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

Month: April 2009

Congratulations to Iowan Newly Weds

Earlier this month, a court ruling declared an Iowa ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.  Today, that decision took effect, and the first same-sex couples have applied for their marriage licenses.  Apparently, all over the state there are couples lined up at government offices to fill out their applications (above).  At least one couple — Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe —  has already been proclaimed legally married, surely with more to follow very soon.

A big congratulations to all.  May much happiness follow for you.  And may similar rulings/laws be shortly enacted all over this country.

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

It’s a little bit late today folks, but self-promote away.  Leave a link in the comments to something you’ve written this week, along with a brief description.  Be specific — don’t just link to your whole blog.

Dominican Republic Passes Complete Ban on Abortion

RH Reality Check clues us into the horrible news that the Dominican Republic has approved an amendment to the Constitution that outlaws all abortion.  The amendment states that “the right to the life is inviolable from conception until death” — just not if you’re a woman who needs access to a safe medical procedure.  Even if you’ve been raped.  Even if your life is at risk.

The approval came despite the vocal outcry from feminists, doctors, the United Nations Program for Human Development, and the Dominican Gynecology and Obstetrics Society:

In that regard, the Dominican Gynecology and Obstetrics Society Wednesday warned that the number of maternal deaths will increase considerably, with the approval of the article that bans the interruption of pregnancies.

The entity’s president, Aldrian Almonte, said the current figure of 160 deaths for each 100,000 live births per year will increase, because doctors would be reluctant to proceed from fear of being charged in cases where they must decide on the interruption of a pregnancy to preserve the mother’s life.

“Those deaths are product of the unsafe abortions. I would like of the honorable legislators to tell me what are we going to do before the presence of a woman with severe preeclampsia or eclampsia, convulsing in any emergency room around the country, what must we do, see her die to protect ourselves from the repercussions that article 30 stipulates?,” he said.

Again, the amendment also does not include exceptions for rape/incest, or life of the mother.  Just as the influential Catholic Church would want it.  Because, and this cannot be repeated enough, the lives of women don’t matter.  At least not the lives of women “evil” enough to put themselves, their well-being, their health, above a pregnancy.  The lives of embryos matter, the lives of women don’t.

I don’t know what else to say.  This outrageous, it is horrific.  It is going to cost the financial security, health, and lives of countless women.  Women are going to die.  Yes, it’s an awful thing to have to say, but it’s the truth, and for that reason needs to be said: women are going to die because of this.

Congratulations, “pro-life” groups.  You’ve got yet more blood to wash of your misogynistic hands.

Via Jump off the Bridge

Argentinian Bank Ad Promotes “Change”

This Argentinian advertisement is currently making the internet rounds:

I’m of two minds about this: On one hand, of course it’s nice to see an ad with a fuzzy message about how positive change involves treating transgender people with respect, and it’s nice to see transgender people on television as morally neutral or even positive characters. On the other hand, though, it’s using a long-oppressed group to sell a touchy-feely message about how a bank will make us realize we’re all really the same deep down, because we all got our loans from the same place. And I think it’ll be a little more revolutionary when trans people are on TV and in media for reasons other than “look at this person who is trans.” Or “buy this.”

I dunno, maybe I’m cold-hearted, but I didn’t tear up over this commercial like so many YouTube commenters. I was actually kind of turned off by it, but perhaps that’s my cynicism in over-drive. What do you all think?

Thanks to Michael for the link.

Friday Random Ten – the Sprung edition

Thank God it is finally spring in New York. And in honor of the fine weather and the fact that it has inspired me to return to the gym, which I have not visited in almost two weeks, we have a Very Special FRT this week. Last time around I asked you to help my dad find teh cool; now I want you to help me update my gym playlist so that I’m actually motivated to work out instead of sitting on my couch watching re-runs of Arrested Development on Hulu. So for my FRT this week, I set my Gym playlist to “shuffle” and skipped the 19 Girl Talk songs that came up so that we would have some variety. You should do the same, and we can all find some new tunes.

1. Yeah Yeah Yeahs – Zero
2. Franz Ferdinand – Michael
3. Beyonce – Ring the Alarm
4. Girl Talk – Once Again
5. Ting Tings – That’s Not My Name
6. MGMT – Time to Pretend
7. The Gossip – Yr Mangled Heart
8. Les Savy Fav – Yawn, Yawn, Yawn
9. T.I. – Whatever You Like
10. MIA – Paper Planes

The Friday Video will possibly get me in trouble with Ms. Lauren, but I have a weakness for over-the-top divas, and I think Gaga fits the bill. And while I generally dislike the new electro-pop/disco thing and while her music is decidedly not particularly feminist-friendly, I can respect her steadfast refusal to wear pants. I also love the aesthetic of her videos:

Happy Friday. Leave your FRTs in the comments.

Posted in Uncategorized

Target Women: Tough Love

(Click here if you can’t view the embedded video.)

Of course, nothing about this show is actually funny.  Steve Ward not only reinforces the idea that women only have worth in life they’re able to find a man, while simultaneously mocking them for therefore being obsessed with desperately trying to find one — he also shames women into appropriately feminine subservient behavior, and then tells them that failing to comply with his advice will “get [them] raped.” (Okay, the fact the supposed match-making guru has his mother answers his emails on the matter is almost funny.)

But still.  I’ll be damned if Sarah doesn’t somehow find the hilarity.

Defining “intolerance” (Hint: It has nothing to do with depriving you of a tiara)

So by now you’ve probably heard about Miss California’s statements about same-sex marriage during the Miss USA pageant. In short, Miss California was asked whether she supported marriage rights, and she said, in many more words, “No.” She continued to say she believes only “opposite marriage” should be legal. Much mockery on Facebook and the blogs ensued, and now we have the New York Times’ Opinionator blog rounding up a variety of views on the issue (and leaning pretty heavily towards the right for some reason). The conservative arguments — including from a Log Cabin Republican — are basically, “You liberals are intolerant because you are mocking Miss California for her intolerance.” For example, a Focus on the Family dude says:

Those who lean to the left ideologically like to paint those of us on the other side as the “intolerant” ones. But some of them are going to have a hard time whitewashing the intolerance they’ve shown to Carrie Prejean since she said during the weekend pageant that she believes marriage should be defined as solely the union of one man and one woman.

I think some people don’t really understand the concept of “intolerance.” Being intolerant of someone’s racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc etc opinions is not the same as being intolerant of someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc etc. There’s a difference between trying to take away someone’s civil rights (or never offering them at all), and voicing your disapproval of a person who is trying to take away a group’s civil rights.

To take the FOTF guy’s argument a step further according to his own logic, he’s now the one who’s being intolerant (again!) for not tolerating my intolerance of Miss California’s intolerance.

See how stupid this game is?

Mr. Log Cabin Republican takes it even further into the ridiculous-zone:

Read More…Read More…

Emergency Conctraception Becomes Available Without a Prescription to Those 17 and Older

Just in case you haven’t yet heard:

Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge’s order and lowered the age limit by a year.

The decision on Wednesday by the Food and Drug Administration, which overturns one of the most controversial health rulings of the Bush administration, was scorned by abortion opponents and hailed by their abortion rights counterparts.

[. . .]

Like their older counterparts, 17-year-old women will now be able to go to almost any pharmacy, clinic or hospital and, after showing proof of age, buy Plan B without a prescription. Men 17 and older may also buy Plan B for a partner.

This is, of course, excellent news.  And a sign that the Obama administration, when it comes to decisions that pit science against ideology, will be significantly more moderate than the Bush administration was.

But, while I hate to rain on this parade — and again, really, great news!!! — it should give us a bit of pause that the drug is still only available without a prescription to people aged 17 and older.  Like many advocates, I believe that everyone needs easy and fast access to emergency contraception (EC).  And that’s something we shouldn’t stop fighting for just because the rules have been significantly relaxed.

It’s also a time to talk about things that FDA regulations can’t cure — namely, education.  Far too many people, especially teens, just don’t know a) that emergency contraception exists or b) how to get it if they do.  I know this from experience — when you have any history of working for Planned Parenthood, you get a lot of unexpected questions from a lot of people who need this kind of information.  And the fact is that lots of people don’t know: what EC is or how it works, that EC can be taken for longer than just “the morning after,” how to ask for it, that men can buy EC too if need be, or that it’s even available without a prescription at all.

Those are huge gaps.  And they need to be filled in through comprehensive sex education and public education campaigns, now.  And to top it all off, we also need to find ways to make EC more affordable.

Because sadly, until we do that, legal access isn’t going to be the same thing as accessible.