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

Friday Random Ten – the Obamamania edition

Jill

1. Tall Birds – Internalize
2. Ted Leo and the Pharmacists – The Lost Brigade
3. Tom Waits – Anywhere I Lay My Head
4. Jets to Brazil – Sea Anemone
5. Cat Stevens – Oh Very Young
6. Des Ark – Send Jolly to Raleigh
7. Rolling Stones – Factory Girl
8. Rufus Wainwright – Across the Universe
9. Dead Kennedys – Too Drunk to Fuck
10. Neko Case – Hold On, Hold On

As a Friday treat, I’d like to take this moment to direct everyone to this comment by pro-life reader Shawn. It’s so rich that I’m convinced it has to be high-level performance art, because he insists that population statistics are evil; says that women who miscarry have been touched by Satan and need exorcism to rid them of their demons; argues that the pro-life position ends when immoral acts come into play, which is why children conceived via IVF are evil and should be destroyed, but says that conception via rape is a-ok; and then this:

The embryo’s life is MORE important than that of the vessel in which it is carried…. The woman has had a (relatively fuller) life than that of the embryo she carries. Women have died in childbirth before; while it is regretable, the future (the embryo) must take the place of the past (the woman). If it is possible to reimplant said embryo in another woman of childbearing age, we should do so ASAP. So too for ectopic pregnancies. The vessel in which the embryo is in is NOT AS IMPORTANT as the embryo her/himself, which should be preserved as much as humanly possible. For the nine months of pregnancy, the pregnant woman’s body is NO LONGER HER OWN; IT IS THE SUPPORT FOR HER BABY. So women should enter into pregnancy prepared to sacrifice all, inclduding HER OWN LIFE, for the sake of the baby’s. If she is not willing to do so, she has the option (in most cases) of NOT BECOMING PREGNANT. Let her abstain from sex if she doesn’t want a baby; let her partner do so as well– if they are not prepared to give their all for nine months for their baby. After that, they can do as they wish. Is nine months too much to ask?

I don’t think he could possibly be serious, but if he is, kudos for consistency and honesty.

Now, Friday Videos:

Obama, in case you missed him last night:

Music below the fold.

Citizen Cope, because I like this song enough to tolerate my sister playing it on repeat to Portland and back:

M.I.A. just because I love her:

And Elissa, because she’s rad:

Posted in Uncategorized

8 thoughts on Friday Random Ten – the Obamamania edition

  3. That comment is . . . well, first of all it’s the pro-life movement being honest for once in its miserable existence on how they really feel, but what stood out for me was this bit:

    Let her abstain from sex if she doesn’t want a baby; let her partner do so as well– if they are not prepared to give their all for nine months for their baby. After that, they can do as they wish. Is nine months too much to ask?

    Since when is there an “after that” with abstinence as your contraception? Last I checked, if you abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy you have to do it pretty much ALL THE TIME if you want any real success with it. Abstaining for one day, one month, one year, only keeps you safe from pregnancy for that one day, one month, or one year—all the abstinence in the world won’t buy you so much as one fuck where you’re completely safe from getting pregnant. And if, as oh-so-kindly suggested, one donates that nine months, can they really “do as they wish” then? NO! Not without risking—guess what? Another pregnancy! It does not end, it does not give grace periods, you just sacrifice and sacrifice, one way or the other, and get nothing for it.

  4. Gee, it’s too bad there isn’t a woman in the race that a feminist blog could support … (tongue planted firmly in cheek) A woman who has consistently supported reproductive justice. Have I missed something here?

    BAC

  5. Yes, BAC. You missed the part where feminists get to vote for whomever they damn well please, without regard to what’s in the candidate’s pants.

    FFS.

  6. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune wrote that Obama’s speech amounted to doing an end-zone dance on the 30-yard line. He’s right. Just because Obama won that absurd game of Red Rover (to borrow another blogger’s phrase) that passes for a nominating process in Iowa doesn’t mean he should talk like he’s got the nomination sewed up. The political landscape is littered with the corpses of Iowa winners.

    If anyone cares, I’m thinking of voting for the man myself. But he better watch it; smug doesn’t play well.

  7. Gee, it’s too bad there isn’t a woman in the race that a feminist blog could support … (tongue planted firmly in cheek) A woman who has consistently supported reproductive justice. Have I missed something here?

    I do support Clinton. I support all of ’em, and I’ve said many times that I’ll be thrilled if she gets the nomination. I was also thrilled when Obama did well in Iowa. None of the candidates appeal all that much to me, and Clinton is far too moderate for me to throw early support behind her. That said, I would love to see her win. But I’m not going to support someone 100% just because she’s a woman, when I disagree with so much of what she’s done.

    That’s what you’re missing.

  8. HOLY CRAP! That post brought to mind the old film, “Logan’s Run”, where people who hit age 30 were terminated because there were replacement babies.
    I am stunned that this person functions in the real world and wonder what other bizarre ideas he has!

    As for the elections, I am out of MY dream world where I vote for third party candidates. Some local elections kicked my ass hard enough to wake me up and I’m going to actively support Obama.

Comments are currently closed.