Aug

30

“It’s Not a Choice, It’s a Child” — Except When It’s Beneficial To Say It’s a Choice

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, disability, media, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 32 Comments

Here’s something — one of many things — that bothers me about the Sarah Palin coverage.  (Maybe I’ll get to the others in the near future; not sure.)

Right here, the NY Times says it — and they’re right, and far from the only ones who are noting it:

Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for opting not to have an abortion after learning that the child she was carrying, her youngest, had Down syndrome. “It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community,” Mr. Reed said.

You know, it’s the anti-choicers who use “it’s not a choice, it’s a child” as a rallying cry to force women to give birth.  And yet here I am, as pro-choice as can be, really fucking annoyed that conservative assholes are portraying this very real, actual child as a political choice rather than the human being that he is.

You know what we often say about how conservatives care a whole lot about fetuses but very little about actual children?  Well here’s your example.  It’s almost as though they think that Palin became pregnant and gave birth to a child with Down Syndrome simply to please them.  And the thing is that if they really believe their rhetoric, the answer was obvious, so obvious in fact that Palin didn’t really have a “choice” to make.  Only now, because it’s convenient, they want to acknowledge that the decision of whether or not to abort after getting news that your child will be born with a disability is a difficult one, simply so that they can point and say “but look at her, she searched her soul and then did the right thing — so should all women!”  They don’t want women to have a choice, but then want to praise this particular woman for the choice that she did make.

And it’s wrong.

People who call themselves “pro-life” make difficult decisions every day to abort fetuses that have fatal abnormalities or are likely to be born with disabilities.  And people who are pro-choice every day make the decision to continue pregnancies that many other people would deem too difficult.  Pro-choice people, in addition to forced-birth proponents like Palin, give birth to babies with Down Syndrome and other disabilities.  And there is no contradiction here.  They, too, made a choice.  There is nothing wrong with having a child with a disability. And I don’t care what reproductive choices a woman makes so long as she makes them freely; I am simply thrilled that she has the opportunity and freedom to do what is right for her own life.  That also goes for Palin.

This child should not be a political pawn.  And while I hope and will assume until proven otherwise that Palin herself will not go this route, the media and her supporters almost certainly will.  To portray Palin as this wonderful pro-life martyr is both misogynistic and ableist.  Having a child is only a humble sacrifice for a woman in a sexist world where women are expected to have no lives outside of their children, and are considered wrong if they do.  And painting her child as a sacrifice specifically because of his disability treats him as a less worthy and valuable human being.

Palin’s son was a choice but now that he is born he is also a child.  To conservatives, he seems to only be the former, because without the choice there is no symbol.  The ironic thing is that in a world where Palin did not have a choice (one that I find hard to truly imagine for a woman of such means), there would be nothing here to celebrate.  In that world, Palin’s child could still (wrongly) be used as a symbol of righteousness for the anti-choice cause, but Palin could not.  The only reason they can use Palin to represent why women should not have rights, is because women currently have rights.

Aug

29

“Back It Up, Bitch”

Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, activism, assholes, patriarchy, politics, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments

Trigger Warning: outside the DNC, a police officer shoved a CodePink protester to the ground while yelling in her face “Back it up, bitch.” When she then tried to talk about the treatment to reporters, the officer grabbed her by the arm and violently pulled her away. Then he arrested her.

Why? Because police arrested another protester, and the woman, Alicia Forrest, was one of numerous people trying to figure out where he was being taken. Who knew that was against the law?

The video is below. A warning: the comments at the YouTube page are misogynistic and vile. I don’t recommend them.

I am so fucking sick of this macho power-trip, police brutality bullshit.

h/t Feministing

Aug

29

Palin

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, politics | 16 Comments

Oh my god I hate John McCain so much I think my head just might explode.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Fuck.

And where the fuck does Captain Misogyny, opposes access to birth control, thinks Roe should be overturned, opposes equal pay for equal work, calls his wife a cunt in public and laughs when supporters call Hillary Clinton a bitch, get off on nominating a woman like he’s all super tolerant and actually believes what women are his equals? Even if this woman seems to not like women all that much herself?

Please let this backfire. Please let this backfire.

Better start making those donations, folks. I’m so outrageously, ridiculously broke right now, but I’ll be sending one ASAP, regardless.

Aug

28

Victoria’s Secret Must Die

Filed Under products, random | 40 Comments

This is a completely off-topic rant about how I hate Victoria’s Secret with every fiber of my being.

Read more

Aug

27

In Which I Incoherently Rant About Rape Apologist Judges Who Need to Be Removed From the Bench

Filed Under assholes, courts, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 22 Comments

And sometimes I come across a story that makes me want to curl up into a little ball and cry. Sometimes I come across a story that just makes me want to get up and walk away from the computer for the rest of the day. Once I’m done with this post, that’s precisely what I’m going to do.

Because I cannot make any sense of this story that doesn’t involve telling the judge to fuck off and die.

A 24-year-old man raped a 12-year-old girl repeatedly. The articles don’t say for how many months he continued to rape her. They do call this repeated rape of a child “sex” and “a relationship.” They do refer to the 12-year-old girl as the 24-year-old man’s girlfriend. And I guess that’s only appropriate insofar as that’s the narrative the judge is broadcasting to the world, and to this girl, in his ruling that does not involve any sort of jail time for the full grown adult who repeatedly raped her.

Read more

Aug

27

More “All Women Are Manipulative Whores” — This Time With Science!

Filed Under media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, stereotypes | 10 Comments

A note to CNN: if you have an article that contains a sentence beginning with “Call it crass, sexist or gender stereotyping all you want,” chances are that you do not want to print the rest of that sentence, and most likely do not want to print any of the article.

You see, according to CNN, all women are apparently prostitutes.  They illustrated this “fact” with the above image, just in case you weren’t getting the point.  Not that this is a new line of bullshit, but it’s rather obnoxious and upsetting to see printed uncritically in such a mainstream news source in 2008.

Throughout history, humans have used their bodies to get what they want — from ancient Egyptian ruler Cleopatra, who cemented her power through liaisons with Roman rulers Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, to the man and woman who were arrested at a Fort Wright, Kentucky, motel in late June for allegedly swapping sex for gasoline. Regardless of our motivation, scientists say we’re hardwired to use our bodies as a bargaining chip.

A recent study of 475 University of Michigan undergraduates ages 17 to 26 found that 27 percent of the men and 14 percent of the women who weren’t in a committed relationship had offered someone favors or gifts — help prepping for a test, laundry washing, tickets to a college football game — in exchange for sex. On the flip side, 5 percent of the men surveyed and 9 percent of the women said they’d attempted to trade sex for such freebies.

And although they weren’t hard up for resources, the students surveyed “recognized the value of this socioeconomic currency system,” says Daniel Kruger, research scientist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, who published his findings in the April issue of “Evolutionary Psychology.”

“It’s more about getting what you want than getting what you need,” he says. “Unless you think everyone needs a $200 Louis Vuitton bag.”

Ah yes, all women aren’t just whores, we’re also all very frivolous.

I single out women because the article did.  Even though the results of this study — which doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about how we’re “hardwired,” by the way — show that both men and women trade sex for favors or gifts at rather comparable rates, the article only feels the need to illustrate with examples of women using sex to get what they want. Not a single anecdote about a man who traded sex for a non-sexual favor or gift.  But women, we want our personal tour guides, Louis Vuitton bags, gasoline, and men to do shit around the house because “a partner who provides more resources — wealth, shelter, home repairs — is seen as more attractive and stands to reap more sexual rewards.”  Notice how “partner” is gender neutral, but in context the implication is that only women are attracted to (male) partners who “provide,” and not vice versa.  Original, CNN.  Really original.  If only there was a reference to women picking berries in there somewhere, I’d probably have bingo.

Before someone says it, I don’t care that CNN didn’t write the story themselves.  They’re running it on their website under their banner, and are therefore responsible for it. You can send feedback here.

Thanks to Nicole for sending me the link.  She also mentions that the comments there are particularly repulsive.  I don’t have the stomach for them this morning and haven’t even looked — but be forewarned.

Aug

26

“Trans Panic” Defense Devalues Another Woman’s Life

Filed Under LGBTQ, assholes, bigotry, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, sex work, stereotypes, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, violence against women and girls | 15 Comments

Alexis King was murdered — yes, murdered — only to have her killer Terron Oates be convicted of “voluntary manslaughter,” which leaves open the possibility of a sentence that could let him out of jail in as little as 30 months.

Alexis King was murdered. And why did Terron Oates get convicted merely of manslaughter? It’s called the “trans panic” defense.

Of course such a sentencing would be absolute bullshit regardless of whether or not it was true, because finding out that a person has a sex organ you don’t like is never an excuse for murder, and murder it still is.  But the fact is that Oates’ defense doesn’t wash at all.  It’s simply not true.  This was not a case of him panicking.  As Lisa Harney says:

  • He was out at 5 am on a school night
  • He went to a strip club
  • He had an illegal gun in his car
  • He had the presence of mind to dispose of the firearm
  • When he called 911, he told a story about a robbery and an unknown gunman
  • Paramedics say that Alexis’ penis was tucked firmly away
  • Sgt Daniel Dutch, an undercover john, says he’s never heard of or experienced such behavior from a trans woman sex worker – trans women tend to not draw attention to their genitalia
  • Alexis was shot from the side and from behind, not from the front as you’d expect from Oates’ story.

    • This wasn’t manslaughter. This was a man trolling for trans women sex workers to murder. He was prepared to kill, his story doesn’t match the facts. Why did the jury let him off with a mild sentence for his crime? Because they sympathized with the trans panic defense.

Because Alexis King was a transwoman and sex worker, her murder is not as important as any other. The judge didn’t even feel the need to explain his reasoning for the ruling, but even the AP had a pretty fucking good guess. It’s because people assume that transwomen are running around trying to “fool” cis men. It’s because they assume that if she did “fool” him, it would be a reasonable cause for murder — since many people seem to be unable to imagine anything more horrifying than finding out that they were attracted to a person with the “wrong” sex organ.  (I’d think murder would be 10 million times more horrifying, but apparently not.) It’s because sex workers’ lives are not valued.  It’s because the lives of transgender people are not valued.

According to the Human Rights Campaign (h/t also to Lisa), transgender individuals in America have up to a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered.* One in twelve.  Let that sink in.

And why is it so?  Because some people are seen as worthy and some people are seen as worthless.  Because mainstream society, and particularly our justice system, gets to determine who falls into which category.  Because of rulings like this.

Aug

26

Final Thoughts On Kyle Payne

Filed Under assholes, courts, feminism, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 7 Comments

So, as I said: Kyle Payne has been sentenced to 6 months in jail, among other punishments:

Stating that a major violation of trust had occurred, District Court Judge Don Courtney sentenced Iowa blogger and self-proclaimed male feminist Kyle Payne to serve time in the Buena Vista County Jail for invasion of privacy.

Payne received 360 days, with 180 days suspended on each of two counts of invasion of privacy, a serious misdemeanor charge. He was also given one year of probation on each count. On the charge of 2nd degree attempted burglary, a felony, Payne received an indeterminate term of prison not to exceed five years, with incarceration suspended. He will placed on probation for three years.

In addition, under a new portion of Iowa law that involves sexually-related crimes, Payne was given a 10 year period of parole. That sentence begins at the end of his regular term of probation. Because of the nature of his crime, he will not be required to register as a sex offender in the state of Iowa.

What to make of the sentence?  When I saw the words “Kyle Payne Jailed,” my first reaction was utter relief.  I know that I was not alone in fearing and expecting, with good reason thanks to the apologist nature of much sexual violence sentencing, that Kyle Payne would never see the inside of a jail or prison cell.

Read more

Aug

25

Kyle Payne Going To Jail

Filed Under assholes, courts, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 6 Comments

With the excitement of the DNC going on, I completely forgot to check-in on this.  But Hoyden About Town got the scoop first: Kyle Payne is going to jail for 6 months.

I’m headed off to bed now — I assure you that I will write more in the morning.  Probably before most of you read this.  But I just had to share.

Aug

25

NY Times: Victims “Hurting Themselves” By Being Raped

Filed Under media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 5 Comments

Whoa.

So I was reading this (I think rather silly and generalized) article on “bad behavior” of young British people while on vacation.  And though I know that victim-blaming is often found in odd places, I was still pretty shocked to read this (emphasis mine):

“The government of Britain has to do something,” Mr. Lagoudakis said. “These people are giving a bad name to their country.”

They are also hurting themselves in the process. A recent report published by the British Foreign Office, “British Behavior Abroad,” noted that in a 12-month period in 2006 and 2007, 602 Britons were hospitalized and 28 raped in Greece, and that 1,591 died in Spain and 2,032 were arrested there.

Except that if 28 British tourists were raped in Greece, that’s not a reflection on those British tourists, it’s a reflection on whoever raped them.  When you are the victim of rape, you were not “hurting yourself” — you were hurt by another person.  Really, this is quite simple.  And the only way those rapes had to do with “British Behavior Abroad” is if those 28 rapes were committed by British rapists.  But you’ll notice that it doesn’t say “28 men committed/were accused of rape.”  Nope, instead 28 British victims, almost certainly mostly if not all female, are mentioned instead in the government report on “British behavior” and referred to by the Times as “hurting themselves.” (The article also doesn’t say why 602 Britons were hospitalized in Greece, or 1,591 died in Spain, but one would presume that at least some of the events had to include violence committed against them or were due to causes unrelated to binge drinking and otherwise rowdy behavior.)

What fucking bullshit.

If you’d like, you can go here to write to the Times about how victims are not “hurting themselves” by being raped by someone else.

Next Page →