I couldn't be more pleased to see the end of 2012 just over the horizon (of this weekend). This year has been tough- horrible even. In fact, I'm going to call it the worst year of my life thus far. If I had to pick a theme for it I would say 2012 has been a year of loss. Within this loss I have noticed that I am finding/gaining myself in the process and for that I am glad- I hope the things I have gone through will stick with me and the growth that I have experienced will stay for the future. The most important thing that has resonated with me is that there is nothing more important than self love. You have to be okay with yourself, be your own best friend, relish in your own company etc...
There is no one else that can give you purpose and a reason to be on this earth other than yourself. This year I lost my first boyfriend and first "Love" to suicide. Within the first three months that we started dating we got pregnant, had an abortion and he watched me almost die from bilateral pneumonia. We stayed together for three years before we broke up and I went away for college. He was never happy and had a host of mental problems- deep down, I honestly knew he would commit suicide. I didn't imagine he would succeed so soon and I didn't imagine that I would be so close when he did.
This year has left me feeling more alone than I have ever felt before. Not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy your own company and have coping mechanisms in place to deal with the bad parts of loneliness but if you don't as I didn't, loneliness can be the worst thing in the world. Without trying to sound too much like an after school program it is the most important thing in the world to be okay with yourself and know that you are enough- just you yourself and that everything and everyone that you allow to fill your life is just extra.
And! You should fill your life with as many fabulous people as you can. People that love you and think you are super are a crucial part of living well.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
The War on Who?
I avoid Fox news like the plague as a general rule. Watching Fox is like listening to Rush Limbaugh- it just makes me feel dirty and hopeless.
Fox News online is the same deal, I don't seek out their "news" and the only reason I came across the opinion piece I am sharing with you today is because the absurdity of said article has become plastered all over Facebook.
Suzanne Venker is an author who writes about why women shouldn't have careers. You might even say it is her career to tell women that they need to stay home and be subservient and avoid having a career. Confusing, I know.
The article in question is called The War on Men.
Take a look at it if you are so inclined. I'll give you a (still painful but shorter) summary.
Venker claims that her years of research and conversations with both men and women have led her to "accidentally stumble" upon a large group of men who state that they will never get married because "women aren't women anymore." She blames the sexual revolution for changing the way women and men interact. Venker makes statement after statement about the reasons women can't find a good or "marriageable" men. Oh, and it's all their own fault because Feminists have brainwashed them into thinking that men are the enemy which means women are denying men their true nature: " The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek".
According to Venker, women want to get married but men don't because women are too competitive and blame men for everything. Men can live with and sleep with their girlfriends with no resposnibillity- so why should they want to get married?
But they do, says Venker, women have just ruined it for them. She states "Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them."
DNA? Well, in that case...
No, Venker is not a scientist. She opens her article citing a study by the Pew Research Center. Here is the actual study.
Venker deducts from this study that men don't want to get married- yes, the study shows that less men say that marriage is "one of the most important things in their lives." But if you look at the graph above that it shows that women and men value marriage and parenthood at nearly the same percentage, women 84% and men 83%. So while fewer men are saying that marriage is one of the most important things is their lives a large number of men still find marriage and parenthood very important.
What I find to be the most frustrating part of Venker's article is her obvious hatred of Feminism. She doesn't find women's empowerment charming or feminine enough. Modern women (i.e. women who have jobs and children)are selfish and crazy to think that they can do anything that men can do. Damn, it's as if shes negating anything that she says because shes just a silly women thinking she can have a family and be an author. She herself is a divorced mother with a CAREER who is deeply concerned with the state of marriage in our society.
She ends the article with this:
"So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork."
Wow, that's not hypocritical at all.
Fox News online is the same deal, I don't seek out their "news" and the only reason I came across the opinion piece I am sharing with you today is because the absurdity of said article has become plastered all over Facebook.
Suzanne Venker is an author who writes about why women shouldn't have careers. You might even say it is her career to tell women that they need to stay home and be subservient and avoid having a career. Confusing, I know.
The article in question is called The War on Men.
Take a look at it if you are so inclined. I'll give you a (still painful but shorter) summary.
Venker claims that her years of research and conversations with both men and women have led her to "accidentally stumble" upon a large group of men who state that they will never get married because "women aren't women anymore." She blames the sexual revolution for changing the way women and men interact. Venker makes statement after statement about the reasons women can't find a good or "marriageable" men. Oh, and it's all their own fault because Feminists have brainwashed them into thinking that men are the enemy which means women are denying men their true nature: " The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek".
According to Venker, women want to get married but men don't because women are too competitive and blame men for everything. Men can live with and sleep with their girlfriends with no resposnibillity- so why should they want to get married?
But they do, says Venker, women have just ruined it for them. She states "Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them."
DNA? Well, in that case...
No, Venker is not a scientist. She opens her article citing a study by the Pew Research Center. Here is the actual study.
Venker deducts from this study that men don't want to get married- yes, the study shows that less men say that marriage is "one of the most important things in their lives." But if you look at the graph above that it shows that women and men value marriage and parenthood at nearly the same percentage, women 84% and men 83%. So while fewer men are saying that marriage is one of the most important things is their lives a large number of men still find marriage and parenthood very important.
What I find to be the most frustrating part of Venker's article is her obvious hatred of Feminism. She doesn't find women's empowerment charming or feminine enough. Modern women (i.e. women who have jobs and children)are selfish and crazy to think that they can do anything that men can do. Damn, it's as if shes negating anything that she says because shes just a silly women thinking she can have a family and be an author. She herself is a divorced mother with a CAREER who is deeply concerned with the state of marriage in our society.
She ends the article with this:
"So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork."
Wow, that's not hypocritical at all.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Catholic Country Let's Woman Die
A women who sought an abortion at a hospital in Ireland while suffering a miscarriage has died. Savita Halappanavar, 31 years old and 17 weeks pregnant, presented with back pain at Ireland's University Hospital Galway on October 21st- they discovered that she was in the process of miscarrying.
Even though Halappanavar, a Hindu, was emphatic that she was neither Irish nor Catholic, and even though she developed shakes and shivering and was vomiting, the hospital said there was nothing to be done because there was still a fetal heartbeat. She was told that "this is a catholic country."
Boston.com reports that Ireland’s constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found the procedure should be legalized for situations when the woman’s life is at risk. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies even when possibly endangering the life of the mother.
The delay in enacting this law in Ireland has cost Halappanavar her life. While some women in Ireland have the option to travel the relatively short distance to England for a legal abortion- it is extremely difficult for women in poor health to do the same.
This article from the Guardian examines the troubled history of abortion in Ireland:
"The first breach in the wall of silence around abortion came about in 1992 when a 14-year-old rape victim attempted to travel to England to terminate her pregnancy. The Irish government, on the advice of the attorney general, sought initially to prevent her from travelling out of the country. The prospect of a modern European republic seeking to deny a child from leaving the country, and in turn forcing her to endure pregnancy brought on by rape, produced one of the most famous images of the early 1990s."
In 2009, three Irish women sued the government saying that the impossibility of having an legal abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily traumatic and expensive. The court agreed with the women and ordered legislation be passed for abortion to be legal in certain circumstances.
With the death of Savita Halappanavar, Ireland is at the forefront of a tragedy that underlines the need for reform in this Catholic country.
Human dignity and women's lives are at stake.
Even though Halappanavar, a Hindu, was emphatic that she was neither Irish nor Catholic, and even though she developed shakes and shivering and was vomiting, the hospital said there was nothing to be done because there was still a fetal heartbeat. She was told that "this is a catholic country."
Boston.com reports that Ireland’s constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found the procedure should be legalized for situations when the woman’s life is at risk. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies even when possibly endangering the life of the mother.
The delay in enacting this law in Ireland has cost Halappanavar her life. While some women in Ireland have the option to travel the relatively short distance to England for a legal abortion- it is extremely difficult for women in poor health to do the same.
This article from the Guardian examines the troubled history of abortion in Ireland:
"The first breach in the wall of silence around abortion came about in 1992 when a 14-year-old rape victim attempted to travel to England to terminate her pregnancy. The Irish government, on the advice of the attorney general, sought initially to prevent her from travelling out of the country. The prospect of a modern European republic seeking to deny a child from leaving the country, and in turn forcing her to endure pregnancy brought on by rape, produced one of the most famous images of the early 1990s."
In 2009, three Irish women sued the government saying that the impossibility of having an legal abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily traumatic and expensive. The court agreed with the women and ordered legislation be passed for abortion to be legal in certain circumstances.
With the death of Savita Halappanavar, Ireland is at the forefront of a tragedy that underlines the need for reform in this Catholic country.
Human dignity and women's lives are at stake.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Glass Ceiling 20%
Women now make up a whopping 1/5th of the legislative body that is the Senate. Tuesday's election saw five women win senate seats- the most since the land mark "Year of the Women" in 1992.
Elizabeth Warren beat incombent Scott Brown becoming the first female senator in Massachusetts history. Republican Deb Fischer emerged victorious over Democrat Bob Kerrey and will be the first full-term female senator from Nebraska.
Todd Akin was "legitmately" beaten leaving Claire Macaskill to keep her seat in Missouri.The Onion tells it here. Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota won a Senate seat in her state, while Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono became the first Asian-American woman elected to the Senate.
Tammy Baldwin won her race which will make her the first openly gay senator. She is representing Wisconsin.
It serves to reason that legislation which negetively impacts women will be more difficult to pass. What's even more encouraging is that there were 13 Republican senators that opposed abortion even in the case of rape, on Tuesday-10 of those senators lost.
Elizabeth Warren beat incombent Scott Brown becoming the first female senator in Massachusetts history. Republican Deb Fischer emerged victorious over Democrat Bob Kerrey and will be the first full-term female senator from Nebraska.
Todd Akin was "legitmately" beaten leaving Claire Macaskill to keep her seat in Missouri.The Onion tells it here. Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota won a Senate seat in her state, while Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono became the first Asian-American woman elected to the Senate.
Tammy Baldwin won her race which will make her the first openly gay senator. She is representing Wisconsin.
It serves to reason that legislation which negetively impacts women will be more difficult to pass. What's even more encouraging is that there were 13 Republican senators that opposed abortion even in the case of rape, on Tuesday-10 of those senators lost.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Vote Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts Senate Seat
No surprise here- Eve was Framed is undoubtedly, unanimously and enthusiastically supporting Elizabeth Warren for Senate.
Though Senator Brown has promoted himself as pro-choice and pro-women, the facts remain that he votes against women and against a women's right to choose.
Brown seems to think he can play both sides and maybe people won't notice. He has women in commercials say things like "Scott Brown supports a women's right to choose," and we're supposed to take them at their word for it ignoring that thing call reality.
In a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in August, Brown wrote, "You can be pro-choice and still be a good Republican." But is that true? It certainly isn't the party line for those who get elected by the fervent pro-life voters.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) certainly isn't buying Scott Brown as the "Pro-Choice" candidate that he claims to be.
Massachusetts Right to Life President Anne Fox says "We have to take his word for it when he says he is pro-choice. But what we're looking for is someone who votes pro-life, and he does."
Need more proof? According to the Boston Globe Brown has an 80 percent approval rating from NRLC, siding with the group on four of its five key votes since being elected.
That doesn't make him pro-choice, pro-women or pro-family but it does make him a fine spin-artist.
Every pro-choice organization has endorsed Elizabeth Warren and she is undoubtedly pro-choice, pro-women and pro-family. Vote for her next Tuesday November 6th!
Though Senator Brown has promoted himself as pro-choice and pro-women, the facts remain that he votes against women and against a women's right to choose.
Brown seems to think he can play both sides and maybe people won't notice. He has women in commercials say things like "Scott Brown supports a women's right to choose," and we're supposed to take them at their word for it ignoring that thing call reality.
In a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in August, Brown wrote, "You can be pro-choice and still be a good Republican." But is that true? It certainly isn't the party line for those who get elected by the fervent pro-life voters.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) certainly isn't buying Scott Brown as the "Pro-Choice" candidate that he claims to be.
Massachusetts Right to Life President Anne Fox says "We have to take his word for it when he says he is pro-choice. But what we're looking for is someone who votes pro-life, and he does."
Need more proof? According to the Boston Globe Brown has an 80 percent approval rating from NRLC, siding with the group on four of its five key votes since being elected.
That doesn't make him pro-choice, pro-women or pro-family but it does make him a fine spin-artist.
Every pro-choice organization has endorsed Elizabeth Warren and she is undoubtedly pro-choice, pro-women and pro-family. Vote for her next Tuesday November 6th!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Mourdock says "God intends pregnancies resulting from rape"
Using the word rape in the same sentence with the word "God" is probably always a bad idea. In the case of Richard Mourdock however, he should have avoided talking about rape at all.
This Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat in Indiana stated:
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Murdock said.
Woah. Woah. Woah.
Here is one big problem with what he said: As a candidate for a national political body, the Senate, you'd imagine that there are at least a couple things that all of those politicians can agree on. I would think the fact that rape is a crime would be one of them. So how is it that Murdouch can step out of that rubric and justify that crime as something God intended to happened?
Moreover, how can he think that you can separate and pardon a crime resulting in a pregnancy and call the pregnancy God's will? If the pregnancy is intended than so are the means by which that pregnancy occurs- I feel like that is an incredibly obvious factor in his statement.
But Murdock doesn't think so.
"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
Wait, is he saying that his God has his own intentions or not? Forget God for a second though. Okay. Rape is a horrible crime committed by sub-humans in my opinion. Rape victims are often treated as if the crime is their fault and many don't come forward because of that. Some are too ashamed or afraid to come forward and those who do can be treated very poorly by the very people that are there to take care of them. After you are completely violated and physically assaulted the worst news that you could find out is that you are pregnant.
Do you really need a male politician saying that though he has "struggled" with his beliefs they lead him to tell you not to worry because this is something God intended. No not the rape- just the pregnancy...
It's ignorant, ridiculous and insensitive to say the least and it isn't rare for male politicians to offer these asinine beliefs as if they should play a part in something that cannot ever happen to them.
"Rape is rape. It is a crime," President Obama, said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "This is exactly why you don't want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women's healthcare decisions."
Thank you Mr President, I couldn't have said it better myself.
This Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat in Indiana stated:
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Murdock said.
Woah. Woah. Woah.
Here is one big problem with what he said: As a candidate for a national political body, the Senate, you'd imagine that there are at least a couple things that all of those politicians can agree on. I would think the fact that rape is a crime would be one of them. So how is it that Murdouch can step out of that rubric and justify that crime as something God intended to happened?
Moreover, how can he think that you can separate and pardon a crime resulting in a pregnancy and call the pregnancy God's will? If the pregnancy is intended than so are the means by which that pregnancy occurs- I feel like that is an incredibly obvious factor in his statement.
But Murdock doesn't think so.
"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
Wait, is he saying that his God has his own intentions or not? Forget God for a second though. Okay. Rape is a horrible crime committed by sub-humans in my opinion. Rape victims are often treated as if the crime is their fault and many don't come forward because of that. Some are too ashamed or afraid to come forward and those who do can be treated very poorly by the very people that are there to take care of them. After you are completely violated and physically assaulted the worst news that you could find out is that you are pregnant.
Do you really need a male politician saying that though he has "struggled" with his beliefs they lead him to tell you not to worry because this is something God intended. No not the rape- just the pregnancy...
It's ignorant, ridiculous and insensitive to say the least and it isn't rare for male politicians to offer these asinine beliefs as if they should play a part in something that cannot ever happen to them.
"Rape is rape. It is a crime," President Obama, said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "This is exactly why you don't want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women's healthcare decisions."
Thank you Mr President, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Monday, October 22, 2012
My (abortion) Blog
My two year blog-aversary has come and gone with the end of August. Yes, I am a bit behind on the celebration.
All in all I'm pretty satisfied with the endeavor and the support that I've gotten from friends and family over the last 25 months. I haven't always had time to post as many entry's as I would like to and I've definitely had spells of neglect where I can't produce something worth reading. At times I feel like going back and deleting everything but I don't- if 3 people read it or no people I'm content with what I've put out there. My favorite posts are when I can produce a cohesive picture and opinion on a subject that people usually shy away from.
Early on I wrote about Rape Revenge Fantasy's citing films from the past right up to current releases. This was brought on by the popularity of the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and a kick ass article from bitch magazine.
My most viewed post was when I wrote about a support group for women who were "addicted" to masturbation- The Dirty Girl's Ministries was probably stumbled upon by some Google users who weren't necessarily looking to read an analyses of misguided sexual self help.
Most of my writing has something to do with Abortion and that has been my intent. I aim to give the abortion debate historical and personal context. I have referenced my own abortion once or twice and always to express the gratitude that I have for the circumstances which allowed me to obtain a very safe and legal procedure which is something that many women aren't able to do. Here I will do it again.
I was (thankfully) 18 years old in a state that requires parental notification from minors or a court order to circumvent that. At the time I did not want my parents to be involved and while I did tell them about it several years later the option not to was a great asset to me.
I had insurance that may have paid for the procedure (at least in part) but given the fact that I chose not to involve my parents that wasn't an option. I had a part time job and through splitting the cost with my boyfriend at the time and the ability to borrow from our friends we were able to come up with the $400 some odd dollars pretty quickly. I was never afraid that I wouldn't be able to come up with the money in time as many women are.
I had a dear friend to take me to the clinic and who sat there during the whole time, drove me home and check in on me throughout the day.
The experience at the clinic is one that I'll save for another day- though I will say that I had an amazing female doctor, was treated with respect and dignity and the women who held my hand throughout the procedure was kind and assured me that I would be back in school studying hard and bettering myself and the world the day after next.
I am also fortunate enough to know without a doubt that this was the right choice for me to make. To say I never questioned the possibility of carrying the fetus to term would be untrue but it was never a real deterrent to the fact that I 100% did not want to give birth and for me being pregnant was a debilitating condition that was nearly unbearable. I didn't have to face the agonizing process of determining whether or I would be able to afford to feed the children I already had or if the father would support me or if any faction of government would get to weigh in on the most intimate happenings of my body. I am also incredibly thankful that I never had to worry about the actual procedure being performed by someone who didn't know what they were doing with dirty equipment.
I write/talk openly about my abortion now because it isn't something that I am ashamed of. It isn't something that I have to defend and most of all I got to do it 100% the way I wanted to without any interference from anyone. Even more importantly, I write about it because there are women who have none of the rights that I did and more over those that do are at risk of losing them. I could go on forever about that topic and there in lies one of the reasons I started this blog. I don't expect anyone's opinion to change or that I'll receive a pat on the back for talking about my abortion- but I'm not afraid to share something that so many women experience for better or worse because as human beings we deserve the right to decide what happens to our bodies- no matter what.
All in all I'm pretty satisfied with the endeavor and the support that I've gotten from friends and family over the last 25 months. I haven't always had time to post as many entry's as I would like to and I've definitely had spells of neglect where I can't produce something worth reading. At times I feel like going back and deleting everything but I don't- if 3 people read it or no people I'm content with what I've put out there. My favorite posts are when I can produce a cohesive picture and opinion on a subject that people usually shy away from.
Early on I wrote about Rape Revenge Fantasy's citing films from the past right up to current releases. This was brought on by the popularity of the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and a kick ass article from bitch magazine.
My most viewed post was when I wrote about a support group for women who were "addicted" to masturbation- The Dirty Girl's Ministries was probably stumbled upon by some Google users who weren't necessarily looking to read an analyses of misguided sexual self help.
Most of my writing has something to do with Abortion and that has been my intent. I aim to give the abortion debate historical and personal context. I have referenced my own abortion once or twice and always to express the gratitude that I have for the circumstances which allowed me to obtain a very safe and legal procedure which is something that many women aren't able to do. Here I will do it again.
I was (thankfully) 18 years old in a state that requires parental notification from minors or a court order to circumvent that. At the time I did not want my parents to be involved and while I did tell them about it several years later the option not to was a great asset to me.
I had insurance that may have paid for the procedure (at least in part) but given the fact that I chose not to involve my parents that wasn't an option. I had a part time job and through splitting the cost with my boyfriend at the time and the ability to borrow from our friends we were able to come up with the $400 some odd dollars pretty quickly. I was never afraid that I wouldn't be able to come up with the money in time as many women are.
I had a dear friend to take me to the clinic and who sat there during the whole time, drove me home and check in on me throughout the day.
The experience at the clinic is one that I'll save for another day- though I will say that I had an amazing female doctor, was treated with respect and dignity and the women who held my hand throughout the procedure was kind and assured me that I would be back in school studying hard and bettering myself and the world the day after next.
I am also fortunate enough to know without a doubt that this was the right choice for me to make. To say I never questioned the possibility of carrying the fetus to term would be untrue but it was never a real deterrent to the fact that I 100% did not want to give birth and for me being pregnant was a debilitating condition that was nearly unbearable. I didn't have to face the agonizing process of determining whether or I would be able to afford to feed the children I already had or if the father would support me or if any faction of government would get to weigh in on the most intimate happenings of my body. I am also incredibly thankful that I never had to worry about the actual procedure being performed by someone who didn't know what they were doing with dirty equipment.
I write/talk openly about my abortion now because it isn't something that I am ashamed of. It isn't something that I have to defend and most of all I got to do it 100% the way I wanted to without any interference from anyone. Even more importantly, I write about it because there are women who have none of the rights that I did and more over those that do are at risk of losing them. I could go on forever about that topic and there in lies one of the reasons I started this blog. I don't expect anyone's opinion to change or that I'll receive a pat on the back for talking about my abortion- but I'm not afraid to share something that so many women experience for better or worse because as human beings we deserve the right to decide what happens to our bodies- no matter what.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Akin, Rivard and now Walsh (or Not Interested in the Facts)
I can't say I am surprised- however, every time a 40-60 something year old white male politician gets science-y on women's reproductive health system a part of my soul dies. Or at least my uterus's soul.
What is it this time? State representative candidate Joe Walsh said this referring to an abortion exception for saving a women's life:
“with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” of a woman dying from childbirth. Walsh claimed pro-choice advocates simply used the prospect of maternal death “to make us look unreasonable.”
You can't find one instance? You aren't unreasonable?
Well, let's consult the facts shall we?
As a Global Studies major I get a great sense of satisfaction on researching things like a country's GPD, birth rates, age structure etc...
My favorite website for this is the CIA World Factbook.
Amnesty International has great resources for this type of research as well.
The CIA World Factbook states that as of 2010 the Maternal Mortality rate in the Unites States is 21 per 100,000 live births. The MMR is the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes).
This brings the number to around 600 deaths each year caused by childbirth. The statement? ZERO the facts SIX HUNDRED.
The facts? Since Walsh made his statement he has tried to backtrack by saying that outside of "very rare circumstances ... an invasive and traumatic procedure like abortion is often, thankfully, not necessary to save the life of a mother."
Now what tends to happen after these gaffes is that the opponent will capitalize on the abortion issue and the moron who uttered the inaccuracies to begin with will start saying things like "Now all my opponent wants to talk about is abortion- I want to talk about the issues."
Here is what these gentlemen don't understand. When you say things that are blatantly untrue about the bodies, minds and rights of over half the population, you're going to realize that they care a lot about things like science, or personal experiences. Ask a women who has lost a child in order to save her own life what it feels like to have a rookie tea-party candidate say that she in fact doesn't exist.
It's kind of a big deal.
So Todd Akin, Roger Rivard and now Joe Walsh- why don't you consult women and the intelligent before laying down absolutes to show how despicable and out of touch you are with women and reality in general.
What is it this time? State representative candidate Joe Walsh said this referring to an abortion exception for saving a women's life:
“with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” of a woman dying from childbirth. Walsh claimed pro-choice advocates simply used the prospect of maternal death “to make us look unreasonable.”
You can't find one instance? You aren't unreasonable?
Well, let's consult the facts shall we?
As a Global Studies major I get a great sense of satisfaction on researching things like a country's GPD, birth rates, age structure etc...
My favorite website for this is the CIA World Factbook.
Amnesty International has great resources for this type of research as well.
The CIA World Factbook states that as of 2010 the Maternal Mortality rate in the Unites States is 21 per 100,000 live births. The MMR is the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes).
This brings the number to around 600 deaths each year caused by childbirth. The statement? ZERO the facts SIX HUNDRED.
The facts? Since Walsh made his statement he has tried to backtrack by saying that outside of "very rare circumstances ... an invasive and traumatic procedure like abortion is often, thankfully, not necessary to save the life of a mother."
Now what tends to happen after these gaffes is that the opponent will capitalize on the abortion issue and the moron who uttered the inaccuracies to begin with will start saying things like "Now all my opponent wants to talk about is abortion- I want to talk about the issues."
Here is what these gentlemen don't understand. When you say things that are blatantly untrue about the bodies, minds and rights of over half the population, you're going to realize that they care a lot about things like science, or personal experiences. Ask a women who has lost a child in order to save her own life what it feels like to have a rookie tea-party candidate say that she in fact doesn't exist.
It's kind of a big deal.
So Todd Akin, Roger Rivard and now Joe Walsh- why don't you consult women and the intelligent before laying down absolutes to show how despicable and out of touch you are with women and reality in general.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Binders Full of Women
Mitt Romney needed to recruit and collect women for his cabinet as Governor of Massachusetts...so what did he do?
He called for the BINDERS.
He called for the BINDERS.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Girls "rape easy"
Todd Akin believes women can stop themselves from getting pregnant should they encounter a "legitimate rape" but state representative Rep. Roger Rivard has a different spin on sexual assault.
In an award winning display of male ignorance Rivard (R, Wisconsin) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that, “some girls just rape easy” in an interview Wednesday.
Though the Milwaukee Journal only reported in the interview yesterday, Rivard actually made his controversial remark in December, when he talked to The Chetek Alert newspaper about the case of a 17-year-old high school student who was charged with sexual assault after having sex with an underage girl in the band room. The legal age of consent is 16 in Wisconsin.
What's worse and super awkward is the way he later stated that the remark was "taken kind of out context."
So what did he mean?
Well apparently his father was offering the Rep. some advice on the case and he meant to convey that if "you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry."
"Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy,'" Rivard said.
Great advice Dad- on the up side we can hope that this spells the end of this politicians career as Republicans are jumping in line to withdraw support.
Some men...insert funny comment about the mighty falling so easily.
In an award winning display of male ignorance Rivard (R, Wisconsin) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that, “some girls just rape easy” in an interview Wednesday.
Though the Milwaukee Journal only reported in the interview yesterday, Rivard actually made his controversial remark in December, when he talked to The Chetek Alert newspaper about the case of a 17-year-old high school student who was charged with sexual assault after having sex with an underage girl in the band room. The legal age of consent is 16 in Wisconsin.
What's worse and super awkward is the way he later stated that the remark was "taken kind of out context."
So what did he mean?
Well apparently his father was offering the Rep. some advice on the case and he meant to convey that if "you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry."
"Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy,'" Rivard said.
Great advice Dad- on the up side we can hope that this spells the end of this politicians career as Republicans are jumping in line to withdraw support.
Some men...insert funny comment about the mighty falling so easily.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Suprise! Free Contraception=Fewer Abortion
The Associated Press published an article this morning with the results of a large study on the relationship between free contraception and abortions. The results? Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births. What a surprise....
You can read the full article here.
But don't think that this study has swayed the opinions of the naysayers- here's a taste of the rhetoric from conservative Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council-
She suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior.
"Additionally, one might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective,"
Good grief.
You can read the full article here.
But don't think that this study has swayed the opinions of the naysayers- here's a taste of the rhetoric from conservative Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council-
She suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior.
"Additionally, one might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective,"
Good grief.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Happy World Contraception Day!
World Contraception Day is a holiday that I can get behind.
Family Planning makes sense- fiscally and environmentally. The best place to be is one where you can decide when to have children and achieve a better life for them when you do.
Family Planning makes sense- fiscally and environmentally. The best place to be is one where you can decide when to have children and achieve a better life for them when you do.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Endorse this
I want to point out how the issue of abortion is being talked about within the context of the Democratic convention.
Anatomically speaking, the Democratic party has a much higher batting average than there Republican counterparts.
Nancy Keenan kicked serious ass in her talk about women not being able to trust Mitt Romney. She mentioned Sandra Fluke and the fact that Obama supported her and spoke out about Rush Limbaugh's insane incorrect tirade. She pointed out that the affordable care act offered women no-cost birth control and crucial reproductive services to all women.
Reproductive right's are a main artery for the Democratic convention in part because it's a vote getter and in part because the Republican party passed an anti-abortion bill to the extent of a ban EVEN in the case of rape.
I predict this continues for the remainder of the speeches and that Barack himself gets a slam dunk- fist pumping "Hell yes" from me when he nails this in his acceptance speech.
Anatomically speaking, the Democratic party has a much higher batting average than there Republican counterparts.
Nancy Keenan kicked serious ass in her talk about women not being able to trust Mitt Romney. She mentioned Sandra Fluke and the fact that Obama supported her and spoke out about Rush Limbaugh's insane incorrect tirade. She pointed out that the affordable care act offered women no-cost birth control and crucial reproductive services to all women.
Reproductive right's are a main artery for the Democratic convention in part because it's a vote getter and in part because the Republican party passed an anti-abortion bill to the extent of a ban EVEN in the case of rape.
I predict this continues for the remainder of the speeches and that Barack himself gets a slam dunk- fist pumping "Hell yes" from me when he nails this in his acceptance speech.
Monday, August 27, 2012
What RAPE? Methods of Conception don't change Paul Ryan
According to Paul Ryan abortion is never an acceptable option. But what about in the case of Rape?
Even the most pro-life of opinions will often make an exception for the instance of forced sex. Sure, women who get pregnant by someone other than a Rapist can lie in the bed they made themselves (umm...). Those women are sluts who can only blame themselves for their wanton behavior.
But Rapists are evil, horrible, disgusting half people and if a women becomes pregnant by a rapist the rhetoric quickly changes, right?
Well, enter Mr. VP Nominee himself, Paul Ryan. He says "I'm really proud of my pro-life record and um I've always adopted the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life.
Method of conception...hmmmm. So he's saying that rape is a "method of conception." First of all we should alert Todd Akin who is of the mindset that women's bodies have super anti-pregnant sparkles that rain through their vaginas when being raped. Second of all we should ask Mr. Ryan to perhaps think before he says something so insensitive and offensive. Of course unless he can say first hand that he has been methoded of conceptioned?
Ryan does go on to point out that it is the President who makes policy and he is not the one on the Romney/Ryan ticket that is going for that particular gig.
Romney- out of state with his party members who aline their thinking with Akin and Ryan- would create policy that did allow the exception of rape victims from abortion bans.
Even the most pro-life of opinions will often make an exception for the instance of forced sex. Sure, women who get pregnant by someone other than a Rapist can lie in the bed they made themselves (umm...). Those women are sluts who can only blame themselves for their wanton behavior.
But Rapists are evil, horrible, disgusting half people and if a women becomes pregnant by a rapist the rhetoric quickly changes, right?
Well, enter Mr. VP Nominee himself, Paul Ryan. He says "I'm really proud of my pro-life record and um I've always adopted the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life.
Method of conception...hmmmm. So he's saying that rape is a "method of conception." First of all we should alert Todd Akin who is of the mindset that women's bodies have super anti-pregnant sparkles that rain through their vaginas when being raped. Second of all we should ask Mr. Ryan to perhaps think before he says something so insensitive and offensive. Of course unless he can say first hand that he has been methoded of conceptioned?
Ryan does go on to point out that it is the President who makes policy and he is not the one on the Romney/Ryan ticket that is going for that particular gig.
Romney- out of state with his party members who aline their thinking with Akin and Ryan- would create policy that did allow the exception of rape victims from abortion bans.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Todd Akin- "Oh wait, that's Duck's"
The backlash against Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin continues to grow after Akin made the senseless remark that women could prevent themselves from getting pregnant in the instance of being raped.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had his spokesperson report that in the case of a Romney/Ryan presidency the pair would not try to limit abortion access for rape victims. Which is a tremendous relief right? Not really, though it does serve the purpose of distancing themselves from Akin's asinine statement.
One of the most interesting articles that I've come across about the situation is from the website rawstory.
I didn't know this- but apparently female ducks have developed genitalia that can actually prevent sperm from forced penetrations from reaching the egg.
The scientist reporting stated:
“It shows that females are not passive in averting exploitation by males with large phalluses."
Another fact I did not know:
Waterfowl are among only three percent of birds with phalluses large enough to penetrate their female counterparts with or without consent.
Seriously though this article is a must read- go click the link above. I chose not to view the video of a duck penis at the end but if you do please feel free to comment.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had his spokesperson report that in the case of a Romney/Ryan presidency the pair would not try to limit abortion access for rape victims. Which is a tremendous relief right? Not really, though it does serve the purpose of distancing themselves from Akin's asinine statement.
One of the most interesting articles that I've come across about the situation is from the website rawstory.
I didn't know this- but apparently female ducks have developed genitalia that can actually prevent sperm from forced penetrations from reaching the egg.
The scientist reporting stated:
“It shows that females are not passive in averting exploitation by males with large phalluses."
Another fact I did not know:
Waterfowl are among only three percent of birds with phalluses large enough to penetrate their female counterparts with or without consent.
Seriously though this article is a must read- go click the link above. I chose not to view the video of a duck penis at the end but if you do please feel free to comment.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Todd Akin thinks Rapes don't make Ladies Pregnant
In an utterly disgusting display of ignorance and "fake speak", Republican Todd Akin of Missouri had this to say when asked about abortions in the instance of rape:
"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare,” Akin said, referring to conception following a rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."
What the &^%*!
I'd like him to further explain the term "legitimate rape" for one and secondly I would LOVE to know what he knows about the female body and the reproductive system in general.
This type of rhetoric is anachronistic and dangerous. There are people who will listen to what this man has said and think that maybe we shouldn't allow rape victims to get abortions because after all if it was a legitimate rape they wouldn't have let their body become pregnant.
I'm pretty sure they used that argument in mid evil Europe to defend rapists.
I'm also sure that rape victims who have gotten pregnant due to being raped would have an interesting perspective to offer this clueless man.
"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare,” Akin said, referring to conception following a rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."
What the &^%*!
I'd like him to further explain the term "legitimate rape" for one and secondly I would LOVE to know what he knows about the female body and the reproductive system in general.
This type of rhetoric is anachronistic and dangerous. There are people who will listen to what this man has said and think that maybe we shouldn't allow rape victims to get abortions because after all if it was a legitimate rape they wouldn't have let their body become pregnant.
I'm pretty sure they used that argument in mid evil Europe to defend rapists.
I'm also sure that rape victims who have gotten pregnant due to being raped would have an interesting perspective to offer this clueless man.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Blinded by the White
I unfortunately had to endure Fox news this morning at a Diner where I went to breakfast with a girlfriend in Somerville Ma. All they were talking about was Romeny's VP pick Paul Ryan and it didn't take me long to notice a theme. All you could see on the TV was white men. Three different white men talking about the two white men running on the GOP ticket this Fall. More white men arguing with the three white men about the two white men... you get the picture.
On the list of Paul Ryan's Dislikes you will find- women, minorities and the poor. What a winner.
Check out Women's E-News for more on the reaction this stellar pick has gotten from the real people in the world.
On the list of Paul Ryan's Dislikes you will find- women, minorities and the poor. What a winner.
Check out Women's E-News for more on the reaction this stellar pick has gotten from the real people in the world.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Olympic Feminism Outsourced
I haven't watched any of the Olympics and therefore haven't seen fit to comment on them. I did read a very well-written piece this afternoon though and you should read it too.
Click Me!
Click Me!
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Free Birth Control Pills
There have been plenty of things to bemoan about in terms of women's reproductive rights this past week- but there is one thing that calls for an absolute celebration.
The Affordable Care Act which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court vastly expands access to no-cost birth control for women. It also expands access to copay-free preventive health care, including cancer screenings, HIV and STI testing, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and prenatal and post-partum care and counseling.
For a list of Frequently Asked Questions check out this link that will take you over to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
(A big Punk Rock fist in the air).
The Affordable Care Act which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court vastly expands access to no-cost birth control for women. It also expands access to copay-free preventive health care, including cancer screenings, HIV and STI testing, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and prenatal and post-partum care and counseling.
For a list of Frequently Asked Questions check out this link that will take you over to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
(A big Punk Rock fist in the air).
Monday, July 30, 2012
Arizona Goes Rogue
Following the alarming trend of anti-choice legislation Arizona has taken it a step farther. A Judge has upheld the federal court decision upholding Arizona’s unconstitutional pre-viability ban on abortion to take effect.
U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg today denied a request to temporarily block the law from taking effect on August 2. The Judge also issued a final ruling upholding the statute. The law bans all abortion procedures at 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP) without any exceptions for a pregnant woman’s life or health unless she is experiencing a dire and possibly life-threatening emergency.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that states cannot ban abortion before viability(usually thought to be around 23 or 24 weeks) and only then as long as such restrictions have an exception for the health or life of the mother. The Supreme Court has not allowed bans prior to that point in pregnancy. In fact in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) the Supreme Court recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".
For more on this disturbing ruling head over to the the press release from the Center For Reproductive Rights.
Or to Mother Jones for more reactions.
U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg today denied a request to temporarily block the law from taking effect on August 2. The Judge also issued a final ruling upholding the statute. The law bans all abortion procedures at 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP) without any exceptions for a pregnant woman’s life or health unless she is experiencing a dire and possibly life-threatening emergency.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that states cannot ban abortion before viability(usually thought to be around 23 or 24 weeks) and only then as long as such restrictions have an exception for the health or life of the mother. The Supreme Court has not allowed bans prior to that point in pregnancy. In fact in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) the Supreme Court recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".
For more on this disturbing ruling head over to the the press release from the Center For Reproductive Rights.
Or to Mother Jones for more reactions.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Lying is okay in South Dakota
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found on Tuesday (by a vote of 7 to 4) that South Dakota can require doctors to warn women that they face an increased risk of suicide if they have an abortion, even though they don't.
The majority opinion states: ""On its face, the suicide advisory presents neither an undue burden on abortion rights nor a violation of physicians' free speech rights," the court wrote in its majority opinion."
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Kill this- Bikini Kill Record Label
In this otherwise awful stupid day, I just got some super punk rock news off the Bitch Magazine's Website.
Bikini Kill starts Bikini Kill Records
(Fist in the air, Rah Rah)
Bikini Kill starts Bikini Kill Records
(Fist in the air, Rah Rah)
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
We Need to be Louder- Arizona and Embryonic Person
Arizona's latest anti-choice/anti-women law is being challenged in Court by Planned Parenthood.
Personhood legislation is not new and it is gaining momentum. Check out some of the people behind Personhood USA.
These are two startling examples of how realistic the threats against reproductive freedoms are. Rights are being written for the unborn over the alive. Think about that- a women will be out "righted" by a fetus- a non person will have rights that a person will not. That is what these people are proposing. It's horrifying.
Personhood legislation is not new and it is gaining momentum. Check out some of the people behind Personhood USA.
These are two startling examples of how realistic the threats against reproductive freedoms are. Rights are being written for the unborn over the alive. Think about that- a women will be out "righted" by a fetus- a non person will have rights that a person will not. That is what these people are proposing. It's horrifying.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Articles of Faith...again
When I was reading Cynthia Gorney's Articles of Faith, I said I would update along the way. I didn't. In part because life happens and I was happy enough to be reading the text for later discussion if not immediate critique. I finished the book months ago but for one reason or another did not make it back here to analyze nor share the profound effect that this book had on me.
This book is lauded by many- it's hailed for being a truly unbiased account of the build up to and immediate after affects of the Roe v Wade ruling in the Supreme Court. In a very abbreviated fashion here are two things
1. The abortion "wars" have been and and will continue to be fought by those who without a doubt believe in and or abhor the right for a women to abort a pregnancy in the United States.
2. This issue will never be decided 100% in favor of or against a women's right to choose.
Number two is a pill that was very difficult for me to swallow. Never? The abortion wars will never be decided in this country? What? How can that be? Either a women has the right to terminate a pregnancy or she doesn't...right?
In my idea of a perfect world the women who are already born will without a doubt own and control the outcome of their bodies- period.
This book is lauded by many- it's hailed for being a truly unbiased account of the build up to and immediate after affects of the Roe v Wade ruling in the Supreme Court. In a very abbreviated fashion here are two things
1. The abortion "wars" have been and and will continue to be fought by those who without a doubt believe in and or abhor the right for a women to abort a pregnancy in the United States.
2. This issue will never be decided 100% in favor of or against a women's right to choose.
Number two is a pill that was very difficult for me to swallow. Never? The abortion wars will never be decided in this country? What? How can that be? Either a women has the right to terminate a pregnancy or she doesn't...right?
In my idea of a perfect world the women who are already born will without a doubt own and control the outcome of their bodies- period.
Feminists Don't Laugh About Rape
I've written before that I don't have a sense of humor. When it comes to certain things, I can't laugh- regardless of how "funny" others may think something is.
Feminists already have a bad rap for taking things too seriously but I don't that's a bad thing. The problem lies with the rest of society not taking things seriously enough and then ostracizing those who speak out. How many times have you heard people refer to Feminists as too "uptight", or that they should just "lighten up"? Some of the most abhorrent rhetoric out there about Feminists is that they "need to get laid" or "stay in the kitchen". I'm not sorry that those things fail to amuse me.
Daniel Tosh- up until yesterday I knew of him very vaguely. The only thing I had heard about Tosh is that he doesn't discriminate against who he offends and that isn't rare when talking about stand up comedians. Recently a young women told her account about her experience while seeing Tosh at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood. A friend of the women posted the story on her blog. You can find the original post here.
"Tosh [started] making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny, rape is hilarious."
Feminists already have a bad rap for taking things too seriously but I don't that's a bad thing. The problem lies with the rest of society not taking things seriously enough and then ostracizing those who speak out. How many times have you heard people refer to Feminists as too "uptight", or that they should just "lighten up"? Some of the most abhorrent rhetoric out there about Feminists is that they "need to get laid" or "stay in the kitchen". I'm not sorry that those things fail to amuse me.
Daniel Tosh- up until yesterday I knew of him very vaguely. The only thing I had heard about Tosh is that he doesn't discriminate against who he offends and that isn't rare when talking about stand up comedians. Recently a young women told her account about her experience while seeing Tosh at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood. A friend of the women posted the story on her blog. You can find the original post here.
"Tosh [started] making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny, rape is hilarious."
The women, feeling "provoked" stood up and shouted "Actually, rape jokes are never funny!"
"After I called out to him, Tosh paused for a moment. Then, he says,
'Wouldn't it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now?
Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her...' and I,
completely stunned and finding it hard to process what was happening but
knowing I needed to get out of there, immediately nudged my friend, who
was also completely stunned, and we high-tailed it out of there ..."
Later in the post she says "I should probably add that having to basically flee while Tosh was
enthusing about how hilarious it would be if I was gang-raped in that
small, claustrophobic room was pretty viscerally terrifying..."
The situation in and of itself is disturbing and the young women prefaces her story by saying she was rather apprehensive about attending the show to begin. She also says didn't know who Daniel Tosh was when she decided to see the show
I acknowledge that going to a comedy club is in a way an invitation to be offended. This goes above and beyond being offended however. If Tosh wanted to continue his show after being shouted at he should have asked security to remove the "heckler" and go on with his show. You can blame her for heckling/speaking up- but for all of those who may think she deserved the comments that followed because she interrupted his "performance" should realize that it's the performer who has the power and control over the audience. Tosh instead proceeded to make a spectacle out of her and turn her comment around to make her the subject of a never funny joke about getting raped.
One thing is certain- Rape jokes aren't funny, ever- I would have gotten up and left. More over I may have shouted a certain word or two on my way out.
Tosh doesn't get that it isn't about taking awful things and joking about them to make them less awful- his reasoning for where he was going with the words was,"the point i was making before i was heckled is there are awful things in the world but you can still make jokes about them."
Okay...that doesn't make them less awful at all. It trivializes violence against women and desensitizes us from reacting accordingly to gross violence. I also want to ask where the joke was in all of this- Tosh said what he said, it wasn't a waiting for the punchline but the punchline didn't come situation- he never even started a joke. He through out a scenario and stated that it would be funny if this girl was raped. You can't see a joke in there because there isn't one.
I don't understand how someone could think "wouldn't it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? What kind of sick freak would sit there and laugh at a girl being gang raped in front of them? The people in that audience would not have been laughing if 5 guys stood up and attacked a women in front of them.
Here is the most frustrating part- I can hear the statement "it's a joke, it's not supposed to be taken seriously" coming from innumerable sources. I read the comments left by people after reading the story and they are repulsive. The scenario is repulsive. The comedian just isn't funny.
Okay...that doesn't make them less awful at all. It trivializes violence against women and desensitizes us from reacting accordingly to gross violence. I also want to ask where the joke was in all of this- Tosh said what he said, it wasn't a waiting for the punchline but the punchline didn't come situation- he never even started a joke. He through out a scenario and stated that it would be funny if this girl was raped. You can't see a joke in there because there isn't one.
I don't understand how someone could think "wouldn't it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? What kind of sick freak would sit there and laugh at a girl being gang raped in front of them? The people in that audience would not have been laughing if 5 guys stood up and attacked a women in front of them.
Here is the most frustrating part- I can hear the statement "it's a joke, it's not supposed to be taken seriously" coming from innumerable sources. I read the comments left by people after reading the story and they are repulsive. The scenario is repulsive. The comedian just isn't funny.
Never ceases to
amaze me how someone could go to an edgy show, like Tosh's, and be
offended. DONT GO. Please dont ruin life for the rest of us. I hope
this lady doesnt have kids to infect the future with her stupidity
Never ceases to
amaze me how someone could go to an edgy show, like Tosh's, and be
offended. DONT GO. Please dont ruin life for the rest of us. I hope
this lady doesnt have kids to infect the future with her stupidity
Never ceases to
amaze me how someone could go to an edgy show, like Tosh's, and be
offended. DONT GO. Please dont ruin life for the rest of us. I hope
this lady doesnt have kids to infect the future with her stupidity
Never ceases to
amaze me how someone could go to an edgy show, like Tosh's, and be
offended. DONT GO. Please dont ruin life for the rest of us. I hope
this lady doesnt have kids to infect the future with her stupidity
Never ceases to
amaze me how someone could go to an edgy show, like Tosh's, and be
offended. DONT GO. Please dont ruin life for the rest of us. I hope
this lady doesnt have kids to infect the future with her stupidity
Monday, July 2, 2012
Mississippi
Today a judge blocked enforcement of a Law that put Mississippi on the path to becoming the only state in the country without an abortion clinic. The law, which required any physician doing abortions at the clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. The two doctors who currently preform the abortions have requested permission at the local hospital but that has not been granted.
"The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi", Says Nancy Northup CEO of the Center for Reproductive rights based in New York City."
The temporary restraining order was based on evidence that the act is solely about eliminating abortion in Mississippi.
"The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi", Says Nancy Northup CEO of the Center for Reproductive rights based in New York City."
The temporary restraining order was based on evidence that the act is solely about eliminating abortion in Mississippi.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Obamacare
The Affordable Care Act otherwise known as "Obamacare" was upheld today in the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts was the majority vote but no hell hasn't frozen over.
Of course, some concerns still remain- especially for low income women. Head over to Womens E News for more on that story.
Of course, some concerns still remain- especially for low income women. Head over to Womens E News for more on that story.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Remember the Ladies
I had been working on a post about the Michigan "Vagina Incident" in which a state senator was barred from speaking the rest of the day after referencing her vagina. I'm not going to finish that post- at least not right now.
Today I will bring you a smorgasbord of reports on various issues and you can pick and choose what you're interested in.
First I bring you an update on Sandra Fluke- Yup, shes the one deemed a "slut" and a "prostitute" by beloved cultural commentator Rush Limbaugh. He also said that if Ms. Fluke wanted "us" to pay for her birth control then she should post videos so that "we" could watch. Charming man.
So what is Sandra Flukeup to these days after spiraling into the spotlight?
I mentioned earlier in the month that Anita Sarkeesian (of Feminist Frequency)was wrapping up a kick ass first time kickstarter project on the portrayal of women in video games. So how did it work out in the end? Just the beginning!
The Third (you gotta start somewhere) Annual Forbes Top 100 Websites For Women is out and it's pretty interesting. See the blogs out there that cater to the every women- the mom, the career minded, the athletes and,of course - the feminists.
Today I will bring you a smorgasbord of reports on various issues and you can pick and choose what you're interested in.
First I bring you an update on Sandra Fluke- Yup, shes the one deemed a "slut" and a "prostitute" by beloved cultural commentator Rush Limbaugh. He also said that if Ms. Fluke wanted "us" to pay for her birth control then she should post videos so that "we" could watch. Charming man.
So what is Sandra Flukeup to these days after spiraling into the spotlight?
I mentioned earlier in the month that Anita Sarkeesian (of Feminist Frequency)was wrapping up a kick ass first time kickstarter project on the portrayal of women in video games. So how did it work out in the end? Just the beginning!
The Third (you gotta start somewhere) Annual Forbes Top 100 Websites For Women is out and it's pretty interesting. See the blogs out there that cater to the every women- the mom, the career minded, the athletes and,of course - the feminists.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Feminist Frequency
Anita Sarkeesian, founder of the Feminist Frequency is wrapping up her Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a video series on the representation of women in the Gaming World.
Anita's website kicks ass for a variety of reasons but the thing I love the most is how she is able to discuss pop culture issues in an intelligent, well thought out and fully informed manner. She doesn't talk down to anyone and will touch on many sides of an issue without wandering from her original point. She is a great role model to young women and a brilliant representation of Feminism.
So head over to her Kickstarter campaign or if it's too late for that go ahead and bookmark her website asap.
Anita's website kicks ass for a variety of reasons but the thing I love the most is how she is able to discuss pop culture issues in an intelligent, well thought out and fully informed manner. She doesn't talk down to anyone and will touch on many sides of an issue without wandering from her original point. She is a great role model to young women and a brilliant representation of Feminism.
So head over to her Kickstarter campaign or if it's too late for that go ahead and bookmark her website asap.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Suicide
"Let yourself be angry. Do not be afraid. They cannot hurt you unless you let them. But you have little time. There’s a bad danger coming"
Jameson Greely Lavo 12/1/1984-6/1/2012
Jameson Greely Lavo 12/1/1984-6/1/2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Maxi Pad Philanthropy
The latest issue of Bitch Magazine contains a piece that has reignited my curiosity on the subject of menstrual pad donations. Specifically the western world sending maxi pads to developing nations as "humanitarian" aid.
In 2007, Proctor and Gamble began a program called Protecting Futures. The research used in advertisements stated that in Africa, 1/10 girls miss up to 4 days a month due to insufficient materials and facilities to hygienically and privately handle their menstrual flow. P and G donated pads as well as creating sanitary facilities so those 1/10 girls wouldn't miss school.
This program is coming to the end of its five year run and its total merits can be debated at a later time. What pleased me about the article in Bitch was that it pointed out alternatives that are more environmentally sustainable and are created much closer to home- and hopefully eventually eliminating the need to donate corporate pads at all.
From a Indian man inventing a stainless steel small motor pad-making machine (only sold to NGOs and womens collectives) to a group of women students in Malaysia who invented a biodegradable pad made from tapioca, banana fiber and vinegar to a Kenyan NGO started by 8 mothers (K-MET)that assemble reusable cloth napkins and then travel throughout the country teaching others how to- the developing world is finding it's own way to provide sanitary solutions for its women. Proctor and Gamble need not apply.
In 2007, Proctor and Gamble began a program called Protecting Futures. The research used in advertisements stated that in Africa, 1/10 girls miss up to 4 days a month due to insufficient materials and facilities to hygienically and privately handle their menstrual flow. P and G donated pads as well as creating sanitary facilities so those 1/10 girls wouldn't miss school.
This program is coming to the end of its five year run and its total merits can be debated at a later time. What pleased me about the article in Bitch was that it pointed out alternatives that are more environmentally sustainable and are created much closer to home- and hopefully eventually eliminating the need to donate corporate pads at all.
From a Indian man inventing a stainless steel small motor pad-making machine (only sold to NGOs and womens collectives) to a group of women students in Malaysia who invented a biodegradable pad made from tapioca, banana fiber and vinegar to a Kenyan NGO started by 8 mothers (K-MET)that assemble reusable cloth napkins and then travel throughout the country teaching others how to- the developing world is finding it's own way to provide sanitary solutions for its women. Proctor and Gamble need not apply.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Sir Richards- Ethical Condoms
Sir Richard's Condom Company is the condom of equivalent to TOMS. You may have more fun using the condoms then you will wearing the shoes but that's beside the point.
For every condom you purchase from Sir Richards, one is donated to a developing nation. There is a huge condom shortage in the world leaving millions susceptible to preventable diseases. Enter Sir Richard's. In February of this year, working with Partners in Health-SR launched it's first project by donating 500,000 condoms to Haiti. Not just any condoms mind you, a brand manufactured in Haitian Creole called KORE.
Does having socially conscientious branding based on a buy 1 give 1 system to address a giant global health problem make Sir Richard's the best incentive to go out and buy condoms and have a lot of sex?
I certainly think so.
For every condom you purchase from Sir Richards, one is donated to a developing nation. There is a huge condom shortage in the world leaving millions susceptible to preventable diseases. Enter Sir Richard's. In February of this year, working with Partners in Health-SR launched it's first project by donating 500,000 condoms to Haiti. Not just any condoms mind you, a brand manufactured in Haitian Creole called KORE.
Does having socially conscientious branding based on a buy 1 give 1 system to address a giant global health problem make Sir Richard's the best incentive to go out and buy condoms and have a lot of sex?
I certainly think so.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Privacy
That's right, privacy. The constitution of the United States says absolutely nothing about abortion. This is of course, not surprising given that the founding fathers were all...well FATHERS. Seriously though, the constitution is without question a tricky document. There is the ninth amendment which talks about not denying rights simply because they are not specified in the constitution but that's ambiguous at best.
So on what bases did states laws banning abortion become moot? Enter the fourteenth amendment. This includes a "due process clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness".
Using the right to privacy, drawn from the 14th amendments right to due process became linked to the abolition of anti-abortion laws through the land mark case Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Once a precedent was set in this ruling, the possibility of using these grounds to declare states abortion bans unconstitutional became more realistic.
It took several cases, but the one that finally reached the Supreme Court came out of Texas. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Jane Roe (Norma L McCorvey) claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment.
It was found that the ban on abortion in the State of Texas was unconstitutional in that it violated a pregnant women's right to privacy, at least within the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Court argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision looked at the physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Roe v. Wade remains extremely controversial to this day and while it did legalize first trimester abortions it let states decide other factors that very much affect the ease in which women may obtain an abortion. Spousal notifications, parental notifications, waiting periods, mandatory literature, mandatory ultrasounds and banning abortions outside of hospitals are a few examples of the requirements passed by state legislatures.
It remains difficult to categorize Roe v. Wade as a complete victory for women and the right to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term. I think that in some ways Roe got the decision right but went about it in the wrong way. Setting the court’s decision on the trimester formula is far from ideal and doesn't decide what the court says about abortion only the relationship between the right to privacy and the states interests in a women's pregnancy. No set definition of when "life" begins exists and the court’s decision says that. Thus, on the one side you have the Right to Life groups holding that the Supreme Court legalized murder. On the other, the courts poorly reasoned justification for legalizing abortion didn't go far enough and furthermore caused a backlash against abortion that has yet to be repaired.
So on what bases did states laws banning abortion become moot? Enter the fourteenth amendment. This includes a "due process clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness".
Using the right to privacy, drawn from the 14th amendments right to due process became linked to the abolition of anti-abortion laws through the land mark case Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Once a precedent was set in this ruling, the possibility of using these grounds to declare states abortion bans unconstitutional became more realistic.
It took several cases, but the one that finally reached the Supreme Court came out of Texas. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Jane Roe (Norma L McCorvey) claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment.
It was found that the ban on abortion in the State of Texas was unconstitutional in that it violated a pregnant women's right to privacy, at least within the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Court argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision looked at the physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
Roe v. Wade remains extremely controversial to this day and while it did legalize first trimester abortions it let states decide other factors that very much affect the ease in which women may obtain an abortion. Spousal notifications, parental notifications, waiting periods, mandatory literature, mandatory ultrasounds and banning abortions outside of hospitals are a few examples of the requirements passed by state legislatures.
It remains difficult to categorize Roe v. Wade as a complete victory for women and the right to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term. I think that in some ways Roe got the decision right but went about it in the wrong way. Setting the court’s decision on the trimester formula is far from ideal and doesn't decide what the court says about abortion only the relationship between the right to privacy and the states interests in a women's pregnancy. No set definition of when "life" begins exists and the court’s decision says that. Thus, on the one side you have the Right to Life groups holding that the Supreme Court legalized murder. On the other, the courts poorly reasoned justification for legalizing abortion didn't go far enough and furthermore caused a backlash against abortion that has yet to be repaired.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Articles of Faith II
So I've progressed a great deal with Articles of Faith, A Frontline History on the Abortion Wars. Author Cynthia Gorney has a journalism background and her reporting reads like a novel at times. The term fair and balanced has nothing on Gorney- I am continually amazed at her ability to present the information without tilting her hand in either direction. She allows you to get inside of the heads of people who have very valid, honest and genuine feelings about abortion without passing judgement or coming to any conclusions of what the reader should be feeling.
Women were putting themselves into horrific situations to terminate an unwanted pregnancies. While nothing about that fact was new it was becoming clearer and clearer in the mid 1960's, early 1970's that the archaic laws making abortion a felony needed to be changed. The exception was that an abortion could be performed on a women only if her life depended on it. There were those physicians and "others" who would perform an abortion in other circumstances and those illegal abortions were considered felonies. The law did not only apply to those who performed the actual procedure but also to anyone involved in referring a women to someone who could provide the service. Doctors were not allowed to perform an abortion or direct women to anyone who would perform one.
Women were left with no where safe to go and as a result the risks of infection, hysterectomies and even death could not stop them from aborting. Self administered methods or unqualified unhygienic procedures led women to end up in emergency rooms where physicians and nurses saw the botched abortions that came about as a result of criminalizing abortion. Networks did exist in some circumstances to shuttle women along through physicians, volunteers and ministers that took it upon themselves to provide women with the safest possible abortions. Often this consisted of individuals coming together over the devastating reality of women being maimed and killed because they wanted to end their pregnancies. It is these same individuals that lead the charge in the push to go through the state and eventually the National government to get the laws criminalizing abortion changed.
Women were putting themselves into horrific situations to terminate an unwanted pregnancies. While nothing about that fact was new it was becoming clearer and clearer in the mid 1960's, early 1970's that the archaic laws making abortion a felony needed to be changed. The exception was that an abortion could be performed on a women only if her life depended on it. There were those physicians and "others" who would perform an abortion in other circumstances and those illegal abortions were considered felonies. The law did not only apply to those who performed the actual procedure but also to anyone involved in referring a women to someone who could provide the service. Doctors were not allowed to perform an abortion or direct women to anyone who would perform one.
Women were left with no where safe to go and as a result the risks of infection, hysterectomies and even death could not stop them from aborting. Self administered methods or unqualified unhygienic procedures led women to end up in emergency rooms where physicians and nurses saw the botched abortions that came about as a result of criminalizing abortion. Networks did exist in some circumstances to shuttle women along through physicians, volunteers and ministers that took it upon themselves to provide women with the safest possible abortions. Often this consisted of individuals coming together over the devastating reality of women being maimed and killed because they wanted to end their pregnancies. It is these same individuals that lead the charge in the push to go through the state and eventually the National government to get the laws criminalizing abortion changed.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Articles of Faith
Last week I posted the audio reel featured on NPR's shades of gray. Originally released by PRI in 2003, Jonathan Mitchell produces a truly balanced portrayal of Abortion in America.
It was from this program that I heard about the book Articles of Faith A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney.
I started reading the book this weekend and am finding it hard to put down. Part of what drew me to it was the reviews which all indicated that this is the most balanced and unbiased look at the two sides of the abortion wars.
The first chapter is largely geared towards illegal or "back alley" abortions. The criminalization of abortion did little to deter women from seeking them. Women with resources could find safe abortions in some cases but women without money had no choice but to attempt their own or seek out dangerous alternatives. Many women paid for those decisions with their lives. Chapter one describes the network of doctors, ministers and other volunteers who took the risks involved in providing women with options for a safe abortion. These individuals operate outside the law with the sole intent of preventing women from subjecting themselves to unsafe abortions.
More on this book as I progress though it.
It was from this program that I heard about the book Articles of Faith A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney.
I started reading the book this weekend and am finding it hard to put down. Part of what drew me to it was the reviews which all indicated that this is the most balanced and unbiased look at the two sides of the abortion wars.
The first chapter is largely geared towards illegal or "back alley" abortions. The criminalization of abortion did little to deter women from seeking them. Women with resources could find safe abortions in some cases but women without money had no choice but to attempt their own or seek out dangerous alternatives. Many women paid for those decisions with their lives. Chapter one describes the network of doctors, ministers and other volunteers who took the risks involved in providing women with options for a safe abortion. These individuals operate outside the law with the sole intent of preventing women from subjecting themselves to unsafe abortions.
More on this book as I progress though it.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Equal Pay and More Outrage
Today is Equal Pay Day. Hooray! and Boo that we still have to talk about something like people getting paid equally for doing the same thing.
On the ongoing battle front I will share with you the following:
Naral Pro-Choice has a yearly report card grading each state on their reproductive rights and it's very interesting/frigthening. Mild surprises to me?
Massachusetts gets a B- (only a B-?), Idaho is the only state to lack a single Pro-Choice law (not even one?) and 20 states have unconstitutional and unenforceable bans that could outlaw abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy, with no exception to protect a woman’s health: AL, AK, FL,ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MS, NE, NJ, ND, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, WV, WI.
The top 3 states? California, Washington and Connecticut.
The bottom 3? Louisiana, North Dakota and Mississippi.
The scariest part of the whole report is that our national grade is a inexcusable D. Overall, 21 states receive F's.
For the full report check this out.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Brilliant Audio Reel- Jonathan Mitchell
PRX Shades of Gray
Pro-choice. Pro-life. Most people have already chosen sides in the ongoing debate, so why revisit the issue? Shades of Gray shares a range of stories told by people young and old who have been directly affected by abortion, instead of the polemics of irreconcilable extremes. It's a carefully crafted audio mosaic and a stark portrayal of the intensely personal nature of our relationship with abortion. Originally distributed nationally by PRI in January, 2003 Winner of the 2004 Golden Reel for National Documentary
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A day in the life
It's been a little while since my last update. I was spending a lot of energy applying for a job that didn't pan out and my family was in town for the Easter holiday. Now I'm bed ridden with a frustrating cold/flu/sickness which is not so much getting better as getting different.
So while I have a few moments before playoff hockey officially begins, I thought I would note a few things going on in the life of a feminist.
I'm participating in a bowling fundraiser this Sunday for The Western Mass Abortion Fund.
Signed my name to a letter telling one women's heart breaking story about the negative effects of Nebraska's 20-week abortion ban, read and sign here.
Stumbled upon Anita Sarkeesian's fabulous website about feminism and pop culture Bookmark this site people.
That's all my feverish self has in me right now-
Monday, March 19, 2012
Doonesbury
The Republican newspaper published my LOE on Gary Trudeaus comic strip Doonesbury. Trudeau walked the reader through what a young women would go through to obtain an abortion under the Texas law requiring a trans vaginal ultrasound.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Doonesbury and Trudeau
The Texas sonogram law passed by Governor Rick Perry is one that does indeed "rape" women. Understand this, women who choose to terminate a pregnancy will undergo a trans vaginal ultrasound almost 100% of the time. The requirement in Texas stands that any woman who wants an abortion has to first undergo an ultrasound using a 10 inch sonogram wand to obtain fetal information. In this way the law is absolutley forcing itself upon women i.e. raping them.
Now during the procedure we know that the wand is inserted to visually display the fetus. What the horrible wretched law requires next is just disgusting- the pregnant women is then forced to look at the image of her fetus and listen to the heartbeat. Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort.
IF and only IF you decide to have an abortion and willingly put yourself in the care of the doctors and nurses who perform these screenings can you refrain from calling the insertion portion of this procedure rape. The remainder of the procedure, in my opinion, is more damaging to women then the actual abortion surgery or process.
Imagine the scariest scenario you can think and put a person with their eyes pried open (science fiction-Orwellian, whatever) and then add the beating of Poe's Tell Tale Heart. Do I exaggerate? Only by making these comments especially visceral and slightly dramatic- but even then I'm holding back from saying what a cruel unnecessary mind fuck law this is.
This weeks Doonesbury comic by Gary Trudeau has been pulled from some newspapers who aren't kosher with his take on the Texas law. This is the second time in his career that Trudeau has been pulled from certain papers. The strip begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion. The nurse tells her- “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.”
There it is-
Another strip has a nurse ask the young lady if it is her first pregnancy termination and when the young women replies with yes she says "Then you'll need to fill out this form. Please take a seat in the shaming room."
Shame, shame, shame. If abortion is legal, which it is, the proverbial waging tsk tsk scolding finger is at least publicly removed. Before abortion was legalized you could literally be shamed to death for seeking one but now it's left up to the states and their governments to humiliate any women who allows herself (because there isn't anyone else involved of course) to get knocked up. Those who have the least invested in women's health spend time and resources on reversing the progress made in the field of reproductive rights.
Gary Trudeau has done something really important with Doonesbury this week. One, he has brilliantly captured the absurdities of the bill in Texas in a way that couldn't be easier to understand. Secondly, he has done so in a way that brings attention to the law regardless of an individuals stand point. Perhaps most importantly of all, Trudeau offers a rare (albeit satirical) view of the experience that so many feel they have the right to offer insight into- being a young women who seeks to hold herself first and exercise her legal rights to have an abortion.
Now during the procedure we know that the wand is inserted to visually display the fetus. What the horrible wretched law requires next is just disgusting- the pregnant women is then forced to look at the image of her fetus and listen to the heartbeat. Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort.
IF and only IF you decide to have an abortion and willingly put yourself in the care of the doctors and nurses who perform these screenings can you refrain from calling the insertion portion of this procedure rape. The remainder of the procedure, in my opinion, is more damaging to women then the actual abortion surgery or process.
Imagine the scariest scenario you can think and put a person with their eyes pried open (science fiction-Orwellian, whatever) and then add the beating of Poe's Tell Tale Heart. Do I exaggerate? Only by making these comments especially visceral and slightly dramatic- but even then I'm holding back from saying what a cruel unnecessary mind fuck law this is.
This weeks Doonesbury comic by Gary Trudeau has been pulled from some newspapers who aren't kosher with his take on the Texas law. This is the second time in his career that Trudeau has been pulled from certain papers. The strip begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion. The nurse tells her- “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.”
There it is-
Another strip has a nurse ask the young lady if it is her first pregnancy termination and when the young women replies with yes she says "Then you'll need to fill out this form. Please take a seat in the shaming room."
Shame, shame, shame. If abortion is legal, which it is, the proverbial waging tsk tsk scolding finger is at least publicly removed. Before abortion was legalized you could literally be shamed to death for seeking one but now it's left up to the states and their governments to humiliate any women who allows herself (because there isn't anyone else involved of course) to get knocked up. Those who have the least invested in women's health spend time and resources on reversing the progress made in the field of reproductive rights.
Gary Trudeau has done something really important with Doonesbury this week. One, he has brilliantly captured the absurdities of the bill in Texas in a way that couldn't be easier to understand. Secondly, he has done so in a way that brings attention to the law regardless of an individuals stand point. Perhaps most importantly of all, Trudeau offers a rare (albeit satirical) view of the experience that so many feel they have the right to offer insight into- being a young women who seeks to hold herself first and exercise her legal rights to have an abortion.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
International Women's Day
Happy International Women's Day!
Women's eNew has a wonderfully written and comprehensive Arab Women in Revolution Report.
Here is an article written by Kevin Powell as an open letter to Men and Boys
This is a list of the 100 top achieving women from Women's eNews
Here is the letter written by Abigal Adams in which she tells John Adams to Remember the Ladies
And lastly, the Christian Science Monitor reports on how International Women's Day is celebrated around the world
Women's eNew has a wonderfully written and comprehensive Arab Women in Revolution Report.
Here is an article written by Kevin Powell as an open letter to Men and Boys
This is a list of the 100 top achieving women from Women's eNews
Here is the letter written by Abigal Adams in which she tells John Adams to Remember the Ladies
And lastly, the Christian Science Monitor reports on how International Women's Day is celebrated around the world
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Birth Control Debate Requirement-Know what Birth Control is and How it Works
One thing that Rush Limbaugh made painfully obvious during his disgusting tirade against Sandra Fluke last week is that he has know idea what birth control is.
That's the most dangerous aspect of this entire situation. His language and edict in general is horrendous- he's a very popular sad shock jock and that's nothing new. I want to point out why his tirade against birth control goes above and beyond a base, rude, gross and obnoxious take on a serious situation.
To revisit-
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex." -Rush Limbaugh,
The next day:
"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is. So, I'm offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want. ... So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
So what does Rush get right about birth control pills?
Sure, he knows that it's a pill that women take and that it costs money and he doesn't want to pay for it. But with that logic the pill isn't any different from the aspirin he volunteers to spring for except that men don't need it.
Rush makes a fool out of himself with lines like "she's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."
You need a new condom for every time you have sex but you don't need more birth control. You don't take less or more of the pill as you increase or decrease your sexual activity. In fact Women don't only take oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancies.
I am not so naive to think that this spells the end for Rush Limbaugh- though many of his advertisers have jumped ships and two radio stations (one in Pittsfield Ma. and the other in Hawaii) banned his show. I think he's brought to light one of the key factors in the birth control equation. Educating the public about what contraception is and what it actually does negates at least part of Limbaugh's gaffe because it would expose the fact that you can't criticize what you can't or choose not to understand.
The problem for women is that he does and he does it in the most disgustingly ignorant way as he possibly could.
That's the most dangerous aspect of this entire situation. His language and edict in general is horrendous- he's a very popular sad shock jock and that's nothing new. I want to point out why his tirade against birth control goes above and beyond a base, rude, gross and obnoxious take on a serious situation.
To revisit-
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex." -Rush Limbaugh,
The next day:
"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is. So, I'm offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want. ... So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
So what does Rush get right about birth control pills?
Sure, he knows that it's a pill that women take and that it costs money and he doesn't want to pay for it. But with that logic the pill isn't any different from the aspirin he volunteers to spring for except that men don't need it.
Rush makes a fool out of himself with lines like "she's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."
You need a new condom for every time you have sex but you don't need more birth control. You don't take less or more of the pill as you increase or decrease your sexual activity. In fact Women don't only take oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancies.
I am not so naive to think that this spells the end for Rush Limbaugh- though many of his advertisers have jumped ships and two radio stations (one in Pittsfield Ma. and the other in Hawaii) banned his show. I think he's brought to light one of the key factors in the birth control equation. Educating the public about what contraception is and what it actually does negates at least part of Limbaugh's gaffe because it would expose the fact that you can't criticize what you can't or choose not to understand.
The problem for women is that he does and he does it in the most disgustingly ignorant way as he possibly could.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Uhhh....Rush
I can't think of a single phrase, statement, sentiment or expression that can convey the utter disgust I feel towards Rush Limbaugh. That being said, I don't find his latest tasteless dribble surprising BUT I do think that this time it is impossible to ignore.
“Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud … you would be? Your daughter … testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope. … What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” … If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Here is one of the petitions circling the internet to get this monster off the air.
Another petition here
And a list of his sponsors
And because she is AWESOME, a great video to finish off with.
Virtual Anti-Hate High-five!!
“Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud … you would be? Your daughter … testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope. … What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” … If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Here is one of the petitions circling the internet to get this monster off the air.
Another petition here
And a list of his sponsors
And because she is AWESOME, a great video to finish off with.
Virtual Anti-Hate High-five!!
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Contraception Files
Does it seem that contraception has taken an unrepresented front and center role in the GOP presidential nominee campaign?
I think so. What I don't necessarily know for certain is why. I've read articles in the last few months that claim all sorts of political motivation as to why contraception is the talk of the town with the Republican candidates. Some have indicated that it is the Democrats who are putting birth control front and center-you know, to hide the actual issues in the campaigning by igniting fury over any attempt to limit women from accessing their pill.
But really it is the GOP here that is shooting itself in the foot by making it painfully clear that their leading man isn't as head over heals in love with talking about religious freedoms promoting the denial of contraceptive
As Mitt Romney so eloquently put it the other evening, "Contraception is working fine, leave it alone."
He also responded to the Ohio News Networks Jim Heaths question about supporting the "Blunt Amendment" which aims to reverse the Obama administrations requirement that all employers, including religious-affiliated institutions, provide health coverage that includes contraceptive care at no co-pay with this statement-
"I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there."
Romney later insisted that he would indeed support the bill and that the question was put to him in a confusing way.
"Of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply — misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment,"
Thankfully the amendment failed: 51-48
And Rush Limbaugh, national treasure that he is, called a law student testifying in a congressional hearing, a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she was explaining the burdensome cost of contraception.
Overall-
I'll take the failure of the Blunt Amendment as an overwhelming win; at least for today.
I think so. What I don't necessarily know for certain is why. I've read articles in the last few months that claim all sorts of political motivation as to why contraception is the talk of the town with the Republican candidates. Some have indicated that it is the Democrats who are putting birth control front and center-you know, to hide the actual issues in the campaigning by igniting fury over any attempt to limit women from accessing their pill.
But really it is the GOP here that is shooting itself in the foot by making it painfully clear that their leading man isn't as head over heals in love with talking about religious freedoms promoting the denial of contraceptive
As Mitt Romney so eloquently put it the other evening, "Contraception is working fine, leave it alone."
He also responded to the Ohio News Networks Jim Heaths question about supporting the "Blunt Amendment" which aims to reverse the Obama administrations requirement that all employers, including religious-affiliated institutions, provide health coverage that includes contraceptive care at no co-pay with this statement-
"I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there."
Romney later insisted that he would indeed support the bill and that the question was put to him in a confusing way.
"Of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception so I was simply — misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment,"
Thankfully the amendment failed: 51-48
And Rush Limbaugh, national treasure that he is, called a law student testifying in a congressional hearing, a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she was explaining the burdensome cost of contraception.
Overall-
I'll take the failure of the Blunt Amendment as an overwhelming win; at least for today.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Trans-Vaginal in Virginia
In a bit of good news the Virginia Governor, Bill McDonnell had an abrupt about face this week and recommended that the bill recently passed requiring any women seeking an abortion undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound be reversed.
Apparently the fetal image would have remained in a woman's medical file for seven years, and any doctor who failed to perform a pre-abortion ultrasound would be liable to prosecution and fines.
Both Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show with John Stewart satirized the bill and the original version- supported by McDonnell drew a large crowd of protesters to the state capital in Richmond earlier this week.
The reversal of McDonnell’s decision has been disappointing for the bill’s supporters. I find it really difficult to see how anyone could fail to see the problem with requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound- you literally insert an 8-10 inch wand into the vagina. If the woman doesn’t consent to this incredibly invasive procedure, how can you interpret that as anything other than rape?
Even the pro-life Rutherford Institute - backers of Del. Bob Marshall’s personhood bill, which gives fetuses human rights - has expressed constitutional concerns over the ultrasound bill.
Virginia's House of Delegates by a vote of 65-32 approved the revised bill, which calls for women to undergo an abdominal ultrasound but not necessarily a more invasive internal one as required under the original measure. It is unclear if the State Senate is going to follow suit.
Ultrasounds are a regular part of Planned Parenthood's process when obtaining an abortion and it is done for medical reasons. To insist upon a mandate on the type of ultrasound isn't only unnecessary, it falls in line with the strategy for slowly eroding the legality of abortion as a procedure in all. To their credit, I imagine most women who want abortions do so with the understanding that an ultrasound is going to take place in some capacity, but you cannot mandate that and you certainly can't assume that the ultrasound would be an invasive trans-vaginal one.
I appreciate the backlash over the bill because it calls attention to the lengths that pro-life supporters will go to demand that if abortions are available legally than it has to be with as many hurdles or barriers as possible, regardless of what that means for the women actually affected.
Apparently the fetal image would have remained in a woman's medical file for seven years, and any doctor who failed to perform a pre-abortion ultrasound would be liable to prosecution and fines.
Both Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show with John Stewart satirized the bill and the original version- supported by McDonnell drew a large crowd of protesters to the state capital in Richmond earlier this week.
The reversal of McDonnell’s decision has been disappointing for the bill’s supporters. I find it really difficult to see how anyone could fail to see the problem with requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound- you literally insert an 8-10 inch wand into the vagina. If the woman doesn’t consent to this incredibly invasive procedure, how can you interpret that as anything other than rape?
Even the pro-life Rutherford Institute - backers of Del. Bob Marshall’s personhood bill, which gives fetuses human rights - has expressed constitutional concerns over the ultrasound bill.
Virginia's House of Delegates by a vote of 65-32 approved the revised bill, which calls for women to undergo an abdominal ultrasound but not necessarily a more invasive internal one as required under the original measure. It is unclear if the State Senate is going to follow suit.
Ultrasounds are a regular part of Planned Parenthood's process when obtaining an abortion and it is done for medical reasons. To insist upon a mandate on the type of ultrasound isn't only unnecessary, it falls in line with the strategy for slowly eroding the legality of abortion as a procedure in all. To their credit, I imagine most women who want abortions do so with the understanding that an ultrasound is going to take place in some capacity, but you cannot mandate that and you certainly can't assume that the ultrasound would be an invasive trans-vaginal one.
I appreciate the backlash over the bill because it calls attention to the lengths that pro-life supporters will go to demand that if abortions are available legally than it has to be with as many hurdles or barriers as possible, regardless of what that means for the women actually affected.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
In the Name of the Father...oh wait
It's long over due for the Catholic Church to relax its position on contraceptives. Over and over the religious institution have shown that they don't understand the concept of women centric policies because there aren't any women present in religious hierarchies. Not a single women is among the ranks of Catholic leaders that cry foul when governmental policies insist that all women have access to birth control should they desire so.
Obama modified the policy last Friday to require insurance companies, and not the religiously affiliated organization itself, to pay for birth control-Not enough for the naysayers-
But the issue hear isn't even about the mandate by President Obama anymore-It's about the wholly male centered, male dominated, male run, ancient institution that refuses to acknowledge women's right to choose- period.
Obama modified the policy last Friday to require insurance companies, and not the religiously affiliated organization itself, to pay for birth control-Not enough for the naysayers-
But the issue hear isn't even about the mandate by President Obama anymore-It's about the wholly male centered, male dominated, male run, ancient institution that refuses to acknowledge women's right to choose- period.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Susan Komen-take back
The Komen foundation announced on Thursday that it was reversing its decision to cut funding from breast-cancer screenings done at Planned Parenthood. Three days after announcing it would eliminate grants to Planned Parenthood; the Komen Foundation, said Friday that Planned Parenthood would be eligible for future grants — but stopped short of guaranteeing funding.
So what was this all about?
Apparently this issue has been a long standing thorn in the Komen Foundations side. In an Article on The Atlantic website, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg reports that inside sources from the Komen foundation made it clear that new rules were adopted as an excuse to cut funding from Planned Parenthood.
The article from The Atlantic elaborates-
“The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion.”
An anonymous source told the author, "The cart came before the horse in this case, the rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary."
The speculation has only intensified since last week as to the overall conclusion of the entire debacle. The few things I mentioned above are only a handful of the information that's come out-and forgive me for not sharing more of it. In the past few days I have read articles tying this situation to every matter relating to abortion, breast cancer and women's health in general. I honestly cannot process it all fast enough to yet write about it critically.
What I do know is that the attacks on Women's reproductive rights aren't anything that's going to go away anytime soon.
Next up-Catholics and Contraception.
So what was this all about?
Apparently this issue has been a long standing thorn in the Komen Foundations side. In an Article on The Atlantic website, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg reports that inside sources from the Komen foundation made it clear that new rules were adopted as an excuse to cut funding from Planned Parenthood.
The article from The Atlantic elaborates-
“The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion.”
An anonymous source told the author, "The cart came before the horse in this case, the rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary."
The speculation has only intensified since last week as to the overall conclusion of the entire debacle. The few things I mentioned above are only a handful of the information that's come out-and forgive me for not sharing more of it. In the past few days I have read articles tying this situation to every matter relating to abortion, breast cancer and women's health in general. I honestly cannot process it all fast enough to yet write about it critically.
What I do know is that the attacks on Women's reproductive rights aren't anything that's going to go away anytime soon.
Next up-Catholics and Contraception.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Super Stupid
I really don't like Go Daddy.com
I really really can't stand their asinine advertisements.
More on this to come-or perhaps I won't even waste my efforts.
Also, the commercials during the Super Bowl have shown us that teenage girls don't like food.
Great.
I really really can't stand their asinine advertisements.
More on this to come-or perhaps I won't even waste my efforts.
Also, the commercials during the Super Bowl have shown us that teenage girls don't like food.
Great.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Susan Komen v.Planned Parenthood
Again and again women are the losers in the ridiculous political and hateful rhetoric behind reproductive rights.
Note that I didn’t say abortion and I almost didn’t say reproductive rights because in this case it is Women’s Health that takes the blow. Of course in this country at this time the three are not mutually exclusive.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has long been a target of anti-choice advocates who vilify Planned Parenthood as an abortion mega-provider. The indication that breast cancer is anti-choice is so outrageous it is almost hilarious. Even more ridiculous is the statement made by a representative of the Komen foundation who rebuffed the suggestion that the decision was based on years of bullying and even uttered "grant making decisions are not about politics." Yeah, right.
Another stance by the Komen foundation is that an inquiry made by a Republican Rep. from Florida as to whether PP uses federal dollars to provide abortion puts PP out of the running.
Here is an excerpt from an article located on NPR.org
According to the AP, the Komen foundation says it has stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood affiliates — who used the funding to provide breast cancer screening and education programs to women — because of an inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., into whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to provide abortions. The Komen foundation's position is that it does not give grants to organizations that are under investigation
What I want to know is what kind of response the Komen foundation will have when PP is cleared of any wrong doing and said investigation is revealed as a wholly political tactic?
Who is hurt is this situation?
One more interesting coincidence; Komen’s foundation has long supported the claim that abortion increases your chance for developing breast cancer. While designing studies to extract empirical data linking the two together has prevented wide spread research, the American Cancer Society concludes: “Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
One would think with that frame of mind, the foundation would never have bestowed grants upon PP to begin with. But it did and now it won’t and yet we’re supposed to believe that politics have nothing to do with it?
By now women have long since figured out that it isn't only the "personal" that's political. In fact at this point there isn't anything about a women's body that isn't political.
Note that I didn’t say abortion and I almost didn’t say reproductive rights because in this case it is Women’s Health that takes the blow. Of course in this country at this time the three are not mutually exclusive.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has long been a target of anti-choice advocates who vilify Planned Parenthood as an abortion mega-provider. The indication that breast cancer is anti-choice is so outrageous it is almost hilarious. Even more ridiculous is the statement made by a representative of the Komen foundation who rebuffed the suggestion that the decision was based on years of bullying and even uttered "grant making decisions are not about politics." Yeah, right.
Another stance by the Komen foundation is that an inquiry made by a Republican Rep. from Florida as to whether PP uses federal dollars to provide abortion puts PP out of the running.
Here is an excerpt from an article located on NPR.org
According to the AP, the Komen foundation says it has stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood affiliates — who used the funding to provide breast cancer screening and education programs to women — because of an inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., into whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to provide abortions. The Komen foundation's position is that it does not give grants to organizations that are under investigation
What I want to know is what kind of response the Komen foundation will have when PP is cleared of any wrong doing and said investigation is revealed as a wholly political tactic?
Who is hurt is this situation?
One more interesting coincidence; Komen’s foundation has long supported the claim that abortion increases your chance for developing breast cancer. While designing studies to extract empirical data linking the two together has prevented wide spread research, the American Cancer Society concludes: “Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
One would think with that frame of mind, the foundation would never have bestowed grants upon PP to begin with. But it did and now it won’t and yet we’re supposed to believe that politics have nothing to do with it?
By now women have long since figured out that it isn't only the "personal" that's political. In fact at this point there isn't anything about a women's body that isn't political.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Girl Scout Cookie Time
It's like the Girl Scouts are "Pro-Women" or something.
I pulled this image off a facebook post so I am not sure where it came from-credit to wherever that may be.
I pulled this image off a facebook post so I am not sure where it came from-credit to wherever that may be.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Roe-aversary
Though I am a day late-that will not stop me from calling attention to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court established abortion as a constitutionally right. Let's just hope it stays that way. Stop the e.roe.sion.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Sea Sponge Tampons Part I
I promised this topic awhile ago and have yet to deliver the in depth discussion I want to have about Sea Sponges.
I want to direct those interested here first.
The more graphic and user friendly informational brochure can be accessed here.
Remember the disappearing OB Ultra Tampons? A whole lot of other ladies do to...And they aren't having it-Better than OB Ultra? Let me count the ways.
To be continued...
I want to direct those interested here first.
The more graphic and user friendly informational brochure can be accessed here.
Remember the disappearing OB Ultra Tampons? A whole lot of other ladies do to...And they aren't having it-Better than OB Ultra? Let me count the ways.
To be continued...
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Romney, Legos and Morocco.
Here are a few items you might want to spend your Sunday checking out.
Women's e-news reports on some positive news out of Morocco this past week.
Lego's gets tacky- Five years of research gets pink and curvy.
Mitt Romney-Birth Control is "working just fine".
Women's e-news reports on some positive news out of Morocco this past week.
Lego's gets tacky- Five years of research gets pink and curvy.
Mitt Romney-Birth Control is "working just fine".
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Dr.Pepper-not for women
I'm never into gender stereotyping. That being said, I'm certainly not a fan of Dr. Pepper's new marketing plan for the 10 calorie version of Dr. Pepper. I've said it before; I don't have a sense of humor so the commercial isn't amusing either. And I am not buying any more Dr. Pepper products.
Watch it
Is the idea that men should drink more diet soda a bad one? I don't know. The research indicates that those who drink diet soda may not see any weight difference because of it and could in fact be doing harm. Go to Google and type in "diet soda makes you fat."
So- the product. The can looks like a bullet- there really is a Facebook page where you can read the Dr Pepper Ten Man'Ments, and it openly excludes women. The Facebook page also has a shooting gallery where you shoot things like high heels and lipsticks-classy.
"Executive vice president of marketing for Dr Pepper, said he's not worried that they'll be offended by the campaign. The drink and marketing were tested in six different markets across the country before being rolled out nationally, and women weren't offended, he said. In fact, about 40% of people who have tried the soda so far are women"*USA Today Article
Well, that's not entirely accurate-Visit Smart Money here.
Also-if you are marketing a product that specifically is NOT FOR WOMEN, why would you have 40% of the people trying the soda be Women and why would you care what they thought? I especially like the Rugby player in the above article who says that no one has ever made fun of him for drinking diet coke-and rugby players make fun of each other over anything.
Boo Dr. Pepper-Boo.
Watch it
Is the idea that men should drink more diet soda a bad one? I don't know. The research indicates that those who drink diet soda may not see any weight difference because of it and could in fact be doing harm. Go to Google and type in "diet soda makes you fat."
So- the product. The can looks like a bullet- there really is a Facebook page where you can read the Dr Pepper Ten Man'Ments, and it openly excludes women. The Facebook page also has a shooting gallery where you shoot things like high heels and lipsticks-classy.
"Executive vice president of marketing for Dr Pepper, said he's not worried that they'll be offended by the campaign. The drink and marketing were tested in six different markets across the country before being rolled out nationally, and women weren't offended, he said. In fact, about 40% of people who have tried the soda so far are women"*USA Today Article
Well, that's not entirely accurate-Visit Smart Money here.
Also-if you are marketing a product that specifically is NOT FOR WOMEN, why would you have 40% of the people trying the soda be Women and why would you care what they thought? I especially like the Rugby player in the above article who says that no one has ever made fun of him for drinking diet coke-and rugby players make fun of each other over anything.
Boo Dr. Pepper-Boo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)