2009-04-01 07:43 | The r-word, and a campaign. And an announcement.

First, the announcement.  Mild.  I do not participate in April Fool's Day, so you needn't worry about lying bullshit on this blog.

Now then.  Rachel at Feministe posted about the word "retarded".  There is a campaign to end use of that word as a pejorative, at R-Word.org.

I used to use that word, but I gave it up ages ago.  Alas, I work with someone who uses that word every five goddamn minutes, so I have to be a little more vigilant in keeping it out of my daily vocabulary.

I am ridding myself of other terms I don't like, as well.  The way I do it is to think of what the word means and what it connects to and so forth – so when I say "Man, I'm beat!", my first thought is "'Man', eh?".  Links back to my ongoing irritation that men are often the default.  ("Boy, I'm tired!"  "The sweet closeness of brotherhood."  "One giant leap for mankind.")  It is a silly thing, I suppose, but I figure I can take the opportunity to find other ways of expressing what I mean.

I dunno from others, but I do not post this in an effort to control your, the reader's, language.  I post this to encourage others to consider their language.  Linguistic dictates don't work, but maybe more people will consider the words they use, and will cut down on using certain ones.

*finishes coffee*

2008-02-20 13:22 | NY Event

Via Jill at Feministe:

Women as Breeders – Children as Weapons: The Right to Abortion and the Whole Direction of Society

Over the past 8 years, under the Bush administration, the power and reach of the Christian fundamentalist movement has reached unprecedented levels in its power and influence over everything from scientific policies like stem-cell research to foreign aid for health clinics in Africa; it has placed powerful figures in the White House and the Supreme Court and commands a base of tens of millions of people.

A central issue to this movement has been the role of women in society and particularly the ability for women to have control over their own bodies and reproductive systems.

Join us February 26th in a discussion with:

Cristina Page,
author of "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex" and spokesperson for birthcontrolwatch.org.

Kathryn Joyce, contributing writer for The Nation and author of "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement" ( due to be released in 2009). Kathryn will discuss an emerging movement of Christian women dedicated to take up their submissive, motherly roles with a 'military air'" and with an aim to create a "Christian army" achieving cultural "victory."

The evening will provide an opportunity to have an honest and wide-ranging discussion that addresses: What is on the horizon for 2009 and is the "Christian Right" over? How do the core beliefs of the Christian fundamentalist movement shape the lives of millions of women currently and how could they potentially impact the American population as a whole in the future? Why is the right to abortion is so crucial and why must it be demanded without apology? A member of World Can't Wait will moderate the event and discuss how these issues are related to the larger Bush agenda and " the whole direction of society".

The event will take place:
Tuesday, Feb. 26th
7:00 – 9:00 P.M.
@ Think Coffee
248 Mercer St (btwn 3rd and 4th st)
For any questions, please contact:
Youth_students@worldcantwait.org

2008-01-22 14:20 |

* Jessica at Feministing posts a YouTube link: Practical joke show "rapes" mom to terrorize daughter.  As someone said at Feministing, "Oh good. I think rape hasn't been funny enough in the past. This sort of humor is just what we need."  This is truly vile, and is not helping humanity's case any.

* Jill writes: 10 Reasons to Support Reproductive Justice on Roe Day.  Her post is full of excellent points and linkage.

* PortlyDyke writes about Christianity and the US.

2007-12-31 00:36 | There may or may not be further thoughts on the morrow.

I got to meet a bunch of bloggerfolk, including Jill from Feministe.

…

*fansquee*

2007-10-16 16:05 | Caek.

Novelist Sheri S. Tepper once had an elder sister protagonist who explained the difference between rape and sex to a younger brother who had been hanging around with sniggering teens propagating the "they all want it really" view. In it she pointed out that liking chocolate cake is not the same thing as liking to have chocolate cake shoved down your throat with a stick no matter how much you say no, or resist, or are in danger of choking and the cake just keeps on getting shoved down your mouth; and that it's made infinitely worse if people dismiss your complaints with "oh, but it can't have been that bad: you love chocolate cake!".

- tigtog, here.

Let's not forget about those days when really, you just kind of don't want cake right now.

2007-09-19 09:22 | Three things.

1) I want to revamp my tags a bit.  There was no point to this point.

2) Jill at Feministe takes on the "Why doesn't she leave?" question.  If you want the best comment in the world, see bbrugger's response.

3) Carnival of Feminists #45 is up at Feminist Philosophers, which means I'll be reading for forever today.

2007-07-31 08:41 | I am so in hearts with Jill.

Jill at Feministe asks: "How much time in jail should a woman face for abortion?"

So far, at 51 comments, one pro-lifer has tried to respond (at comment 18): "For example, couldn't a state pass a law prohibiting physicians (or anyone else) from providing a woman with abortion and then provide punish (loss of license, fine, or jail time) to the individual providing the abortion and not make the woman a criminal at all."

The immediate analogy that a bunch of people draw: Great, so I can go hire a hitman to kill someone, and I don't have to worry about being thrown in jail.  Y/N?

Ahahaha, beautiful.

2007-06-28 08:43 | I would totally apply for a work visa.

Jillian's comment is fantastic to me today.  I shall reproduce it here, since I can.  (Edited a bit, but the square brackets make that clear.)

[Men's] argument is some sort of variation on "there's a killer that lurks in the heart of all (most, some) men, and women have an innate knack for bringing that killer out". Their argument stands in contrast to the argument that says "We've created a society that allows – and sometimes encourages – men to view women as chattel to such a degree that lots of them act like sick fucks, and even the ones who don't feel compelled to make excuses for those who do".

The second argument encourages both genders to work together to try to change that situation. The first argument – that all (most, some) men have killers lurking in their secret heart of hearts, just encourages women to stay as far away from men as humanly possible.

Do straight men think about this before they say these things? Because I can tell you that if I thought the first argument were correct, I would move to a women's only Lesbotopian enclave tomorrow, and never, ever leave it. And so would every woman in the whole country. And none of us would ever have sex with any of them ever again.

[...][The] sheer incongruity of the fact that STRAIGHT MEN make an argument whose natural conclusion is that no woman should ever have sex with a man again just never ceases to bowl me over.

The main post was about a couple of guys' reaction to the murder of Jessie Davis, allegedly by Bobby Cutts, Jr.  I really wouldn't advise reading any right-wing opinion posts about it, or any of the links that Jill provides at the main Feministe post, since doing so may drain you of your will to allow others to live.  I had to go read I Can Has Cheezburger after all that.

2007-04-28 00:07 | That's a good goddamn question.

zuzu at Feministe asks a great question:

Why is this not called terrorism?

In other news, go ye forth and read this speech given by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913.

2007-04-25 17:04 | Accusations of generalisations in 3… 2… 1…

At Feministe, zuzu writes about Paglia's assertion that the Virginia Tech shooting wouldn't have happened if women would've just put out more.

This comment from the Feministe post just pinged my yes-o-meter like whoa today, so I repost it here:

Women are too slutty and men resent them for being whores.
Women aren't slutty enough and men resent them for not being whores.
Women think they're equal to men and men resent them.
Women are succeeding in college and men resent them.
Women are succeeding in the military and men resent them.

Women exist and men resent them.

I am sick of all these nasty, resentful men who feel the need to lash out and "punish" women for not properly worshiping them. And it really makes me want to vomit when women join the chorus. When will the sniveling losers realize that IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THEM!?! When I read story after story about crap like this, it makes me want to give up on trying to co-habitate amicably with the male race at all. What's the point? I'm sure there's some guy out there who resents the hell out of me for having more raisins in my beakfast cereal than he has in his.

- Sylke

2007-01-25 11:14 | "…in a technical sense, Attila the Hun had an active outdoor lifestyle."

At Feministe, Jill writes more about the purity/integrity thing.

I cannot believe that anybody ever links "feminist" with "man-hater" ever, when there are so many better examples of man-hating.  Like the above link, where apparently, men are these poor passive souls who will inevitably sin when brought anywhere near a woman.  How does it feel to be regarded like that?  Like you have no personal agency at all, like your soul's fate depends on the actions of others, like you're only barely human?

Oh, wait.  Women get treated a lot like that, only we don't want to be.

I'm going to change what I say, regarding giving men five trust-demerits first-off.  It's not that I do this because they're men oh noes, it's that I do this because I can't tell the men from the fucking animals.  Once someone can tell me how I can tell, I'll work on my trust filters, mmkay?

2007-01-23 01:04 | Blogging For Choice Day

I'm a bit late to the game, since I've been busy knitting a scarf today.

In lieu of writing with my own words – my hands hate me, see also "knitting" – I will link to some lovely and powerful posts I've read elsewhere.

* Feministe: Why I'm Pro-Choice by Jill.

"I am pro-choice because my life is worth something."

* Pandagon: Blogging For Choice and beyond choice by Amanda.

"I've never had an abortion, not because it's illegal, but because it's legal–because my right to control my body is respected, I have the level of control to make the unwanted pregnancy and therefore the abortion much less likely."

For many many other posts in this vein, have a slew of links.

For myself, a quick thing:

Pro-choice or pro-life is not about personal beliefs.  Or at least it had better damn well not be.  I know a wide range of people, from those who find the idea of abortions abhorrant to those who consider it to be a necessity, from those who don't want to have children to those who were impregnated due to a rape.  Personally, I don't know what I'd choose.

Choice is the point.  I'm not going to argue that abortion is the best thing in the world next to cotton candy.  I'm going to argue that it is my choice – my choice – to make.  Not yours, not PP protesters', and not government lackeys'.

Mine and every woman's, and no one else's.

2006-10-26 20:00 | I would love to respond seriously.

Jill of Feministe posts about Sheik Hilaly and his analogy of men:women::cats:meat.  Part of me wants to contemplate this seriously, and use it as an example that feminism is still very necessary…

…but I'm too busy laughing my damn head off.  It's probably shock, but goddamn.  "If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street [...] without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat's?"  I am always taken aback when confronted with prime examples of "People not only believe this stuff on purpose, they share with others??".

(I'm not not envisioning sides of beef wearing tutus…)