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

Mexico City Set to Legalize Abortion

Damn good news.

MEXICO CITY, March 30 — Dominated by liberals, Mexico City’s legislature is expected to legalize abortion in a few weeks. The bill would make this city one of the largest entities in Latin America to break with a long tradition of women resorting to illegal clinics and midwives to end unwanted pregnancies. . . .

The contours of the debate are familiar to veterans of similar battles in the United States. But Mexico City’s law would be groundbreaking in Latin America, where most countries allow abortion only under strict conditions, like when the life of the mother is in danger or when she is a victim of rape or incest. Only in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guyana can women have abortions for any reason during the first trimester. Three countries — Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador — ban it without exception.

The Mexico City bill would make it legal to have an abortion during the first trimester for any reason. The procedure would be free at city health facilities. Private hospitals would be required to provide an abortion to any woman who asks for one, though doctors with religious or ethical objections would not be required to perform abortions.

Jill has written extensively here about the high human toll that draconian abortion regimes take. And some of the most draconian regimes are found in countries where the Catholic Church has strong influence.

Not surprisingly, the Church is fighting tooth and nail against the liberalization of abortion laws in Mexico City:

Catholic leaders and church officials have denounced the proponents as “baby killers” and have warned that the law could provoke violence against doctors who agree to provide the service. A group of Catholic lawyers are pushing for a citywide referendum on the issue, hoping to avert the vote in the city Legislative Assembly.

Yeah, the law could “provoke” violence. Violence that will just fall out of the sky. I think we’ve seen that it doesn’t take much to prime that particular pump.

Feminists who’ve been fighting for the decriminalization of abortion are countering the hellfire-and-brimstone with actual fact: that women — particularly if they have little control over contraception — are going to have abortions regardless of whether they’re legal; at least if you legalize abortions, you can reduce the very real harm that illegal abortions can cause.

Leftists and feminists, meanwhile, have accused opponents of turning a blind eye to reality. They say millions of women here, and indeed throughout much of Latin America, already ignore the law and choose to abort fetuses, often in dingy underground clinics or the private homes of midwives. They risk infection, sterility and sometimes death.

“Women are dying, above all poor women, because of unsafe abortions,” said María Consuelo Mejía, the director of Catholics for the Right to Decide. “What we would like is that these women never have to confront the necessity of an abortion, but in this society it’s impossible right now. There is no access to information, to contraceptives. Nor do most women have the power to negotiate the use of contraceptives with their partners.”

Interestingly, the opposition to abortion rights in Mexico City is at least willing to think about ways to avoid the need for abortion — unlike the forced-pregnancy lobby in the US. Scott compares and contrasts:

The key question of abortion policy is always not whether women will get abortions, but whether non-affluent women will have access to safe abortions. It’s strongly in the interests of the forced pregnancy lobby to ignore this reality, because once you do take it into account abortion criminalization is essentially indefensible.

Another interesting aspect of the article is the reaction of pro-criminalization elites: “[Calderon’s] health minister and other surrogates in the conservative National Action Party, however, are in the thick of it. They have proposed streamlining adoption laws, improving sex education and providing subsidies to unwed mothers as alternatives.” This makes them more serious than most of their American counterparts, at least. But I would ask the same question I would of “Feminists For Life”: if you favor these things, what’s stopping you? Why are they merely “alternatives,” particularly given what an ineffective tool criminalization is when it comes to preventing abortions? And, again, the answer is that American criminalization regimes are about a lot more than protecting fetal life.

Celebrity Death Match: Alanis vs. Fergie

You Can’t Do That on Television: 1.
Kids Incorporated: 0.

I am of the firm belief that “My Humps” is the single worst song ever made. Ever. Nothing even comes close. If I could assassinate one person on the planet, it would probably be Fergie. I would rather stick rusty nails in my eyes than have to hear “My Humps” ever again. I would rather listen to “Who Let The Dogs Out?” and “The Macarena” on repeat, forever. I would rather eat a box of Krispy Kreme and wash it down with $2 California Merlot. I would rather utter the words, “You know, Bill Donahue kind of has a point…” I would rather be barred from played “Would You Rather” ever again.

You get the idea.

But Alanis may have just changed my mind. Amazing.

Thanks to Ali, who calls this a “true attack on pop culture patriarchy.”

Abstinence-only craziness

hymen
I, Jill Filipovic, pledge to never let tampons violate the sanctity of my hoo-hoo, because tampons are really nothing more than thirsty little albino penises.

Amanda has a great post up about an abstinence-only program which involves using tape to rip the skin and hair off of students’ arms in order to demonstrate the negative consequences of pre-marital sex. Seriously. At the end of the demonstration, the piece of tape — designated Miss Tape, to represent the girl who gets around — is tossed in the trashcan, as Amanda says, “to demonstrate the proper use of sexually active women.”

This isn’t the only wacky abstinence-promoting program that tells women we’re used up and unwanted if we have sex before marriage. As bean points out in the comments at Pandagon, the used-up woman is an ongoing theme in abstinence education.

A peppermint patty is unwrapped and passed around the class. Once returned, the teacher asks if a student would like to eat it. The teacher is instructed to ask, “Why is this patty no longer appealing?” The answer they give is “No one wants food that has been passed around. Neither would you want your future husband or wife to have been passed around.”

Read More…Read More…

More Double Standards

What’s our double standard this time? Multiple marriages: okay for men, something for women to be ashamed of.

WHEN Judith Giuliani recently revealed that she had been married not twice but three times, her disclosure caused a stir. In all the public accounts about her relationship with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, why had it never come out that she had an earlier, four-year marriage before she wed Bruce Nathan, long assumed to be her first husband?

Asked in an interview with Barbara Walters on “20/20” that was broadcast Friday whether she had deliberately hidden the first marriage “because it might look bad that you had now three husbands,” Mrs. Giuliani said Mr. Giuliani, now a Republican presidential candidate, always knew. But she acknowledged that his run for national office required her to go public.

“And when I was asked, we discussed it,” she said. “That was my decision.”

Note that this is the third marriage for each of them. Yet only Judith felt it necessary to downplay that fact. And only Judith was being asked whether it “might look bad” that she had been thrice-married. The concern was that conservative voters would not accept a thrice-married First Lady, not that they would not accept a thrice-married President.

A more relevant question would be the role that Judith played in the very public and very ugly breakup of Rudy’s second marriage, in which Rudy let his wife (the mother of his children) know he was leaving her by squiring Judith in front of reporters and making a statement to the press. On Mother’s Day.

But it’s fascinating that Judith wouldn’t have told anyone about her first marriage had the issue not been forced by Rudy’s presidential ambitions. And she’s not the only woman who feels necessary to downplay the number of marriages she has had even as divorce and remarriage becomes more common:

Although third unions are losing shock value, some of the multiple married say they are still fearful of negative attitudes. You can always blame the first divorce on the ex, some experts noted, but by the second and third breakup it gets harder to point fingers.

“Something must be wrong with you,” Constance Ahrons, a family therapist in San Diego who researches and writes books on divorce and remarriage, said of an attitude still seen today. “We haven’t gotten over that for second and third marriages.”

For her third wedding, Donna Leeds surrounded herself with 100 friends, relatives and clients and had the big celebration she had missed out on in her first two marriages.

The third time was not the charm, however, and six years later Ms. Leeds ended up divorced, again. “I stayed with him for six years because I was embarrassed of having been married three times and not making it work,” she said.

That’s very telling. Women are expected to carry the emotional burden of a marriage, and if it doesn’t work out, there’s a suspicion that she failed at making it work. Even when the marriage breaks up due to the husband’s infidelity, blame is often cast on the wife — I mean, how many times have you heard some guy explaining away his indiscretions by referencing his wife’s coldness, or nagging, or unwillingness to give him head, or what have you?

One marriage breaking up can be blamed on bad luck, but absent being widowed, when a woman goes through multiple husbands, a lot of people feel that there’s something about her that’s not quite right in terms of her womanhood — that the failure of the marriages means that she’s not doing the kinds of things a woman should be doing to keep a marriage together. Like looking pretty or being nice or being loving or what have you.

That’s not to say, of course, that men who are married three times or more aren’t looked at funny. It’s just that the focus tends to be on what they actually *did* to contribute to the end of the marriages, rather than what they *didn’t* do, or what they *should have* done. So when, say, a Rudy Giuliani leaves his second wife for his mistress and lets her know via press conference, or Newt Gingrich leaves his second wife for his mistress and lets her know via divorce papers served to the hospital room where she was recovering from cancer, the focus is on their actions. Whereas their second wives are left wondering if things would have been different if only they’d been younger, or more attractive, or flattered them more.

And even when a woman doesn’t have a history of divorce in her own past, she can be affected by a partner’s previous divorces:

Part of her shame was the double standard she said divorced women have experienced. In fact, some divorce lawyers said third wives have fared worse than first wives in divorce settlements in the past, especially if the woman herself has had previous marriages, because it was assumed that a third marriage was worth less than the first.

“It’s O.K. if the man goes out and gets married three or four times,” Ms. Kendrick said. “For the woman, it almost makes her look like she’s sleeping around.”

Wasn’t that something that the oxytocin people say about multiple marriages (not to mention serial monogamy)? That it’s just the same as sleeping around? It’s all part of the idea that women get used up a little more with each man they have a relationship with? It’s definitely an exception to the usual idea that marriage confers some kind of magical protection against the depletion of the pussy. I guess it doesn’t count, though, unless the pussy is delivered to one’s husband hermetically sealed. Once some other man’s been in there, the magic is gone.

Michelle Malkin: Combating Terrorism One Crappy Manifesto at a Time

doe

Funniest response ever to Michelle Malkin’s batshit I am John Doe campaign.

Most Americans just rolled over and surrendered when Arab terrorists took over the government and the media, but not Michelle Malkin.

She’s fighting back. By starting a club.

All you have to do to join is report everyone you see who seems to be a foreigner. Or who seems to tolerate foreigners. Or who may be thinking foreigner-tolerating thoughts.

It’s like the Junior Spies in 1984, only totally fun.

You must go read the pledge, with commentary from Chris Kelly. Malkin does indeed offer “Stirring words. It’s like Pat Benatar wrote Braveheart.” And I’m so glad someone is finally taking on the issue of Sharia law at community pools.

Update on Tech Issues

Okay, I’ve successfully fixed my YouTube sound problem.

First, I had to download the new Flash uninstaller, run that, then re-install Flash. Then, the slider above the speaker on the Flash player had to be re-set the first few times I tried it, since it was on minimum. But once I moved the slider up, I could hear fine.

Et voila! Problem solved.