The Newest Addition To My Blogroll

Check it out:

Sarah Palin IS NOT Hillary Clinton

Apropos of...

...my post on June 30. This is an interesting read. I think it goes a long way to explain why a black man wouldn't take issue with hurling racist and sexist epithets at black women, while probably taking great issue of being the victim of racist slurs himself.

My only issue is the idea that many black men only hate black women. I'm sure they reserve their worst resentment and bad treatment for their female peers, but I highly doubt that, if these guys had access to white women, they'd treat us any better.

Ultimately, when a man is low status, whether due to race or class or both, he clings to the last shred of dominance and alleged superiority he has -- that piece of meat swinging between his legs.

Manufactured Outrage

Some female opponents of Obama, who oppose him for no other reason than he's not the female candidate, are looking for any excuse to hate on him. It's getting to the point of being half-hearted. I'm not even really feeling it anymore. Obama says something. OMG! Outrage, outrage, outrage. He hates women, even though he shares the exact same positions as the female candidate and talks about abortion pretty much exactly the same way. It doesn't matter. He's not a woman, only the woman is allowed to take nuanced views of abortion.

The most recent manufactured offense: Obama says he doesn't support an "emotional distress" exception for late-term abortion.

Let's see some of that fake outrage.

What he meant is that he doesn't think all those irresponsible, fickle, ninny-brained straw-women who decide willy-nilly they want abortions in their third trimester shouldn't be allowed to get one by claiming "mental distress" swoon swan get thee to a fainting couch. He's breathing life into the damnable lie that there are legions of women who seek out late-term abortions just because they've changed their silly little minds and make up lies about "mental distress" to get them.

Jesus, where do I begin?

1. The third trimester is a generally accepted cut-off point for abortion. It's at that point that a fetus becomes effectively viable and aborting a fetus that can survive outside its mother's womb kinda smacks of infanticide. (And this would be real infanticide, not the fake shit that anti-choicers have made up.) People who support abortion rights fully accept this cut-off point, with the exception of a few loonies (who you'll find in the comments of that blog post). Other countries where abortion rights are codified into law (as compared to being decided by the courts) often cut off elective abortions even earlier, such as after the first trimester. Those countries have the same prohibitions and exceptions for late-term abortions that we have had for the past 35 years.

2. "Emotional distress" has often been used by women in countries where abortion is illegal. Wealthy women in those countries shop around for a doctor willing to give them an exception and essentially buy access to a safe abortion. This has been the case in Spain for a long time and is a major reason why Portugal won't allow abortion under any circumstances. They've seen how the mental, and even general, health exception works in practice. Allowing women late-term abortion for something as nebulous as "emotional distress" is the same thing as having no prohibitions on late-term abortions at all. Anyone who knows something about abortion and the history of abortion would know this to be true. (You'd think these guys had at least seen Vera Drake.) It's amazing to see such die-hard proponents of abortion rights acting like such ignoramuses, but I suppose that's necessary when you're manufacturing outrage.

3. Obama's position is necessary to preserve abortion rights in this country. Americans barely support abortion rights. Most of those who generally support abortion rights are squeamish about it. They like to see limits on it. They like to see parental consent laws. They don't like to see government money spent on abortion. They want to make sure that late-term fetuses, which are pretty much babies, aren't being aborted at all or at least are being aborted for only the best of reasons, such as the health of the mother or the death or severe ill health of the fetus. Taking the position of "Fuck it. Women should be able to have abortions whenever, for whatever reason." hurts the cause. It alienates people who would otherwise support us. It makes the anti-choicers' lies about fetal organ farms and the profitability of Planned Parenthood that much easier to believe. And, yes, most Americans who support abortion rights will worry that some women will seek late-term abortions for superficial reasons. Even if only one woman does it, that could very well be enough to turn many Americans against abortion rights.

It's so frustrating to see this garbage, particularly when combined with the other criticisms of Obama's statements on abortion. He thinks women should only have "some" control over our bodies. He thinks women should have to consult with our religious leaders and fathers of our babies before we can get abortions. He thinks abortion is a tragic choice.

It's all bullshit and it's all manufactured.

We finally have a candidate who knows how to talk about abortion. John Kerry demonstrated how not to do it. When asked about abortion at a debate, he said that, as a former altar boy, he understood what the questioner was feeling, but there was just nothing he could do about it. Translation: I know that abortion is wrong, but I'm too much of a mendacious, power-hungry coward to take a stand against what I and my religion consider to be murder.

Obama comes along and talks about how he's not sure about the morality of abortion. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's not, but there's no way to be sure. Therefore, he's going to leave that decision in the hands of the people who are directly affected by it. He's also going to pursue generally good public policies that have the bonus side effect of lowering the abortion rate, and he's going to pursue sensible policies vis a vis late-term abortion since that's a less uncertain moral quandary. No one wants to see a 6- to 9-month-old fetus/baby die unless absolutely necessary.

He is an incredible candidate. His nuanced stand on abortion will cement pro-choice Americans' support of it (even among those who are squeamish about it), and he may even draw some anti-choice voters who are eager to no longer see abortion used as a wedge issue.

I predict Obama will win in a landslide, and I can't wait to see it happen.

Helpful Tip of the Day

Anti-feminist guys, when you're trying to make an argument that feminism isn't necessary or that feminism doesn't need to address a certain issue, don't make it crystal clear in your arguments that feminism is still necessary. Fucking morons.

An example from this Feministing thread:

Sex-ed is to teach children about reproduction, safe sex, contraception, and the like.  It's not to teach them how to give each other orgasms. You might be comfortable with the idea of a bunch of 11 year olds running around learning orgasm-giving techniques, but I'm not. From a purely biological, reproductive standpoint, the female orgasm is without purpose. Sex for pleasure is a perfectly fine use for sex, but human sexuality is primarily a reproductive system.  Thus the name, "reproductive system". That's why most biologists and classes don't focus on the female orgasm.  Because when learning about reproduction, a woman "getting off" really has no bearing on it. That's why.

Though, it's odd to me:

When all a man thinks about is getting off, and sexual pleasure, feminists and women call him an "objectifier of women", and "someone who believes women are for his pleasure", and a "man child"... But when women do the same it's "empowering"? I'm sorry we apparently disagree on feminist views.  I think there's a lot more to it, and MUCH more important feminist work to be done than making certain you get lots of orgasms.

Great orgasms...or woman president?  Great orgasms...or equal representation in congress? It's just tacky to me to try to act like orgasms are important to feminism.

Posted by:  Black Thirteen June 16, 2008 6:41 PM

(Emphasis mine)

You can see where this is going, can't you?  A deaf and blind monkey could see where this is going.

Another comment from the same idiot:

Why is it important for young boys to know how a clitoris works?  In order to give women those orgasms feminists feel we "owe" them?

(Emphasis mine, again)

I love it.  At the same moment this guy is trying to say that female sexuality is irrelevant to feminism, he makes it clear that it's of paramount importance to feminism.  For fuck's sake, in the 21st century, with Dan Savage on the loose, there are straight men who are still threatened by women's sexuality and by the very concept of reciprocity in life and love.  Pathetic.  Unbearably fucking pathetic.

Nowhere Else To Go

I occasionally wade into the nether regions of Hillary blogtopia.  What can I say?  I'm something of a masochist at heart.  A common argument over there is that Obama has to earn Hillary's supporters, namely women.  Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that not all Hillary supporters are women.

For examp:

...the women who are angry about the way that Clinton was treated during the campaign, and about Obama's silence...are not under any illusions that John McCain is better on women's issues than Obama would be.

I've been paying attention to the people who are fed up with that line, and I can say one thing:  that's just not going to work anymore.  They've heard this for decades now, and nothing gets any better, because the party knows they have nowhere else to go.  It's not about McCain being some champion for women's rights;  they know he's not.  What it *is* about is Obama, and the Democratic Party, and the fact that Obama is running to be President on the ticket of the Democratic Party, which is ostensibly supposed to champion women's rights.  But this year, that was revealed to be an expedient lie.  And the people who are fed up with the lies want to give the Party a wakeup call, and to let the party -- and Obama -- know that they expect action, not just promises and lies.

Roe has had only one use for the Democratic Party in the past 25 or so years -- as a club to beat women with every four years.  Because they have nowhere else to go, right?

Fair pay?  Health care?  Domestic violence?  Where has the Party been on those issues?

(Emphasis mine)

Christ on a cracker.  Nothing in that screed indicates any kind of sensible rejection of a candidate or the Democratic Party.

1.  There's the careful parsing of McCain not being "better" on women's issues.  There's no admission that Obama is head and shoulders above McCain on women's issues.  No, McCain isn't "better", which is to imply that he's not worse.  McCain is also not a champion of women's issues, which is to imply that he won't do everything in his power to reverse every political, economic, and social gain that women have won in the past several decades.

2.  It's fucking bullshit to say that nothing gets any better and to put the sole blame on the Democrats.

Conservatives have been fighting for decades to take over the government.  They've been fighting for decades to turn the American public over to their side with great success; the majority of Americans barely support reproductive rights, and most of them are very squeamish over abortion.  Any chipping away at Roe has been at the behest of the American public.  Look to them for the blame.

What's amazing is how little comparative damage the Republicans have managed to wreak over the past few decades.  It's a testament to our founders' foresight when they created this country, and evidence for why it's so difficult for Democrats, even when they have large majorities in Congress, to make sweeping reforms.  You'd think someone with a law degree would understand that, but then you'd have to assume this is actually about the Democrats and not sour grapes over the female candidate's loss.

3.  The Dems' concern for women's issues has hardly been revealed to be an "expedient lie." Having a bunch of men rush in to defend a woman's honor is a thornier issue than it first appears.  What would have happened had Obama defended Hillary from sexist attacks?  If anything, it would have seemed as though he were operating under the assumption that Hillary couldn't defend herself.  Meanwhile, she did handle it herself, with grace and aplomb, although unfortunately only addressed it directly at the very end of her campaign.

4.  I hate to break it to the tiny minority of Hillary supporters determined to sit this one out or vote McCain, but Obama is going to win in a landslide, barring something really terrible happening.  If women actually do sit this one out (not that I'm saying they are, because they AREN'T), and Obama wins anyway, the ultimate message will be that the Democrats don't need women to win, and I don't really think that'll help anyone.

5.  That "promises and lies" line:  My impression from that is that there's nothing Obama can do at this point.  This writer is determined not to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

6.  Damn straight women don't have anywhere else to go.  The past eight years should have been more than enough to demonstrate the consequences of a protest vote.  Perhaps this writer thinks that things can't get worse, so women have the luxury of voting against Obama.  Things can get worse.  Great Depression worse.  Things can get worse for women, for men, for children, for people around the world.  And McCain is just the pasty-faced walking corpse to make that happen.

Anyone with any sense has nowhere else to go.

7.  Fair pay, health care, domestic violence, really?  The party as a whole supports the fair pay act, supports some solution for our health care crisis, and has been working on DV issues for decades.  For frak's sake.  And while not every Democrat agrees with the party's stance on those issues, I do know where the Democratic candidate for president stands, and I'm voting for him largely because of those positions.

Lastly, why does Obama have to specifically reach out to women voters?  On every issue, every issue, that is or could be important to women he's far and away better than McCain.  Putting specific women's issues aside for a moment, women are affected by the economy, crappy health care, Social Security and Medicare, war, environmental destruction, and civil liberty violations just as much as men.  In some cases, they're more affected by those things.

What this writer wants is not for Obama to take a specific stand on "women's" issues; he's already done that.  What she wants is hand holding, for him to pay special attention to her and other disgruntled Hillary supporters and coddle them.  Not surprisingly, this specific critic of Obama constantly criticizes him for being insincere and being an empty suit, and for the kind of "I feel your pain" politicking that she now wants from him!  I'm not imagining a reaching out being accepted in good faith.

"Libertarians" and Feminism

I occasionally, even frequently, agree with libertarians.  I agree with them on issues of civil liberties, on the drug war, on some other social issues.  But then, they gotta go and lay their insecurities on the line.

Francisco Torres June 20, 2008, 6:50pm

In a long and thoughtful response, Rod Dreher ponders this question and writes:

Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed services be forced to subsidize those who do?

The answer to both is:  NO.  Nobody should be forced to do anything -- the question answers itself if you believe coercion is evil.

If women decide NOT to reproduce, they will simply be replaced by younger generations of women who grew up in large families, bred by cultures that reward fertility.  Feminists will simply be bred out of existence by beautiful Latinas.

Guy Montag June 20, 2008, 10:18pm

Feminists will simply be bred out of existence by beautiful Latinas.

WOW, that is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks.

Little known fact, lots of Latinas know how to weld too!  At least in my fantasies anyway.

(Bold mine)

And libertarians wonder why they can't recruit more women.

There are so many things wrong with this.

1.  There's the assumption that Latinas are never feminists.  That would certainly come as a surprise to the valedictorian of my high school class.  But then, to these assholes, she'd be invisible since she's not beautiful.

2.  There's the assumption that all feminists are ugly and, for that matter, that feminists are these she-beasts that sprang out of nowhere.  As if female descendants of third world immigrants wouldn't eventually become feminists themselves.  Nope, only white women are feminists.  Only ugly women are feminists.  And feminism is absolutely not a natural progression for most women as they become better educated, wealthier, and more independent.

3.  There's the general hostility on the part of all (male) libertarians towards feminists and feminism.  They really believe that they can recruit women with this shit going on?  It kind of makes me sad*, because, like I said, there are many libertarian issues I agree with.  Libertarians could try to co-opt the feminist movement.  They could make the argument that they believe in a level playing field for everyone and that women have the potential to equal, maybe even surpass, men in a libertarian society.  There is one problem with that, however, it would be a lie.  Libertarian men do not want to compete equally with women.

4.  And that brings me to my last point: the basis of libertarian hostility toward feminism as evidenced in those quoted comments.  When it comes down to it, in the battle of the sexes, libertarian men are the biggest pussies of all.  The very idea of having to compete equally with women in business, let alone in the bedroom, scares the bejesus out of them.  (Imagine how sad Guy Montag will be when he finds out that second generation Latinas aren't any less likely to be feminist as those white hags who fill his nightmares.)  If women are equal, those guys might have to treat women as actual people with distinct personalities, with their own needs and desires, their own interests.  Look at what douchebag #2 said:  "...lots of Latinas know how to weld too!  At least in my fantasies anyway."  In his fantasies, indeed.  To him, women are here for his pleasure, and his pleasure only.  Ugly women need not apply.  Women who want reciprocity in bed should just fuck off.  Women who advocate for their own interests should shut the fuck up; men's interests are women's interests.  Ultimately, when libertarian men complain about women not joining their movement, it's all about their inability to get laid at their libertarian conferences and not about wanting to see female colleagues at their side fighting for a libertarian utopia.

Oh, and, Guy, I've found your ideal girlfriend.  You can thank me later.

*Although it doesn't surprise me.  I've never seen a Libertarian candidate for president who wasn't anti-choice.  It's a problem for the government to take people's money, but not to control a woman's uterus.

On Being a Victim

I've been hearing the word "victim" a lot lately.  I first heard, or rather saw, it over a year ago when I was called one.  I earned such a title by confronting a blog commenter for his constant woman bashing.  (He very conveniently never bashes men.)  Since then, I see the title given out constantly.  Everyone from women to gays to African Americans are "victims."  In other words, if you complain about unfair treatment ever, you are a victim.

I don't credit the original blog commenter with starting the trend.  He's neither nearly clever nor original enough for that.  But the existence of the trend is interesting, and I wonder about its origins.

I guess whoever started the trend and those who perpetuate it have to start with the assumption that there's something wrong with being a victim.  I can't say that I agree.  There's something wrong with being an aggressor, someone who likes to fuck other people over, and nothing wrong with being the victim of such a waste of flesh.  What would be unforgivable is for a victim to just lie back and take it.  Victims everywhere ought to and must fight back against such scumbags.

This, of course, is exactly what people who throw around the word "victim" do not want under any circumstances.  They want to victimize others and get away with it.  Any attempt to push back is a threat.  There's just one inconvenient little secret:  when those motherfuckers throw that word around, they're showing everyone just how fucking useless they are.