In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Month: February 2006

Shades of Harriet Miers

Bush’s reaction to the outrage over the port-security issue is reminding me quite a bit of his initial reaction to the outrage over his selection of Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Just as then, he’s getting awfully pissy with his critics for refusing to take his decision on trust. He’s actually threatening to use his veto power for the first time if Congress takes any action to stop the deal from going through.

And just as with Miers, his critics include Republicans. Even Peter King!

This is an easy issue — and it goes to the heart of “9/11 changed everything.” After spending five years conflating terrorism and the Middle East and of whipping up fears of attack and invasion through our ports (and, of course, assuring the country that only Big Daddy GOP can keep us safe), how else did Bush expect the country to react to the news that he’s turning over port security to a company run by the government of a country which two of the 9/11 hijackers came from? A country through whose banking system the 9/11 hijackers laundered money and through whose ports A.Q. Khan conducted his trade in nuclear components to places like Iran?

Hell, the idea that the government would turn over port security, after 9/11 changed everything, to a private company, is hard enough to swallow. The Administration sure as hell did its damnedest to keep the Chinese from purchasing Unocal, citing national security interests. Given how often we’ve been told that port security is one of the weak points in our national defenses, what Congresscritters in their right minds wouldn’t question this? (I said right mind — which eliminates Joe Lieberman).

And, of course, there’s a lot to question. The 45-day investigation required by law when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government was not done. Two of the members of the board that approved this deal are Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Snow. Rumsfeld claims not to know any details. Snow has very valuable options vested in a company that sold its shipping operations to the Dubai company, DP World. Then there’s David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and — what a coincidence! — was tapped last month by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Of course, now Bush is admitting that he didn’t even know about the port deal until after it was approved by his Administration.

In short, this whole thing stinks.

Julia has more.

Not actually dead.

…Just really, really busy. I’m trying to finish heavily revising an essay that I’m submitting to something.

That’s why I haven’t posted lately, and why all my comments have been way more concise than usual.

However, I did want to draw your attention to this article, which is why I will never complain about my job again. This woman conducts sex tours at the zoo. And this year, the animals didn’t even cooperate:

It was time for the annual Valentine’s Day sex tour at the San Francisco Zoo, but none of the permanent residents got the memo. As human voyeurs learned about the torrid world of amorous beasts, most of the animals barely glanced at each other.

Keep An Eye on South Dakota

The legislature there is voting on one of the most wide-reaching state abortion bans since Roe. And if the ban goes through, it’s sure to reach the Supreme Court — offering up the chance to overturn Roe and take us decades back in terms of the privacy rights we all hold dear.

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill’s supporters have in mind.

These guys are practically salivating over this one. The idea of controlling uteruses state-wide, and foring all pregnant women to give birth, is just too appealling.

Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country.

“I’m convinced that the timing is right for this,” said State Representative Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, noting the appointments of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the court.

“The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable,” Mr. Hunt added, a reference to conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire. “I think it will all culminate at the right time.”

Pray to your God/Goddess, or just cross your fingers, that Stevens can stick it out for another couple years.

And this law really does call bullshit on any “pro-lifer” who claims that the anti-choice movement cares at all about women:

The proposed legislation, which states that “life begins at the time of conception,” would prohibit abortion except in cases where the pregnant woman’s life was at risk. Felony charges could be placed against doctors, but not against those seeking abortions, the measure says.

It offers no exception for the pregnant woman’s health — if giving birth is going to cause massive kidney damage which will likely kill her after childbirth, no exception. If giving birth is going to force doctors to perform a hysterectomy, no exception. If the fetus has such a severe birth defect that it will die before, during or immediately after birth, no exception — the woman will be forced by the state to bring a doomed pregnancy to term, and to go through the dangers of childbirth for a fetus that will never live when she could have had a safer procedure.

It criminalizes doctors. And it creates a medical environment where there just won’t be any doctors in South Dakota who know how to perform these procedures when they are absolutely necessary — when the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life; when women show up at the ER with partially-performed and botched illegal procedures; when the fetus dies in utero, and is literally rotting inside the woman’s body, posing a serious risk of septic shock and poisoning her. Even most anti-choicers would allow for removal of a dead fetus — but who knows how to do that? Abortion providers. Of which there will be none.

This ban additionally states that “life begins at the time of conception,” which again demonstrates that politicians probably shouldn’t be making laws about medicine when they have no idea what they’re talking about (hello there, “partial-birth” abortion!). “Conception” isn’t a medical term. Fertilization is, but pregnancy doesn’t start at fertilization — it starts at implantation. And if “life” in South Dakota starts at “conception,” they’re going to have a skyrocketing miscarriage rate, as about half of fertilized eggs naturally don’t implant in the uterus and get flushed out. Perhaps the next initiative will require women to save their used tampons and pads, or at least give them a proper burial, considering the possibility that there’s a baby on them.

I’m being snarky now, but I think it points to the ridiculousness of this law. Legislating the idea that “life begins at conception” brings with it a whole slew of problems, and is deeply medically and scientifically unsound. This entire bill should have us worried; let’s hope it doesn’t pass.

Yes, I *Would* Like Some Cheese With That Whine

It’s been One of Those Days. My knuckles hurt. I can’t get into the site. I walked around with my fly open for half the day without realizing it. I have a zit on the inside of my nostril and it huuuuuurts.

What’s bugging you? The more trivial, the better.

Running in Heels

On cobblestone. For cash. Sponsored by Glamour Magazine, which apparently enjoys torturing its readers with sadistic footwear and a contest that’s likely to leave at least a few of them with broken ankles. Lovely. Who says women’s magazines are anti-feminist?

Via Gawker, which says, “Running in stilettos? On cobblestone? We’ve been to the Meatpacking District and have seen firsthand how truly dangerous that can be. American fashion magazines may make us want to stop eating while simultaneously maxing out our credit cards, but at least they not trying to kill us.”

Daily Outrage — Top 10, in no particular order

Because it’s good to get your heart rate up.

1. What kind of government sends a man to an oppressive “axis of evil” country, allows him to be brutally tortured, and then, upon finding out that he’s actually innocent, refuses to hear his case because it might shed some light on “state secrets”? Right, ours

2. If an Italian girl isn’t a virgin, it means her rapist is less culpable for his crime. Because rape is way less tragic if you’ve had sex before. And if your step dad forces you to give him oral sex, well, it couldn’t have been that bad since you’re already a slut.

3. Officials in Juarez, Mexico dismiss the serial murders of women and girls.

4. There are still people out there who think that having a vagina should disqualify you from being President. Those people are more likely to vote Republican. This should surprise no one.

5. Girls are more aggressive, and this is bad bad bad. As Rox writes, Prepare yourself for the usual suspects to use the findings in this book to justify a roll-back of Title IX, an increase in abstinence education, and a de-emphasis on teaching girls they “can be anything they want to be.”

6. “Baby shortage” in the UK prompts blaming of selfish young women for not doing their duty to properly reproduce.

7. A young Iranian journalist, imprisoned for mocking Ayatollah Khomeni, is brutally murdered in prison by being forced to drink bleach and cleaning products.

8. This is what’s happening at Abu Graib. (Not work-safe). This is why Salon published these pictures. This is what’s being done in the name of “America” and “freedom.” It’s shameful.

9. Atrios says it well: Congratulations, Republicans. If you or your wives are going to be permanently and seriously disabled due to pregnancy complications there will soon be nothing your doctor can do about it. Feministing gives us the scoop.

10. Sluts still need to be taught a lesson.

Enjoy.

“Tolerance” As Social Control

Jane Smiley has an interesting piece in the Huffington Post in response to a post by Mark Joseph calling Anne Lamott’s passionate defense of her pro-choice beliefs “intolerant.”

Leftist Christians, like Lamott, are supposed to be “tolerant”, which means, I suppose, that they aren’t supposed to offend “anti-choice” Christians with the intensity of their principles. But in my experience, what pro-choice women are supposed to “tolerate” is the proclaimed right of anti-choice Christians to tell them what to do with their reproductive lives, their bodies, their families, and their birth control choices. Where does “tolerance” enter in here? Tolerance is about agreeing to disagree. Anti-choice and anti-abortion activism is not about agreeing to disagree, it is about social control.

I’d expand Smiley’s point a bit: it’s not just anti-choice and anti-abortion activists who sling the “intolerance” charge at leftists. It happens all the time with conservatives and conservatarians: leftist makes a strong statement of opinion, con makes charge of intolerance, usually adding that liberals are supposed to be tolerant. Variations include likening the Democratic party to a plantation and black Democrats to slaves, calling liberals “the real racists” in reaction to being called out on racism, and on and on. It’s an attempt to control the target by shaming. Since liberals pride themselves on being tolerant, charges of intolerance sting — which, of course, right-wingers know quite well:

When Christians talk about secular Americans being “tolerant” of Christian beliefs, they are misusing the word. What conservative Christians want is not toleration, but social control. Toleration takes place between two people who know one another, and is a feature of personal relationships. Social control is about who gets the power to dictate policy and law. Christians like Mark Joseph sometimes play the “tolerance” card as a way to present themselves as a disempowered group, but what it is about them that is disempowered is their ability to tell the rest of us what to do. And most of the rules they want us to follow are abstract–rules about how men and women should relate, rules about what families should look like, rules about what people should learn. The program, for Christian conservatives, is not essentially about faith or morality–those are elements in a larger program. The larger program is enforcing conformity. What’s the real goal? Well, no doubt it is money and power–have you seen how wealthy the Pope is? Of Pat Robertson? Or the pastors of some of those other mega-churches?

It doesn’t always come from the right, either — it can come from the left, too, usually as a means of enforcement. I certainly caught it from both the right and the left in the comments to my post about the incredibly incompetent paralegal at my firm (who has mercifully been fired). From the left: I was called classist, elitist, insensitive, blind to my privilege, and it was suggested that I was incompetently managing the situation (despite the fact that I am not management around here).

And from the right: “Hey, I thought sisterhood was powerful. First off, why don’t you just TALK to her?” Followed by a suggestion that it was my job to buttonhole this woman and remind her that women before us busted their asses so that we could be where we are today.

So, shaming from both sides — from the left, charges of intolerance to get me in line with orthodoxy. And from the right, sneering about sisterhood and a reminder that liberals are supposed to be tolerant. Message: conform.