read the text in its entirety.
In the 1950's women had everything they could dream of and little stress to boot. Willingly removed from the public sphere they finally had time to bake their own bread, sew clothing for themselves and their children and get dinner on the table promptly at 5:15pm. The only fight for the modern day women was to find and keep a husband and be responsible for the happiness of him and her five children. Women were thrilled about the new way to wax their floors and microwave dinner. With no unfeminine concerns like the economy and politics, women everywhere were joyously filling in the census blank with the occupation of "housewife."
Freudian theories cannot be entirely blamed for the creation of the feminine mystique but it can be said that the ideas put forth by Freud significantly contributed to its conception. For instance "Penis Envy", was a concept used as an explanation of what was wrong with American women. Men and Women were different and women strove to compensate for her lacking phallus. More to blame was the overwhelming acceptance of Freudian psychology as ideology for the decades following World War II. This allowed the masses to perpetuate the school of thought found in Frued's theories. Legitimizing the mindset that women couldn't possibly want more than to satisfy the needs of her husband and children led to a movement reshaping the way several generations of women were raised. Women were taught that their main goal in life was fulfilling the wants and needs of her superior. A daughter is ruled by her father first and her husband second. The repressive arrangement led to women being herded back into the home and into Victorian era prejudice.
If this were the 50's and 60's, women my age would have long since become wives and mothers. I have peers that are married and a lot of 26 year old women I know are already or in the process of becoming Mothers. I've heard some say that the Feminist movement has put women in a more undesirable place now than when they had fewer choices. The idea that women are supposed to be able to do it all seems like a mixed bag when considering Friedan's time versus the present. Sure, women should be able to have a career and a family and juggle everything perfectly while maintaining a sense of fulfillment. However, women are human beings. Women are not exempt from the basic human desires and feelings of selfishness and occasional lethargy. Feminism is about choice. Though that simplifies it significantly it doesn't change the fact that for most of history women have been told what their roles are and what they need to do to find fulfillment. Betty Friedan's book comes right out and says that women cannot be faulted for seeking happiness and fulfillment outside the private sphere. Women are not inferior to men, they are different and equal. Humans need to learn and thrive and be challenged in order to function successfully and women are not an exception.
Stephanie Coontz revisits Friedan’s work in her new book "A Strange Stirring." Published in the beginning of this year, Coontz argues that the same problems facing women in 1963 are still very relevant today. Coontz also examines the obvious gap in The Feminine Mystique which is of course, the omission of women of color and the working class. Coontz does praise the condemnation of the Freudian psychiatric methods that suggested women need not search for meaning beyond that of their roles of mothers and wives. Stay tuned for a more in depth review of Coontz's book after I acquire it here and read the text in its entirety.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Urban Outfitters
In the catalog most recently sent out from Urban Outfitters there is a page picturing a bedspread and a collage of posters and magazines on the wall above the headboard.
Two things jumped out at me immediately; one was a cover from PlayBoy Magazine and the other was a large pin up of a naked women with smaller pictures covering her nipples.
I am not saying that Urban Outfitters pretends to be anything other than a clothing magazine targeted at young hipsters who want to wear "urban" outfits. However, I remain disgusted at the blatant disregard of responsibly taken by this company when it comes to questionable products and advertisements.
In the past UO has been criticized for creating sexist, racists and classist T-shirts as well as carrying the controversial board game "Ghettopoly." One shouldn't be surprised that UO has moved on to posting PlayBoy on the walls of the "bedrooms" in its catalogs so why was I?
Well, I don't think it was surprise I felt per say, it was more like mild shock and then disgusts and then an intense feeling of curiosity. Half naked skinny girls adorn the colored and black and white pages of a typical UO catalog, I knew that. I also know that the T-shirts in question said "Eat less" and "Fathers, it's up to you to protect your daughter's virginity!" Let's not forget the T-shirt with the words scrawled in golden glitter "Poverty Sucks." In 2008, the company had a gay friendly T-shirt that had " I Support Same Sex Marriages" on it and that shirt was pulled off the shelf in 2008. Many critics had harsh words for UO after that though UO stated that it was pulled because it "wasn't selling."
Is it hip to be offensive? I don't know. I can't in good conscience spend money on anything from Urban Outfitters and I can't figure out what the appeal is for others to buy these items either. The former President and founder of UO claimed that he "very, very, very rarely" had regrets or second thoughts about potentially offensive products and he also openly donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. The current President of UO is openly gay but that doesn't stop the company from using hot button slogans as T-shirt designs for the young and sexy to sport.
Other controversial UO T-shirts? "Everybody loves a Jewish Girl" surrounded by dollar signs and a T-shirt that featured a Palestinian child holding an AK-47 over the word "Victimized".
I feel hipper already.
Two things jumped out at me immediately; one was a cover from PlayBoy Magazine and the other was a large pin up of a naked women with smaller pictures covering her nipples.
I am not saying that Urban Outfitters pretends to be anything other than a clothing magazine targeted at young hipsters who want to wear "urban" outfits. However, I remain disgusted at the blatant disregard of responsibly taken by this company when it comes to questionable products and advertisements.
In the past UO has been criticized for creating sexist, racists and classist T-shirts as well as carrying the controversial board game "Ghettopoly." One shouldn't be surprised that UO has moved on to posting PlayBoy on the walls of the "bedrooms" in its catalogs so why was I?
Well, I don't think it was surprise I felt per say, it was more like mild shock and then disgusts and then an intense feeling of curiosity. Half naked skinny girls adorn the colored and black and white pages of a typical UO catalog, I knew that. I also know that the T-shirts in question said "Eat less" and "Fathers, it's up to you to protect your daughter's virginity!" Let's not forget the T-shirt with the words scrawled in golden glitter "Poverty Sucks." In 2008, the company had a gay friendly T-shirt that had " I Support Same Sex Marriages" on it and that shirt was pulled off the shelf in 2008. Many critics had harsh words for UO after that though UO stated that it was pulled because it "wasn't selling."
Is it hip to be offensive? I don't know. I can't in good conscience spend money on anything from Urban Outfitters and I can't figure out what the appeal is for others to buy these items either. The former President and founder of UO claimed that he "very, very, very rarely" had regrets or second thoughts about potentially offensive products and he also openly donated thousands of dollars to anti-gay politicians. The current President of UO is openly gay but that doesn't stop the company from using hot button slogans as T-shirt designs for the young and sexy to sport.
Other controversial UO T-shirts? "Everybody loves a Jewish Girl" surrounded by dollar signs and a T-shirt that featured a Palestinian child holding an AK-47 over the word "Victimized".
I feel hipper already.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Men and My Uterus
Some days I really am at a loss.
Men will never become pregnant. That is something I believe the majority of people can agree on regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not saying that Men don't get to have an opinion on Abortion; I am saying that there opinion shouldn't hold much merit. Obviously if the man provided the sperm that creates the fetus their opinion matters a bit more. Ultimately, men will never experience pregnancy and therefore cannot make the claim that they know anything about terminating a pregnancy.
Yes, that is where I am going with this. Men make policies, Men sign laws, and Men make judgments about what's best for Women when they have no business doing so.
I am particularly struck by the war on women that has come to the forefront of state and national lawmakers. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Rick Perry are some of the more prevalent anti-women figures proposing bills and signing laws that take away not just abortion services but reproductive health services in general. Do these men have daughters? Wives? Friends that are women?
In Kanas, Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested that women purchase insurance to pay for the cost of an abortion just in case they get raped and may need one.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
DeGraff said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew audible groans from other House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
This is disgusting; this is sad and dehumanizes women. How can you even respond to the comment about having a spare tire? I mean what? Are you honestly comparing a tiny part of an automobile to an unplanned pregnancy potentially from an assault and rape? What kind of person thinks like that? What kind of State, Country or Government can say that you should get a rape insurance plan?
In other news the state of Texas passed legislation that requires a sonogram for women seeking an abortion. Should the women decline to view the sonogram the image can be described to her.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had tried to pass the bill in previous sessions stated that God was finally ready for its passage. It's also nice to know that women can count on the separation of church and state. State Rep. Patrick also said, “Standing for life is not a partisan issue. It’s a God issue.”
Great. I feel better already.
Men will never become pregnant. That is something I believe the majority of people can agree on regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not saying that Men don't get to have an opinion on Abortion; I am saying that there opinion shouldn't hold much merit. Obviously if the man provided the sperm that creates the fetus their opinion matters a bit more. Ultimately, men will never experience pregnancy and therefore cannot make the claim that they know anything about terminating a pregnancy.
Yes, that is where I am going with this. Men make policies, Men sign laws, and Men make judgments about what's best for Women when they have no business doing so.
I am particularly struck by the war on women that has come to the forefront of state and national lawmakers. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Rick Perry are some of the more prevalent anti-women figures proposing bills and signing laws that take away not just abortion services but reproductive health services in general. Do these men have daughters? Wives? Friends that are women?
In Kanas, Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested that women purchase insurance to pay for the cost of an abortion just in case they get raped and may need one.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
DeGraff said: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier asked, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"
DeGraaf drew audible groans from other House members when he responded, "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."
This is disgusting; this is sad and dehumanizes women. How can you even respond to the comment about having a spare tire? I mean what? Are you honestly comparing a tiny part of an automobile to an unplanned pregnancy potentially from an assault and rape? What kind of person thinks like that? What kind of State, Country or Government can say that you should get a rape insurance plan?
In other news the state of Texas passed legislation that requires a sonogram for women seeking an abortion. Should the women decline to view the sonogram the image can be described to her.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had tried to pass the bill in previous sessions stated that God was finally ready for its passage. It's also nice to know that women can count on the separation of church and state. State Rep. Patrick also said, “Standing for life is not a partisan issue. It’s a God issue.”
Great. I feel better already.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Talking to my Dad (or Slut Parade Walk FAQ's)
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Guttmacher Institute
The Guttmacher Institute focuses on providing factual evidence and sound research on sexual and reproductive health issues. They focus on the abortion debate being placed in the proper context of closely related issues like unintended pregnancy, contraceptive use and sex education.
The Institute has just released an educational video describing the facts behind who has abortions in the US.
Take a look
The Institute has just released an educational video describing the facts behind who has abortions in the US.
Take a look
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Planned Parenthood-Enemy Number 1
The other title for this entry was "It's okay, you won't miss your reproductive health choices til they're gone."
I tried to write about something other than Planned Parenthood this past week. It's not impossible, there are hundreds of issues on women and plenty to pick apart and analyze. Usually the harder part of deciding what to write about has more to do with whether I can offer any interesting commentary or added insight.
Everyday I read about men making claims and assumptions about what women want and want they can legally decide about their own bodies. I see lawmakers bending and stretching in any direction to blame abortion provider Planned Parenthood for anything from budget woes to the end of days.
On the congress floor several senators suggested that Planned Parenthood is in it for the money.
Back in February you may remember this statement by Michelle Bachmann, “They’re focused on becoming big business,” Bachmann said. “Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my state of Minnesota, said she recently opened three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs and shopping centers and malls and places where women are doing their grocery shopping, picking up Starbucks, living their daily lives and stopping off for an abortion.”
First of all, you don't "stop off" for an abortion. Second of all, Planned Parenthood express centers do not provide abortions; they offer reproductive health services, counseling and testing. Lastly, suggesting that PP is taking federal funding, using it to provide abortions and then somehow making money is an asinine theory. The Hyde amendment has become anachronistic because giving money to PP at all, even when an amendment exists banning those funds be used for abortion unless the sky is yellow that day isn't important because it is only "techincally true."
But apparently it doesn't matter if abortions are performed or not at PP, what really matters is that women's health, reproductive or otherwise is just not important and the GOP just doesn't care about women.
I hate the federal funding argument. It's ridiculous that we have no choice but to provide funding for weapons and military campaigns (plus all the things that we don't know about) but conservative and and republicans cry foul when their tax dollars go towards women's health services.
I have made my own opinions known, as far as I am concerned the Church is separate from the State (No ones God gives out tax dollars) and without legal and safe abortions their may as well be a legal clause for killing women if they dare decide what they want to do to their own bodies.
You don't get to have it both ways. Either abortions are free, legal and safe performed by legitimate doctors or women are not afforded their right to live.
If you are fervently against women and you want to eradicate abortions, you should be working on providing health care, education and social well being for all of these babies YOU are taking responsibility for.
John Stewart said it best on Feb.22:
"It's like the Republicans in Congress are saying, you can't prevent an unwanted child, you can't get care if you do get pregnant and we won't give you any help feeding the kid after it's born; but for those two-minutes when that babies skull is crowning, it's the most precious thing on earth."
That's great incentive to procreate, no birth control, no abortions and no services. It's so pro-life it could kill you.
I tried to write about something other than Planned Parenthood this past week. It's not impossible, there are hundreds of issues on women and plenty to pick apart and analyze. Usually the harder part of deciding what to write about has more to do with whether I can offer any interesting commentary or added insight.
Everyday I read about men making claims and assumptions about what women want and want they can legally decide about their own bodies. I see lawmakers bending and stretching in any direction to blame abortion provider Planned Parenthood for anything from budget woes to the end of days.
On the congress floor several senators suggested that Planned Parenthood is in it for the money.
Back in February you may remember this statement by Michelle Bachmann, “They’re focused on becoming big business,” Bachmann said. “Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my state of Minnesota, said she recently opened three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs and shopping centers and malls and places where women are doing their grocery shopping, picking up Starbucks, living their daily lives and stopping off for an abortion.”
First of all, you don't "stop off" for an abortion. Second of all, Planned Parenthood express centers do not provide abortions; they offer reproductive health services, counseling and testing. Lastly, suggesting that PP is taking federal funding, using it to provide abortions and then somehow making money is an asinine theory. The Hyde amendment has become anachronistic because giving money to PP at all, even when an amendment exists banning those funds be used for abortion unless the sky is yellow that day isn't important because it is only "techincally true."
But apparently it doesn't matter if abortions are performed or not at PP, what really matters is that women's health, reproductive or otherwise is just not important and the GOP just doesn't care about women.
I hate the federal funding argument. It's ridiculous that we have no choice but to provide funding for weapons and military campaigns (plus all the things that we don't know about) but conservative and and republicans cry foul when their tax dollars go towards women's health services.
I have made my own opinions known, as far as I am concerned the Church is separate from the State (No ones God gives out tax dollars) and without legal and safe abortions their may as well be a legal clause for killing women if they dare decide what they want to do to their own bodies.
You don't get to have it both ways. Either abortions are free, legal and safe performed by legitimate doctors or women are not afforded their right to live.
If you are fervently against women and you want to eradicate abortions, you should be working on providing health care, education and social well being for all of these babies YOU are taking responsibility for.
John Stewart said it best on Feb.22:
"It's like the Republicans in Congress are saying, you can't prevent an unwanted child, you can't get care if you do get pregnant and we won't give you any help feeding the kid after it's born; but for those two-minutes when that babies skull is crowning, it's the most precious thing on earth."
That's great incentive to procreate, no birth control, no abortions and no services. It's so pro-life it could kill you.
Monday, April 25, 2011
(Not) Another Pregnant 17 year old
I have mixed feelings about Gaby Rodriguez, the 17 year old senior from Washington state who revealed that her "supposed" pregnancy was in fact a school project. Gaby came up with the idea to fake her pregnancy in order to study stereotypes, rumors and statistics. Rodriguez is a straight A student and came up with the idea herself in order to experience first hand the type of reaction and critique teen mothers are faced with.
The population of Rodriguez's town is about 75 percent Hispanic. The student body at Toppenish High School is 85 percent Hispanic. Her experiment is significant in the realities of this situation.
Nationally, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily declining for years. However, Latinas have the highest teen pregnancy and birth rate among any major racial or ethnic minority.
About 51 percent of Latina teens will become pregnant by age 20, compared with about 30 percent of teens overall, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
In her schools assembly last week she had students read out comments that she had carefully recorded during her 6 months of faux pregnancy. One such comment included “Her attitude is changing, and it might be because of the baby or she was always this annoying and I never realized it.” Woah, these comments weren't necessarily said to her face but if you can remember high school, you find out about what people say about you in all sorts of ways.
Rodriguez herself stated, "A lot of rumors were just that I was irresponsible. No college...it was bound to happen. I knew she would get pregnant. Doesn't she know she just ruined her life," she said.
I get that Rodriguez wanted to gauge reactions to the fact that even though she was a straight A student and seemingly well liked, the news of her pregnancy brought about the same remarks and stereotypes as if she were a C student who engaged in any number of reckless behaviors. I mean, I think that is the point. On one hand you realize that stereotyping exists (not surprising) and on the other, that teens who become pregnant have a lot of shit talked about them. Do I think that teen mother's should be shunned or shipped off? Of course not. I think we should focus on methods to prevent pregnancy, but that isn't 100% realistic nor do those methods work 100% of the time.
None of the stories I found said anything about how her boyfriend (the father I assume?) was treated or if he found the same type of gossip and rumors being spread about him. I feel like that is way more telling in terms of stereotyping then people treating a pregnant teenager poorly.
Society never wants to see a teenager pregnant. Girls were sent away to "special" schools to give birth in secret not all that long ago. Pregnancy isn't contagious but viewing teen mothers to be is distasteful. I absolutely cannot watch any of the shows on television about pregnant teenagers. Sure, we shouldn't sweep the issue under the rug but why should we draw entertainment value out of it? Obviously you can't be on a teen mom show without becoming a teen mom. Over and over in these televised situations you view the disillusioned young women do the best she can with pregnancy, clinging on to young relationships with the fathers only to find that once junior comes along, daddy wants to be out with his friends playing basketball like a normal teenager and you are now spending your afternoons figuring out how to use a breast pump.
I give Gaby Rodriguez an A for creativity and execution and I honestly think it is an interesting hoax. However, I don't see why pretending to be a teen mom and hearing awful things about the way people feel about you proves anything about stereotypes and it's obvious that teenage moms remains a taboo issue. Whether you're confused or laud Rodriguez for her project, I guess we are having a conversation about teen motherhood, right? I just don't quite see what it is that we're saying about it
The population of Rodriguez's town is about 75 percent Hispanic. The student body at Toppenish High School is 85 percent Hispanic. Her experiment is significant in the realities of this situation.
Nationally, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily declining for years. However, Latinas have the highest teen pregnancy and birth rate among any major racial or ethnic minority.
About 51 percent of Latina teens will become pregnant by age 20, compared with about 30 percent of teens overall, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
In her schools assembly last week she had students read out comments that she had carefully recorded during her 6 months of faux pregnancy. One such comment included “Her attitude is changing, and it might be because of the baby or she was always this annoying and I never realized it.” Woah, these comments weren't necessarily said to her face but if you can remember high school, you find out about what people say about you in all sorts of ways.
Rodriguez herself stated, "A lot of rumors were just that I was irresponsible. No college...it was bound to happen. I knew she would get pregnant. Doesn't she know she just ruined her life," she said.
I get that Rodriguez wanted to gauge reactions to the fact that even though she was a straight A student and seemingly well liked, the news of her pregnancy brought about the same remarks and stereotypes as if she were a C student who engaged in any number of reckless behaviors. I mean, I think that is the point. On one hand you realize that stereotyping exists (not surprising) and on the other, that teens who become pregnant have a lot of shit talked about them. Do I think that teen mother's should be shunned or shipped off? Of course not. I think we should focus on methods to prevent pregnancy, but that isn't 100% realistic nor do those methods work 100% of the time.
None of the stories I found said anything about how her boyfriend (the father I assume?) was treated or if he found the same type of gossip and rumors being spread about him. I feel like that is way more telling in terms of stereotyping then people treating a pregnant teenager poorly.
Society never wants to see a teenager pregnant. Girls were sent away to "special" schools to give birth in secret not all that long ago. Pregnancy isn't contagious but viewing teen mothers to be is distasteful. I absolutely cannot watch any of the shows on television about pregnant teenagers. Sure, we shouldn't sweep the issue under the rug but why should we draw entertainment value out of it? Obviously you can't be on a teen mom show without becoming a teen mom. Over and over in these televised situations you view the disillusioned young women do the best she can with pregnancy, clinging on to young relationships with the fathers only to find that once junior comes along, daddy wants to be out with his friends playing basketball like a normal teenager and you are now spending your afternoons figuring out how to use a breast pump.
I give Gaby Rodriguez an A for creativity and execution and I honestly think it is an interesting hoax. However, I don't see why pretending to be a teen mom and hearing awful things about the way people feel about you proves anything about stereotypes and it's obvious that teenage moms remains a taboo issue. Whether you're confused or laud Rodriguez for her project, I guess we are having a conversation about teen motherhood, right? I just don't quite see what it is that we're saying about it
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Provocative 11 year old girl
The New York Times reported on a horrible story involving the rape of an 11 year old girl. While some may not see the underlying tone of victim blaming, the outrage of those who do continues on.
Here is one excerpt:
"Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands—known as the Quarters—said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said"
It gets worse. Not only do the quotes in the article insinuate that this child was in some way provoking being gang raped, some of the comments are down right disgusting:
The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?
Yes, how could these men be drawn into such an act?
The communities reaction to this violent crime was reported poorly if you give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is only a small part of the problem.
There seems to be no way in which the media can avoid perpetuating "victim blaming" in cases of sexual assault and rape. The larger question could even be so broad as to ask why are their "provocative" clothing that are made for 11 year old children? You see miniature versions of tiny t-shirts, mini skirts, frilly low cut dresses and even pre training bra bras. Obviously one thinks to question where this girls parents were but that also doesn't excuse the blaming game on the girl.
The New York Times printed a response to the outrage which you can find here.
Part of the article touches on how the piece was meant to be interpreted. The standards editor for The Times (who may or may not be my uncle), told the author of the piece that the story focused on the reaction of community residents and that there was no intent to blame the victim. He added, “I do think in retrospect we could have done more to provide more context to make that clear."
Obviously society still believes that a women raped must have done something in order to provoke the assault. That's one huge problem with the media; unless they make an extreme effort to provide balanced reporting on sexual abuse it will always come across as blaming the victim, and that is the most discouraging thought of all.
Here is one excerpt:
"Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands—known as the Quarters—said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said"
It gets worse. Not only do the quotes in the article insinuate that this child was in some way provoking being gang raped, some of the comments are down right disgusting:
The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?
Yes, how could these men be drawn into such an act?
The communities reaction to this violent crime was reported poorly if you give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is only a small part of the problem.
There seems to be no way in which the media can avoid perpetuating "victim blaming" in cases of sexual assault and rape. The larger question could even be so broad as to ask why are their "provocative" clothing that are made for 11 year old children? You see miniature versions of tiny t-shirts, mini skirts, frilly low cut dresses and even pre training bra bras. Obviously one thinks to question where this girls parents were but that also doesn't excuse the blaming game on the girl.
The New York Times printed a response to the outrage which you can find here.
Part of the article touches on how the piece was meant to be interpreted. The standards editor for The Times (who may or may not be my uncle), told the author of the piece that the story focused on the reaction of community residents and that there was no intent to blame the victim. He added, “I do think in retrospect we could have done more to provide more context to make that clear."
Obviously society still believes that a women raped must have done something in order to provoke the assault. That's one huge problem with the media; unless they make an extreme effort to provide balanced reporting on sexual abuse it will always come across as blaming the victim, and that is the most discouraging thought of all.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Hookers go to Planned Parenthood but where does Glenn Beck go?
I shouldn't even be saying anything about Glenn Beck because acknowledging him in any form is encouragement in and of it self.
I absolutely must comment about his recent comment regarding Planned Parenthood. Last Monday, Lawrence O'Donnell read excerpts from an e-mail on his MSNBC show from a women who relied on the services performed by Planned Parenthood. O'Donnell caught flack for his contrived watery eyes and statement that he "has friends that rely on Planned Parenthood."
While replaying the clip on his own show Beck cuts it after that line and responded,
"Stop just a second," Beck chimed in. "Hookers? Who? Who depends on Planned Parenthood?" He then imitated the woman, who said she had an abortion.
"I've got 400 abortions that I have to have!" said Beck. "I have to have these children aborted!"
Woah, this guy has lost his mind. Hookers? Only Hookers use Planned Parenthood? What the fuck kind of thing is that to say? Beck is already being kicked off Fox news for his insane rants and ridiculous conspiracy theories but here he goes beyond ridiculous, he is nearing obscene.
Who goes to Planned Parenthood? Who?
Who let this man be in front of an audience?
At the very least even Fox news doesn't want this lunatic on it's network anymore.
I absolutely must comment about his recent comment regarding Planned Parenthood. Last Monday, Lawrence O'Donnell read excerpts from an e-mail on his MSNBC show from a women who relied on the services performed by Planned Parenthood. O'Donnell caught flack for his contrived watery eyes and statement that he "has friends that rely on Planned Parenthood."
While replaying the clip on his own show Beck cuts it after that line and responded,
"Stop just a second," Beck chimed in. "Hookers? Who? Who depends on Planned Parenthood?" He then imitated the woman, who said she had an abortion.
"I've got 400 abortions that I have to have!" said Beck. "I have to have these children aborted!"
Woah, this guy has lost his mind. Hookers? Only Hookers use Planned Parenthood? What the fuck kind of thing is that to say? Beck is already being kicked off Fox news for his insane rants and ridiculous conspiracy theories but here he goes beyond ridiculous, he is nearing obscene.
Who goes to Planned Parenthood? Who?
Who let this man be in front of an audience?
At the very least even Fox news doesn't want this lunatic on it's network anymore.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Stop the Government; We have Abortions
First off a plug from the Restricted number that has been calling me for two weeks.
I just gave $53.80 to Emily's List (the 3.80 is in honor of the 38 anniversary of Roe v. Wade that just occurred) which is a non-profit org. that works to elect women who support progressive change. Just them out here
Part of keeping the Government rolling this past week has been a promise to once again revisit the funding of Planned Parenthood.
Last week, Senator Jon Kyl, gave a speech against federal support for Planned Parenthood last week that was noted for his complete bullshit statement that 90% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions. What's worse was his staff’s explanation that the remarks were “not intended to be a factual statement." So, he was lying. He was just doing it to further his cause and well, lie.
Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives, testing and various other services besides abortion. The problem with the way that conservatives view Planned Parenthood is that they view birth control (and the morning after pill) as being the same thing as abortion.
It isn't.
Birth control prevents any fertilization from taking place and Plan B gives you a window of time (72 hours) where you can prevent fertilization if it hasn't already taken place. There is a pill that induces an abortion,RU-486 is entirely different from Emergency Contraception. This pill is available who choose not to have the more traditional vacuum aspiration procedure and wish to have their abortion at home or other non-clinical settings.
Conservatives advocate the ban of legal abortions but they also don't want anyone to prevent pregnancy (thus reducing the need for the procedure) either. They won't offer you assistance to take care of the child but they will demonize you if you become pregnant for any reason and choose not to carry the fetus. You can't win with people who think this way. The GOP isn't interested in offering any solutions, they just want to take away as many of our rights as possible.
I just gave $53.80 to Emily's List (the 3.80 is in honor of the 38 anniversary of Roe v. Wade that just occurred) which is a non-profit org. that works to elect women who support progressive change. Just them out here
Part of keeping the Government rolling this past week has been a promise to once again revisit the funding of Planned Parenthood.
Last week, Senator Jon Kyl, gave a speech against federal support for Planned Parenthood last week that was noted for his complete bullshit statement that 90% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions. What's worse was his staff’s explanation that the remarks were “not intended to be a factual statement." So, he was lying. He was just doing it to further his cause and well, lie.
Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives, testing and various other services besides abortion. The problem with the way that conservatives view Planned Parenthood is that they view birth control (and the morning after pill) as being the same thing as abortion.
It isn't.
Birth control prevents any fertilization from taking place and Plan B gives you a window of time (72 hours) where you can prevent fertilization if it hasn't already taken place. There is a pill that induces an abortion,RU-486 is entirely different from Emergency Contraception. This pill is available who choose not to have the more traditional vacuum aspiration procedure and wish to have their abortion at home or other non-clinical settings.
Conservatives advocate the ban of legal abortions but they also don't want anyone to prevent pregnancy (thus reducing the need for the procedure) either. They won't offer you assistance to take care of the child but they will demonize you if you become pregnant for any reason and choose not to carry the fetus. You can't win with people who think this way. The GOP isn't interested in offering any solutions, they just want to take away as many of our rights as possible.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Amanda Palmer and The Dirty View
Amanda Palmer is fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
Obviously she isn't doing this in a lame way (as if she does anything in a lame way), she has created an entertaining and super rad podcast entitled The Dirty View
Palmer, Kim Airs and Kirsten Vangness hosts a sex ed-ish, fun time sort of presentation chat with an audience in LA. The benefit is held to help raise awareness and funds for the I Stand With Planned Parenthood campaign. You can download the podcast through the above link and donate whatever you can.
To check out AFP's blog in its entirety visit this site
Keep fighting the good fight,
Punk fucking Rock
Obviously she isn't doing this in a lame way (as if she does anything in a lame way), she has created an entertaining and super rad podcast entitled The Dirty View
Palmer, Kim Airs and Kirsten Vangness hosts a sex ed-ish, fun time sort of presentation chat with an audience in LA. The benefit is held to help raise awareness and funds for the I Stand With Planned Parenthood campaign. You can download the podcast through the above link and donate whatever you can.
To check out AFP's blog in its entirety visit this site
Keep fighting the good fight,
Punk fucking Rock
Friday, April 8, 2011
Forgive us...
It is impossible for anyone invested in the right to choose to be in a confident state of mind right now. Over and over we hear stories of how evil Planned Parenthood is and how horrible women feel after they have had abortions; time and again women who choose to denounce abortion paint the portrait of a culture of ignorance and regret.
There are women who choose to have abortions who come to regret their decisions. Why is that a valid reason to prevent other women from making the decision to have abortion? I have said it before, you got to make a choice and if that choice was wrong for you then that is your mistake. People make choices everyday that they later regret, should we prevent individuals from living their own lives for fear that they will regret it? I am horrified by every testimonial out there where women stand up and tell other women that they know what's best for them better than they know themselves.
Take the Silent No More Awareness Campaign here
There mission statement reads, "Silent No More Awareness is a Campaign whereby Christians make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women and men. The campaign seeks to expose and heal the secrecy and silence surrounding the emotional and physical pain of abortion."
SNM openly promotes that you are in need forgiveness if you have had an abortion, and they are the ones to give it to you. Is abortion something that you need to recover from? Of course it is. Recovering from something and needing forgiveness for something are two different things though. No one says that abortion is a great thing. No one says abortion is an easy and pleasurable experience, it isn't. However, the stigma surrounded by abortion is not one that comes from a lack of forgiveness it is one that comes from a lack of equality and respect for women. If women didn't feel like they had to be ashamed of having an abortion than they wouldn't be silent or feel guilty about choosing to have one.
Let me say this, I am in no way saying that every women in every circumstance chooses freely and on her own to terminate a pregnancy. Outside influence obviously come into play and it is sickening to me to think that women undergo the procedure for the purpose of satisfying someone else.
I know a women who ended up in an abortion clinic because she got back together with her ex while she and her current boyfriend were having trouble. The women and her boyfriend made up and she discovered that she was pregnant from her encounter with the ex. The current boyfriend leaves town for a week and on the way out encourages her to "take care of it." Now this women, who is less than three months pregnant, is upset for several reasons. One being that she doesn't think her boyfriend would approve of an abortion, another being that she can't afford another child and yet another being that she feels like she will lose the boyfriend (and father to her other children) if she doesn't abort the fetus.
No one wins in this situation. She goes through with the abortion.
Now, in that same waiting room there is a young women who is two months pregnant. She is 18 years old and lives at home with her parents. She goes to school part-time and works part-time to help pay for her education. The pregnancy has made her violently ill and she is on several anti-depressants and anxiety medication as well as tranquilizers, pain medication and a dependency on recreational drugs to deal with bi-polar disorder. No one encourages or coerces her to abort the fetus and no one encourages her not to.
Is there a winner in this situation? She goes through with the abortion.
If abortion isn't legal and safe for anyone seeking it, women will continue to have abortions regardless. Ask Mike Pence if he can say that abortion should be illegal and anyone seeking one should risk there lives if they would choose to not bear the fetus to term. Ask Mike Pence if your moral objections to war in Afghanistan and Iran should prevent your tax dollars from going to anything related to "national defense".
You don't get to have it both ways. You cannot support choice some of the time and in some circumstances. You cannot take away the choice for some women because other women regret the choice that they made.
Our bodies, our decision, our consequences.
There are women who choose to have abortions who come to regret their decisions. Why is that a valid reason to prevent other women from making the decision to have abortion? I have said it before, you got to make a choice and if that choice was wrong for you then that is your mistake. People make choices everyday that they later regret, should we prevent individuals from living their own lives for fear that they will regret it? I am horrified by every testimonial out there where women stand up and tell other women that they know what's best for them better than they know themselves.
Take the Silent No More Awareness Campaign here
There mission statement reads, "Silent No More Awareness is a Campaign whereby Christians make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women and men. The campaign seeks to expose and heal the secrecy and silence surrounding the emotional and physical pain of abortion."
SNM openly promotes that you are in need forgiveness if you have had an abortion, and they are the ones to give it to you. Is abortion something that you need to recover from? Of course it is. Recovering from something and needing forgiveness for something are two different things though. No one says that abortion is a great thing. No one says abortion is an easy and pleasurable experience, it isn't. However, the stigma surrounded by abortion is not one that comes from a lack of forgiveness it is one that comes from a lack of equality and respect for women. If women didn't feel like they had to be ashamed of having an abortion than they wouldn't be silent or feel guilty about choosing to have one.
Let me say this, I am in no way saying that every women in every circumstance chooses freely and on her own to terminate a pregnancy. Outside influence obviously come into play and it is sickening to me to think that women undergo the procedure for the purpose of satisfying someone else.
I know a women who ended up in an abortion clinic because she got back together with her ex while she and her current boyfriend were having trouble. The women and her boyfriend made up and she discovered that she was pregnant from her encounter with the ex. The current boyfriend leaves town for a week and on the way out encourages her to "take care of it." Now this women, who is less than three months pregnant, is upset for several reasons. One being that she doesn't think her boyfriend would approve of an abortion, another being that she can't afford another child and yet another being that she feels like she will lose the boyfriend (and father to her other children) if she doesn't abort the fetus.
No one wins in this situation. She goes through with the abortion.
Now, in that same waiting room there is a young women who is two months pregnant. She is 18 years old and lives at home with her parents. She goes to school part-time and works part-time to help pay for her education. The pregnancy has made her violently ill and she is on several anti-depressants and anxiety medication as well as tranquilizers, pain medication and a dependency on recreational drugs to deal with bi-polar disorder. No one encourages or coerces her to abort the fetus and no one encourages her not to.
Is there a winner in this situation? She goes through with the abortion.
If abortion isn't legal and safe for anyone seeking it, women will continue to have abortions regardless. Ask Mike Pence if he can say that abortion should be illegal and anyone seeking one should risk there lives if they would choose to not bear the fetus to term. Ask Mike Pence if your moral objections to war in Afghanistan and Iran should prevent your tax dollars from going to anything related to "national defense".
You don't get to have it both ways. You cannot support choice some of the time and in some circumstances. You cannot take away the choice for some women because other women regret the choice that they made.
Our bodies, our decision, our consequences.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
South Dakota
South Dakota has done it again.
One of the most anti-choice, women hating states, South Dakota passed legislation mandating harassment by anti-choice counselors on women seeking an abortion. South Dakota implemented a three-day waiting period along with a visit to the crisis pregnancy center. I have written about crisis pregnancy centers before (Ms. Magazine: The Clinic Across the Street 10/31/10)and no, nothing has changed. These deceiving centers bent on indoctrination are geared toward changing the mind of any women considering abortion and don't emphasize that they themselves don't provide them.
Before legislation was signed, Planned Parenthood announced that they would be suing. "Calling this law protective is supremely cynical," says Sarah Stoesz, who heads the local chapter of Planned Parenthood. "It's nothing but coercive."
“The 72-hour waiting period coupled with having to go to a crisis pregnancy center whose very mission is to dissuade women from going through with an abortion has grave constitutional concerns for us,” says a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota.
Besides the waiting period, the law mandates counseling from crisis pregnancy centers, mandating that women be told that an abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.” It is a well known certainty that employees at the CPC have a record of providing misinformation about the physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure and use tactics like displaying graphic photos or quoting scripture in order to influence a woman’s decision.
South Dakota doesn't have a single doctor willing to provide abortions in the whole state. Doctors are flown in from Minnesota. I can't believe the spectacle of it all. A women seeking an abortion in South Dakota faces the hardest fight out of any other woman in any other state in the US.
Legislation in Texas would have required women to undergo a sonogram before an abortion; it has been amended to require that they be offered the chance to do so, though they can refuse. More than 20 states are considering restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion.
Lawsuits will fly over many of the bills that ultimately become law, and that's part of the strategy. Reproductive-rights groups will go after the most egregious laws that ultimately some of the less clearly unconstitutional ones will go unchallenged.
Residents of South Dakota have rejected banning most abortions in the state twice in recent years. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that those often the least affected by a woman's right to choose will stop trying to prevent them from doing so.
One of the most anti-choice, women hating states, South Dakota passed legislation mandating harassment by anti-choice counselors on women seeking an abortion. South Dakota implemented a three-day waiting period along with a visit to the crisis pregnancy center. I have written about crisis pregnancy centers before (Ms. Magazine: The Clinic Across the Street 10/31/10)and no, nothing has changed. These deceiving centers bent on indoctrination are geared toward changing the mind of any women considering abortion and don't emphasize that they themselves don't provide them.
Before legislation was signed, Planned Parenthood announced that they would be suing. "Calling this law protective is supremely cynical," says Sarah Stoesz, who heads the local chapter of Planned Parenthood. "It's nothing but coercive."
“The 72-hour waiting period coupled with having to go to a crisis pregnancy center whose very mission is to dissuade women from going through with an abortion has grave constitutional concerns for us,” says a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota.
Besides the waiting period, the law mandates counseling from crisis pregnancy centers, mandating that women be told that an abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.” It is a well known certainty that employees at the CPC have a record of providing misinformation about the physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure and use tactics like displaying graphic photos or quoting scripture in order to influence a woman’s decision.
South Dakota doesn't have a single doctor willing to provide abortions in the whole state. Doctors are flown in from Minnesota. I can't believe the spectacle of it all. A women seeking an abortion in South Dakota faces the hardest fight out of any other woman in any other state in the US.
Legislation in Texas would have required women to undergo a sonogram before an abortion; it has been amended to require that they be offered the chance to do so, though they can refuse. More than 20 states are considering restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion.
Lawsuits will fly over many of the bills that ultimately become law, and that's part of the strategy. Reproductive-rights groups will go after the most egregious laws that ultimately some of the less clearly unconstitutional ones will go unchallenged.
Residents of South Dakota have rejected banning most abortions in the state twice in recent years. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that those often the least affected by a woman's right to choose will stop trying to prevent them from doing so.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
In Abstentia...
During my blogging sabbatical I have missed reporting on several stories. Here are a couple of them. The second part of this post focuses on Middle Eastern women and various links to related content and resources.
Here in America, Geraldine Ferraro passed away on March 26th 2011. As the first female vice presidential candidate in a major political party, Ferraro made history for being the only Italian-American vice presidential nominee also. Stating in her acceptance speech, "the daughter of an immigrant from Italy has been chosen to run for vice president in the new land my father came to love." Ferraro and Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Reagen and Bush Sr. Controversy during election included Ferraro and her husbands finances, her inexperience on foreign policy and of course the Catholic Church disagreeing that you could remain faithful to the church's teaching and still disagree with it (ahem, abortion).
Naral. Pro-choice lobby day is April 7th. If you can get down to Washington DC to support your right to choose check out this site for all the answers to your questions and any other info you might need.
One story coming out of Libya involves Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan women who stormed into a Tripoli hotel Saturday to tell foreign reporters that government troops raped her, setting off a brawl when hotel staff and government minders tried to detain her. Detain her they did though al-Obeidi managed to tell journalists that she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday before she was dragged out of the hotel. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her. Government officials have painted al-Obeidi as promiscuous and though they state that she is safe and has been offered a lawyer her family does not believe it. More on this story here .
A former Libyan/American co-worker of mine is featured on Women's e-news reports from the ground
This is an interesting blog about women in Yemen and the revolution going on there.
It seems that women in Egypt have an uphill battle to become participants in the "New Egypt" they were so vital in bringing forth progress?
Rock on Women.
Here in America, Geraldine Ferraro passed away on March 26th 2011. As the first female vice presidential candidate in a major political party, Ferraro made history for being the only Italian-American vice presidential nominee also. Stating in her acceptance speech, "the daughter of an immigrant from Italy has been chosen to run for vice president in the new land my father came to love." Ferraro and Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Reagen and Bush Sr. Controversy during election included Ferraro and her husbands finances, her inexperience on foreign policy and of course the Catholic Church disagreeing that you could remain faithful to the church's teaching and still disagree with it (ahem, abortion).
Naral. Pro-choice lobby day is April 7th. If you can get down to Washington DC to support your right to choose check out this site for all the answers to your questions and any other info you might need.
One story coming out of Libya involves Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan women who stormed into a Tripoli hotel Saturday to tell foreign reporters that government troops raped her, setting off a brawl when hotel staff and government minders tried to detain her. Detain her they did though al-Obeidi managed to tell journalists that she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday before she was dragged out of the hotel. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her. Government officials have painted al-Obeidi as promiscuous and though they state that she is safe and has been offered a lawyer her family does not believe it. More on this story here .
A former Libyan/American co-worker of mine is featured on Women's e-news reports from the ground
This is an interesting blog about women in Yemen and the revolution going on there.
It seems that women in Egypt have an uphill battle to become participants in the "New Egypt" they were so vital in bringing forth progress?
Rock on Women.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Saturday 3/19 Boston Commons 12-1pm
Call Scott Brown and tell him what's up.
617-565-3170.
We don't know exactly how he's going to vote but when I got his blanket response e-mail to all of my messages it said something like "blah blah women abortion between her and the doctor blah blah, I don't believe in fed. funding blah."
Actually it stated:
"It is my belief that we can and should provide women with family planning services. This has the potential to not only reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but also abortions. Ultimately, I believe that abortion is a very personal issue and the questions that it raises are ones that rest with a woman, her family and her physician. However, I am opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to provide or pay for abortions."
So if your family and your doctor take a vote you may be able to answer the abortion question for yourself.
Federal Funding for abortion is already banned. Hyde Amendment. Read it.
Join PPLM this Saturday to reiterate to Senator Brown that only Women, not the government or doctors or your family or your senator has any business chiming in on your reproductive choices. We are here now and our rights supersede those of fetuses.
617-565-3170.
We don't know exactly how he's going to vote but when I got his blanket response e-mail to all of my messages it said something like "blah blah women abortion between her and the doctor blah blah, I don't believe in fed. funding blah."
Actually it stated:
"It is my belief that we can and should provide women with family planning services. This has the potential to not only reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but also abortions. Ultimately, I believe that abortion is a very personal issue and the questions that it raises are ones that rest with a woman, her family and her physician. However, I am opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to provide or pay for abortions."
So if your family and your doctor take a vote you may be able to answer the abortion question for yourself.
Federal Funding for abortion is already banned. Hyde Amendment. Read it.
Join PPLM this Saturday to reiterate to Senator Brown that only Women, not the government or doctors or your family or your senator has any business chiming in on your reproductive choices. We are here now and our rights supersede those of fetuses.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Senate Defeats Move to Defund Planned Parenthood
As most of you probably already know, the Senate rejected (44 for and 56 against) the House-approved long-term budget bill that contains the Pence Amendment moving to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
It's not over by a long shot. Stay tuned.
It's not over by a long shot. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Walk for Choice Pictures
After much to do I finally got my shots from Saturday. Here is a small sampling.
Here are a few including yours truly.
It was a sensational experience and I was pleased to see so many people come out on a freezing cold Saturday to stand out in the cold.
Like this guy.
The signs were awesome and some were down right poignant.
And me with my mouth open, as usual.
Sarah
This is fantastic.
Yay!
I'm off to NOLA in the morning. More parading and shouting for this girl.
Here are a few including yours truly.
It was a sensational experience and I was pleased to see so many people come out on a freezing cold Saturday to stand out in the cold.
Like this guy.
The signs were awesome and some were down right poignant.
And me with my mouth open, as usual.
Sarah
This is fantastic.
Yay!
I'm off to NOLA in the morning. More parading and shouting for this girl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)