Category Archives: feminism

Weary Of This Primary

I’ve had enough of this primary. The media has been flogging it since, well, Obama’s last inauguration, if we’re going to be honest. The past 6-8 months have worn me out. And I have lost patience for the thin-skinned followers of St. Bernard — not all of them, of course, but a certain faction of rabid Hillary-haters, the reactionary ones who have decided they will define “progressivism” for the rest of us (including those of us who were working the trenches when many of them were still playing with crayons.)

I have no patience for bullshit from “progressive” outlets like this:

Madeleine Albright Throws Shade To Young, Female Voters

No, she didn’t, Talking Points Memo, and you know better. She repeated a quote she’s been saying for years. Years. In fact, she’s been saying this so long, it’s been featured on a Starbucks cup and mangled by Sarah Palin:

original

This entire nonsense is being ginned up by the media, desperate to divide liberals because it’s so much more interesting and profitable for them when people are at each other’s throats. Lots more advertising money coming their way, amiright? So no, I will not tolerate anyone smearing Madeleine Albright because their fee-fees got hurt. Grow up.

And since I’m on my soap box about fake controversies, I really don’t get what the big deal is with Hillary Clinton’s speeches. Every public official makes speeches for money to various civic groups, business groups, corporate retreats, etc. There is an entire industry devoted to this. Higher profile individuals (like a former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State) get bigger paychecks. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Progressives do it. Tea Partiers do it.

Here’s one of Hillary’s Goldman Sachs speeches which supposedly makes her a Wall Street puppet: she was the main speaker at Goldman Sachs’ “10,000 Women” dinner, an “investing in women and girls” initiative that the firm started in 2008.

Clinton’s topic? Perhaps it was the Rothschild banking conspiracy? Or, “How to screw the poor?” Maybe she revealed details on how she plans to turn the Oval Office over to Wall Street when she’s president? No. It was “Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs.”

In fact, Hillary Clinton is represented by a speaker’s bureau. You know who’s represented by the same speaker’s bureau? Bernie Sanders. His All American Speakers bio says he talks about education and Jewish issues. Good for him, I bet they’re great speeches. Maybe someone can go through the 60,000+ YouTube videos of Sanders’ appearances and find one that I can post. I don’t have the time.

I don’t have the time for any of this shit. The reality is, there’s very little difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the two years they were in the Senate together, they voted the same 93% of the time.

I’m really tired of the demonization of Hillary Clinton. And please stop telling me “both sides do it,” because I’m not seeing nearly the headlines in mainstream media outlets targeting Sanders that I see coming from the other side. Did someone say something mean on Twitter? Yeah, sure. But I’m talking New York Times headlines and Talking Point Memo posts.

Bernie Sanders is the shiny-sparkly new thing, so a certain amount of media adoration is to be expected at this point. But just you wait, the MSM will lose interest just as it always does. The media loves nothing more than to smack down that which it has built up. “Dean Scream,” anybody? And I can just see it now, Hillary Clinton will get blamed for that, too. I’m already seeing people blame her for the more offensive “Bernie Bros” on social media, calling them “Clinton plants.” Seriosuly, people? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I just don’t have the patience for this bullshit, at all. Knock it off, and grow the fuck up. There is too much at stake here for us to be behaving this way.

19 Comments

Filed under 2016 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, feminism

Big Government, Liars & Abortion

Government is sooooo teeensy weensy teeny tiny in the State of North Carolina that doctors performing abortions must send their required-by-law ultrasounds to the state:

Per The New York Times, doctors who perform abortions at or after the 16-week mark must send North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services “the method used to determine the ‘probable gestational age’ of the fetus, the measurements used to support the assertion and, most controversially, an ultrasound showing the measurements.” The law states that this information is being collected for “statistical purposes only,” and that patients’ and doctors’ names will remain confidential.

But Melissa Reed, the director of Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, argues that the law, which went into effect on January 1, is “medically unnecessary and purely politically driven. The true intent of the law is clear—to shame women and intimidate the doctors that care for them.”

Anti-abortion activist Tami L. Fitzgerald, who consulted on the bill with Republicans in the legislature, told the Times that the law should “act as a deterrent to the doctors themselves from lying about gestational age. The state has made a public policy decision that babies after 20 weeks have a right to live. So this law is about protecting the rights of those unborn babies.”

Why would doctors lie about gestational age? Just for kicks?

Several years ago I did a blog post where I recounted a conversation I had with my own ob/gyn about mandatory ultrasound regulations the state of Tennessee was proposing, as well as other healthcare issues currently being debated nationally. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why doctors were remaining quiet on an issue that affected their business.

From the 2013 archive:

[…] I asked her if she was aware that there were bills in the legislature requiring women to get an ultrasound before receiving an abortion.

“Really?!” She seemed genuinely surprised. Jesus, lady! I wanted to scream. You’re a gynecologist! This is your field! Don’t you pay attention to what legislators are doing affecting your own business?

I asked if there was any medical reason why this procedure would be necessary. “They need to do it,” she said, “to determine the age of the fetus.”

“But what if a woman is positive that it’s within the first trimester?”

“They still need to do it, to make sure.”

“To make sure?”

“To make sure she’s telling the truth.”

So, ultrasounds are needed to make sure women are telling the truth. This was my own doctor of going on 20-something years telling me this. And now, we have taken that idea to its next logical place: state government bureaucrats must review these ultrasounds becase the doctors might be lying.

Oh and also, “statistical purposes.” Right. (Statistics? Seriously? Of what?)

Where do we go from there? I have to think we’ll need some kind of federal oversight, don’t you? In case the state government bureaucrats are lying, especially if one of those ‘bortion lovin’ LIEberals gets in the governor’s office, right? Could happen! You know it could!

I mean, why not? If a universal background check is the first step towards Obama coming to confiscate everyone’s guns with his magic gun-grabbing super magnet device, how is this not the first step toward fascism?

If government has to check an ultrasound because they think a doctor might be lying about a fetus’ gestational age, and that ultrasound itself is required because the government thinks a woman might be lying about gestational age, it’s not a big leap to assume everyone is lying about everything and the government better just Big Brother-up on everything. Amiright?

2 Comments

Filed under abortion, feminism, Women, women's rights

No, But His IQ Test Was Conducted During His Proctology Exam

Cheese and rice, people:

BOISE, IDAHO — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.

The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.

Barbieri later said that the question was rhetorical and intended to make a point.

Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.

“Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?” Barbieri asked.

Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.

“Fascinating. That makes sense,” Barbieri said, amid the crowd’s laughter.

Here’s a thought. Before you idiots in the Republican Party try legislating women’s bodies, why don’t you first learn something about them? Or is that too much like work?

Okay, he now says he was trying to get the doctor to testify that colonoscopies aren’t the same as abortions or whatever. I would think that would be patently obvious, but of course you’re dealing with a Republican here. They aren’t “scientists,” as they will frequently remind you.

Idiots.

[UPDATE]:

You know, after giving this more thought, I’m going to come back and say no, I don’t know what the fuck this idiot was trying to say. I’m not sure why swallowing a pill with a tiny camera for a colonoscopy (which, near as I can tell, is by no means the standard practice for these routine exams anyway) would preclude a tiny camera being put on the tip of a tampon or whatever. I mean, we all know how transvaginal ultrasounds work. Surely Idaho already has one of those vaginal probe abortion bills on the books — we do in Tennessee. Why he thought a tiny ingestible camera would be his “ah-ha” moment, I have no clue.

You know, my advice for you Republicans is to just shut up about women’s stuff. You continually make fools of yourself.

9 Comments

Filed under abortion, feminism, Republican Party, women's rights

Small Govt. Loving MT Republicans Mansplain Decorum For The Ladies

The menfolk sure do love to tell us ladies what to do! Is anyone surprised that a patronizing dress code for Montana state legislators was written by a male Republican?

Montana’s one-page list of fashion guidelines (officials say they are not formal rules) were handed down Dec. 5 in what Representative Keith Regier, the House Republican majority leader, said was a response to questions from newly elected lawmakers about what to wear on the floor.

“We do hold decorum at a high standard,” Mr. Regier said. “What we’re saying is: Be appropriate in what you wear. Don’t wear something that could be a distraction from the legislative process.”

(… yes that would be the same Mr. Regier who compared pregnant women to pregnant livestock — repeatedly — during debate over anti-choice legislation … but I digress …)

The seven-point list covers men’s attire, calling for a suit or a jacket and tie, dress slacks and shirt, and “dress shoes or dress boots.” But the guidelines for women are a little longer and more detailed, and had many female lawmakers rolling their eyes. The list includes what kinds of footwear they should avoid (flip-flops, tennis shoes and open-toe sandals), declares that leggings are not considered dress pants, and encourages modesty on skirt lengths and necklines.

“It’s like something out of ‘Mad Men,’” said Representative Ellie Hill, a Democrat from Missoula, referring to a television drama set in the 1960s. “The whole thing is totally sexist and bizarre and unnecessary.”

Apparently the dress code was written by a Republican staffer who decided to model it on Wyoming’s — but stricter:

Montana GOPers also removed an item from the Wyoming dress code allowing sleeveless dresses–IF and only if they were worn under jackets that is. Apparently however, the thought that some woman might be sleeveless underneath her suit coat was too much for MT Republicans, so they took it out.

Finally, although Wyoming lawmakers have generously been allowed to wear knit dresses–if sufficiently covered by a jacket. That language is also removed from the MT dress code. Perhaps one of these items was the mysterious item number six which was missing from Montana’s dress code. That document skips from 5 to 7.

I’m trying to imagine the guy whose job it was to write the dresscode for Montana’s female legislators. Did he sit around and think of all the ramifications of a knit dress? Did he perhaps have this in mind?

88BAC905

I’m trying to imagine where the poor guy’s mind went. “Nope! Can’t have a sweater dress! Too many curves!”

Look, I don’t have a problem with things like “no flip-flops” when it’s applied to both men and women — hey, men wear flip-flops, too! — even though I think it’s asinine and patronizing. Do legislators really not know what “business attire” is? Whatever, it’s Montana … it’s a casual place. But no sleeveless dresses even when worn under a jacket is just sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

I once had a job back in the ’80s in a teensy weensy two-person office where my Israeli boss told me I needed to wear stockings to work. (This was the same boss who — even though I was never late — tried to tell me what route I should take to work because, mansplaining!)

Nobody wears stockings in Southern California, it’s too damn hot for one thing; also, I’m pretty sure women stopped wearing stockings at all somewhere around 1973, I’m not sure. But I told him I was not going to wear stockings to work and he could find my replacement if he wanted to. I kept the job.

Ladies, there are some men in the world who just love to tell you how to run your life. Sadly, too many of them are elected to office.

6 Comments

Filed under feminism, sexism, women's rights

Hey: Girls Do It All The Time

This was hilarious: American guys in European style swimsuits!

Their reaction to wearing what is the male equivalent of female swimwear was hilarious. One said the skimpy European-style swim briefs made him feel “uncomfortable” and “very sexualized.” Another lamented (probably ironically) that, “it’s about my mind not my dick pocket.”

Um, yep. That’s about the, er, size of it.

3 Comments

Filed under fashion, feminism

More Follow-Up Questions, Please

This is why I watch Aljazeera America:

Ah, those pesky “follow-up questions.” Don’t see them too often from the likes of Chuck Todd or David Gregory.

The fact of the matter is, when you ask the follow-up questions it becomes apparent that Republicans are not only legislating shit they don’t understand, they’re legislating shit they never bothered to think about. “Why would a woman want to get an abortion?” “Well gee now, I’ve never thought about that …”

Maybe you should, asshole. This should be asked of every anti-choice politician. If they can’t answer it they need to get to the end of the line.

2 Comments

Filed under abortion, feminism, media, Republican Party, women's rights

Consequence-Free Sex

It was entirely predictable that right-wing males would act like giant assholes in the wake of the Hobby Lobby ruling; after all, these are the perpetually-aggrieved folks who have felt neutered by “feminazis” since women first demanded the vote.

My favorite response was from Douchebag Emeritus Erick W. Erickson, who tweeted:

erick

And yet, because Hobby Lobby pays for men’s Viagra, that is exactly what this employer is doing: subsidizing consequence-free sex, only just for men. Because, by virtue of biology, all sex for men is consequence-free. It just is. Birth control levels the playing field for women. And it is no surprise that conservative men, whose most unifying feature is an overarching inferiority complex, have been threatened by that since the first cave lady brewed her special cup of herbal tea to keep the babies away. Insecure men will always try to control that which they cannot control. And that’s what we have here.

This, from The New Republic, sums it up thusly:

There’s a reason so many women were outraged on Monday. They saw the decision as yet another attempt to preserve the old double-standard—to dump most of the responsibility for reproductive health and child-bearing on them, in ways that inevitably deter gender equality. With comments like Erickson’s bouncing around cyberspace, it’s easy to see why they had that impression.

Yeah, it’s not an “impression.” It’s called reality.

9 Comments

Filed under birth control, feminism, sex, Supreme Court, women's rights

Because It’s Not About Guns

[UPDATE]:

Case in point:

EatShitt

This is a comment waiting approval this morning (and no, I won’t) on this week’s Tennessee Gun Report thread. This is rather mild compared to some of the stuff I’ve received and routinely delete. Stats tells me I got a link on thegunwire.com, so I’m gonna guess that’s where this lovely missive came from.

—————————————————————————-

Mother Jones looks at the gun extremists’ attacks on women, especially the women behind Moms Demand Action. It’s a must-read. Specifically:

mannequin300_0

The Female Mannequin Firing Squad
Open Carry Texas takes pains to convey a clean, friendly image in the press. Last November, the group made national news after some 40 members armed with assault rifles showed up outside an Arlington, Texas, restaurant where four women from Moms Demand Action were having lunch. The group released a statement saying it was being misunderstood: “In reality, the peaceful gun owners were posing for a photo.” After a rally outside Austin City Hall this April, Grisham told the Texas Tribune, “We’re not out there to bait police officers or to scare the community. We wave, we smile, we hand out fliers. If we see someone who seems really nervous, we’ll talk to them.”

What the group hasn’t publicized are some of its members’ more degrading antics. In March, a group of them held a “mad minute” at a firing range, pulverizing a female mannequin with a hail of bullets. They positioned the figure with her hands raised in surrender, naked from the waist up. Afterward, they posed with the bullet-riddled mannequin, her arms blown off and her pants down at her ankles. “Mad minute” is a military expression referring to a burst of rapid fire, and Open Carry Texas members have often referred to Moms Demand Action as “mad moms.”

Four of the men who shot up the mannequin were present at the Arlington restaurant, including one listed by Open Carry Texas as a board member and the group’s Director of Operations.

Grisham said he was not part of the group at the gun range, but when the mannequin video was posted on Facebook, he commented: “Warms the cockles of my heart.” Recently he called women from Moms Demand Action “ignorant, retarded people,” and last fall he referred to them as “thugs with jugs.”

The thing you have to remember with these guys is that it’s really not about guns. It’s about power, and their inability to deal with a culture in which they have to share that power with women, minorities, Muslims and gays. It’s about feeling culturally irrelevant. It’s about being left behind while the rest of the country moves forward.

You know, a gun isn’t going to solve a psychological problem. Maybe some therapy and anger management classes? I don’t know, but I’m finding the gun loonz increasingly indistinguishable from the rest of the right-wing lunatic fringe (such as these guys, another group unable to come to terms with their cultural irrelevance).

8 Comments

Filed under feminism, gun control, gun violence, Guns, women's rights

Today’s IOKIYAR

Nope, no War On Women here:

PelosiSABO

Honestly, after all of the ginned-up fauxtrage the right has spewed over comparatively tame comments made by the likes of Melissa Harris-Perry, David Letterman, and even President Obama himself (“OMG! He said Trayvon Martin could’ve been his son! WELL I NEVER!”), the above should result in non-stop Fox News outrage, right? Calls for apologies and boycotts?

But of course it won’t, because IOKIYAR, and feminazis, and socialism, etc. etc.

Oh, and meet “the artist” here.

(h/t, Ana Marie Cox)

8 Comments

Filed under conservative bloggers, feminism, sexism, women's rights

It’s The Message Not The Messenger, Stupid

As long as Republicans continue to push for policies that are demeaning, shaming and utterly lacking in compassion, I don’t think efforts like this are likely to be successful. The problem is not that you don’t have enough women candidates. The problem is that even your women politicians show little understanding or interest in issues of economic inequality and income disparity affecting so many women.

When someone like Marsha Blackburn can say with a straight face that women don’t want pay equity laws like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, they “just want to be recognized,” Republicans are seen as out of touch (and rightfully so).

From The Tennessean link:

“I feel like (Democrats) do more for people that are not making good money,” Loretta Lindsey, a retired housekeeper, said in a recent interview on the square in Murfreesboro.

“I feel like there’s more caring on the Democratic side.”

That’s your problem, Republicans. I don’t know how much more obvious it can be.

Also? Stuff like this isn’t helping:

BV25rBoCYAA1Uxa

3 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, equal pay, feminism, Republican Party, Tennessee, women's rights