I didn’t see the Oscars (were they even on here?) but I guess the big news is that Kathryn Bigelow won for Best Director, the first woman ever to do so in the history of the Academy Awards. Of course, this is just a reflection of how little power and influence women have in Hollywood. While I guess it’s a positive thing that the glass ceiling has been chipped in some small, symbolic way, I couldn’t help but think of this passage I just read in the new translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”:
“Women’s actions have never been more than symbolic agitation; they have won only what men have been willing to concede to them; they have taken nothing; they have received.”
I think this applies here. I don’t see any major reason to celebrate. What would be better is if women withdrew from Hollywood in protest over sexism – women refused to act in films (without women’s bodies, where would Hollywood be?), women refused to work behind the scenes, women refused to fetch coffee, women refused to see films. Bring Hollywood to its knees and then demand the changes you want. Don’t wait 82 years for them to throw you a scrap and then call it progress.
And with that…Happy International Women’s Day! xx
[The Second Sex- page 8; Borde and Malovany-Chevallier, translators.]
When it comes to pop music, I am really behind the times, so don’t laugh. I’ve heard snippets of Beyonce’s song “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” but I never really paid attention to it until recently. This song was considered one of the “best” songs of 2008 and I’m sure everyone knows it but me. When I heard this whole song recently and read the lyrics, I was aghast:
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
Don’t be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
It? Put a ring on it? He want it? Women in pop culture are often treated as objects, as things, so now I guess Beyonce has internalized this way of thinking to the extent that she refers to herself this way directly. IT. This song is a perfect example of what is sometimes referred to as “the new sexism,” where what is undeniably sexist is suddenly considered “empowering.” Indeed, in researching this song online, it is repeatedly referred to as “empowering” and “feminist.” In a world where Sex and the City has set the bar for what is considered feminist, I shouldn’t be surprised. All of these things are a perfect example of the way that capitalism can absorb – and ultimately distort and attempt to destroy – movements for justice and equality, such as feminism.
Like so much of what is considered “feminist” nowadays by the mainstream culture, “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” is an endorsement of conservative, heteronormative values that celebrate women’s subordinate place in society. This song could be played at the Republican National Convention, so perfectly does it embody right-wing values. Despite this, a great many women think this song is a feminist anthem.
It’s stuff like this that just makes me want to give up. Thank heavens I only listen to the radio once a year.
John Mayer’s interview in the current issue of Playboy has made news since in it he said he isn’t interested in black women because, “My dick is sort of like a white supremacist” and then he compared his penis to former Klan member David Duke. His racism has already been covered extensively (and Mayer even offered a “tearful” apology), but I read the whole interview myself and wanted to comment on something else. [I won't provide a link because I don't link to porn sites, but if you want to read the interview it's easy to find online.]
In the interview, Mayer talks about his love of porn. In fact, he says that he prefers masturbation to sex. About porn, he says: “You wake up in the morning, open a thumbnail page, and it leads to a Pandora’s box of visuals. There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed.”
There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed. When I read this, I really wanted to barf. It’s such a perfect example of the way that pornography dehumanizes women by reducing us to nothing but parts – or, more specifically, “holes.”
However, despite what a scumbag he is, there is something to be learned from John Mayer. Of porn, he says: “Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generation’s expectations.” He describes how it’s never enough and you have to just keep searching for something better. He says: “How does that not affect the psychology of having a relationship with somebody? It’s got to.” Of course it does. And John Mayer is living proof of that. He presents himself as an utterly misogynistic, racist asshole who is incapable of actually having a respectful relationship with a real human woman. While he can’t blame all of this on porn, his exposure to it and obsession with it obviously affects him in a serious way.
I recently read a great book about the topic of men and porn by Robert Jensen called Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen is a radical feminist and he wrote this book specifically for men, but as a woman I found it extremely valuable. He is an academic, but this is not an academic text – it’s reader-friendly and short. It’s an excellent critique of the porn industry and how the values of traditional “masculinity” often mirror the dominance and cruelty seen in pornography. Pornography is just a reflection of the misogyny in our culture.
One thing Jensen touches upon is the cruelty in pornography. Despite what porn apologists claim, cruelty is a hallmark of mainstream heterosexual porn, not just so-called “extreme” porn. Jensen writes:
“When most non-pornographic films, such as typical Hollywood romance, deal with sex they draw on the emotions most commonly connected with sex — love and affection. But pornography doesn’t, because films that exist to provide sexual stimulation for men in this culture wouldn’t work if the sex were presented in the context of loving and affectionate relationships. Men typically consume pornography specifically to avoid love and affection. That means pornography has a problem. When all emotion is drained from sex it becomes repetitive and uniteresting, even to men who are watching it primarily to facilitate masturbation. Because the novelty of seeing sex on the screen eventually wears off, pornography needs an edge. Pornography has to draw on some emotion, hence the cruelty.” [page 76.]
Since I’ve been researching pornography for my novel and PhD, this is the thing that’s struck me the most – the cruelty and contempt for women that exists throughout pornography. And to think of all those out there, like John Mayer, who exist on a steady diet of porn and have their views of women and sexuality shaped by it. If we believe pornographers and their left-wing apologists, porn has absolutely no affect on its viewers’ attitudes towards women. The sad thing is that so many people are stupid enough to believe that.
“In one survey, women and men were asked what they were most afraid of. Women responded that they were most afraid of being raped and murdered. Men responded that they were most afraid of being laughed at.”
-Michael S. Kimmel, “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity”
This week marks the first anniversary of Barack Obama’s presidency. Last night I read this post at Black Agenda Report about “Progressives for Obama” having to change their name, since Obama – or is it Obomba – isn’t the least bit progressive. I would like to highlight some of this post, since it’s relevant to Obama’s first anniversary:
The organization formerly known as “Progressives for Obama” has changed its name. After almost a year of President Obama’s massive transfers of the people’s wealth to Wall Street, his escalation of U.S. wars in South Asia, his shameless alliance with insurance and drug corporations, and his callous disregard for Depression-level Black unemployment, even the president’s most loyal sycophants on the Left are running for cover. It’s not a pretty sight.
“Progressives for Obama” are now calling themselves “Progressive America Rising.” Two of the founding members, Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden, are making uncharacteristically loud anti-Obama noises and acting as if they played no role in convincing Obama that he could make war and serve corporate interests to his heart’s content, without fear of any trouble from the Left. They had his back.
The left-wing Obamites were the nastiest of all. They viciously libeled anyone that advanced a Left critique of their hero, calling them enemies of a new “people’s movement,” when in fact it was they who were shutting the movement down in favor of a fan club and cheering section for Obama…Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden stuck with Obama like little sorcerer’s apprentices as the president methodically savaged virtually every item on the progressive agenda. What else could they do? To break with Obama would amount to an admission that they were wrong about the progressive “potential” of their candidate; that he had always been a thoroughly corporate politician who would lurch to the Right as soon as he took office; and that, by failing to criticize Obama early in the campaign, they were guaranteeing that he would disrespect and ignore Blacks and progressives, once in office.
“The left-wing Obamites were the nastiest of all.” This resonates with me, since I experienced it first-hand during the campaign. What bothers me the most is that so many of Obama’s most strident supporters, particularly in the blogosphere, are virtually silent about Obama now. They don’t even mention him. I received so many lectures during the campaign from self-righteous people claiming that they refused to vote for Hillary because she was in favor of the war in Iraq. Well, to those people: How’s your “anti-war” vote for Obomba working out for you now? I hear nothing but silence on this issue. I wish you would take ownership of your behavior during the campaign and have the guts to admit you were wrong. Not only is Obama pro-war and in bed with corporate America, he’s turned his back on women’s rights, but Obama’s mainstream liberal feminist cheerleaders are largely silent on this matter. “Stop Stupak!” is a familiar refrain, as if Stupak came from outer space and not from a Democratically controlled White House and Congress.
Barack Obama mania was really just a successful advertising campaign. There was a product – Obama – and people were whipped into a frenzy over him. Now, not surprisingly, they’ve lost interest. Obama mania was a fad and an opportunity for people to feel smug and pat themselves on the back – it wasn’t about real change. No candidate in favor of real change would have gotten anywhere near the reins of power.
Would Hillary Clinton have done any better than Obama? No, she wouldn’t have. She would have sold out just like him. The reason I was upset during the campaign was not because Obama supporters were attacking Hillary – it was because they were being dishonest about Obama and just being dishonest, period. And they still don’t have the courage to admit it. [And of course, the rampant misogyny, a lot of it coming from the Left, disgusted me the most.]
As for me, I can’t imagine ever voting Democrat again. In order for things to change, we must address the root problems. Placing Democrats and Republicans into office will never result in change. Never. I have also broken off from mainstream liberal feminism and have embraced more radical feminist ideas as a result of this whole Obama experience. “Radical” is from the Latin for “root.” It means going to the “root” of the problem and overthrowing systems of power that oppress people. This cannot be done within the status quo of Washington politics. Without radical reform, change will never happen. If more of us have learned this lesson as a result of Obama’s campaign and election and presidency, then at least something good has come out of this very ugly time in American politics.
Today is Human Trafficking Awareness Day. Those of you who read this blog know that this topic is very dear to me. The primary victims of trafficking are women and children. This is a form of modern-day slavery that is occurring all around us, whether we choose to see it or not.
Please watch this short film called The Journey, produced by Richard Jobson and Emma Thompson. [Warning: This video contains sexual and violent imagery that is disturbing.] In an unforgettable way, The Journey shows how women, such as from Eastern Europe, are trafficked into the UK to work as sex slaves in brothels, where they are repeatedly raped each day by “customers.” This is happening across Europe and North America – right in our own backyards. It cannot be ignored.
While I focus primarily on sex trafficking in my writing and activism, trafficking manifests itself in many other ways, from children being forced into domestic servitude to adults working in a variety of industries as virtual slaves. Trafficking happens both domestically and internationally. There is no need to cross int’l borders – a person can be trafficked in her own country, such as into the commercial sex industry or to work in a sweat shop. Change.org offers a wealth of information on all forms of trafficking, including these ten videos to watch online right now.
Learning about trafficking can make one feel completely hopeless, but even just a small donation or volunteer work with an organization can make a difference.
Here are links to other organizations that work on this issue, but this is just a small sampling. Please feel free to share more links in the comments if you have them:
I guess you can throw anything up on the side of a bus nowadays [via the Guardian].
The blatantly anti-woman agenda of the mass media never ceases to amaze me. I think the British media operates in a much more overtly sexist and hostile way towards women. I’ve been living here for nearly 4.5 years now and despite the internet, I’m not exposed to as much American media as I am to British media, but it seems to me the sexism of the American media operates in a different way. Sexism is sexism, of course, and however it works doesn’t make it less offensive and harmful. I’m willing to concede that I may be wrong about the media differences, but what I can say for certain is that I feel “assaulted” by the media as a woman here in a very real way. And at least in London, there is also pornography everywhere – in telephone booths, in mainstream shops that sell newspapers and magazines and sadly, even in the newspapers themselves. You simply cannot escape it. I believe it is a form of sexual harassment against every woman who lives in this city and a human rights issue. (I’ll have a more detailed post on this coming up.)
I’ve already written about how, in London, I’ve experienced much more street harassment and abuse from male strangers – my experiences living in New York City, Boston and Paris combined do not match it. I can’t help but think that all of these issues are related.
I had an upsetting experience on New Year’s Eve, yet another confrontation with a male stranger who was menacing and abusive. I don’t know why this keeps happening.
I was doing laundry around 6:00 p.m. Not a fun task for NYE, but I wanted to wake up to clean laundry on the first day of 2010. I live in a building with hundreds of people, but there are only two washers and two dryers down in the basement, which is a real hassle. I was lucky enough to snag both washers. I timed my wash cycle, but apparently mis-timed it by a minute or so, because when I got down to the laundry room, this guy in his mid-twenties was waiting. As soon as he saw me, he said, “Are those your clothes?” in a very unfriendly way.
I looked at him and said, “Yep.” Nothing more. I don’t engage with rude people.
I opened the washer and as soon as I felt my clothes, I knew the spin cycle hadn’t worked properly, which often happens here. My clothes were dripping with water. So I removed an item of clothing, went to the sink and wrung it out, then threw it in the dryer. I proceeded this way, removing clothes from the washer, wringing them out and then placing them in the dryer. This guy was watching everything I was doing with his arms folded. I explained the spin cycle wasn’t working, that I’d need to wring out my clothes and it would take a few minutes.
At this, the guy went nuts. He said he didn’t have all day, that I had to remove my clothes and put them in the dryer. I said I didn’t want the dryer to be filled with water, that it would only take a minute to wring them out, but he kept ranting and raving. He began to berate me for not being down in the laundry room the second the washers stopped running, behaving as if my crime was as serious as murder. He got right in my face to intimidate me.
Who gets this upset over laundry? As you might imagine, this was scary. I was down in the basement alone with this guy and it was clear to me that he’s a potentially violent person. He was totally flipping out over nothing. He said in a very menacing way, “If you don’t get your clothes out of there, I’m taking them out.”
I just read an article in the Guardian about Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at George W. Bush. The point of the article seems to be that al-Zaidi is unhappy that since his release from prison, he’s not rolling in cash and other loot, which was promised to him while he was behind bars. From the Guardian:
Numerous pledges were made in Arab media, from across the Middle East and beyond, of gifts including virgin brides, gold-saddled horses, cars, houses and camels. Al-Zaidi was told of the offers in prison, during visits from his brothers.
You’ll notice how the Guardian doesn’t put “virgin brides” in quote marks or anything like that, but just includes these women in a list with other gifts that includes cars and camels, as if this is perfectly normal and acceptable. It’s sad how such sheer barbarism passes without comment from the holier-than-thou Guardian editors. I guess that, like al-Zaidi, they’re upset he hasn’t received the young female flesh he was promised – female flesh that he could use to pleasure himself, likely through rape, since there’s no mention of whether these “virgin brides” would have consented to having their bodies given to this shoe-thrower as part of his spoils.
“I blame the media because they said I would become rich for doing what I did, that I would become a multi-millionaire,” al-Zaidi said from Switzerland, where he is receiving treatment for several health problems. “Though I thank them for their concern for me, all the promises about gifts I heard when I was in prison were just empty.”
Don’t be so sad, al-Zaidi. Perhaps through this pointless article in the Guardian, someone will decide to send you a virgin bride or two. FedEx could ship something like that pretty quickly, I think, even during the holiday rush. I just hope that when you do receive your virgin bride, the sender keeps the receipt so you can exchange her if you’re not satisfied with the color, shape or size.
There is a large Muslim population here and so it’s common to see women and girls wearing headscarves. Sometimes I also see women wearing niqabs, which is a veil that covers the head and also the face, with just the eyes peeking through. This isn’t that common in the areas where I circulate, but I do see it sometimes. However, the other day I saw something I’ve never seen before. I was riding the train and there was a young woman wearing a gold, embroidered scarf covering her head. She was very stylishly dressed from head to toe, wearing a black skirt, boots and a black coat with a belt. What was strange was that she had taken the bottom part of the thick gold scarf and pinned it very tightly over her mouth. Her nose and eyes and the entire upper part of her face were completely visible, as was her neck. She was fashionably dressed in figure-hugging clothes, her body not restricted in any way. But her mouth was covered up.
I was disturbed by that image for the rest of the day and even now I don’t like to think of it. This is no different than a woman being gagged or having tape over her mouth – no different at all. I write a great deal about patriarchy and the way that it silences women, in western culture and cultures around the world, but rarely do I see such a literal manifestation of a woman being silenced. In a free country, in Western Europe, no woman should be walking around with her mouth covered up; this shouldn’t be championed as multi-culturalism and people shouldn’t say “oh well, it’s not for me to judge.” You know what – fuck that. This woman had her mouth covered up and that’s not cool. She is an abused woman, robbed of all human dignity.
Well, it’s a happy day for The British Media™. Evil American slut Amanda Knox has been convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher in an Italian court. As I wrote two years ago when this crime occurred, this story exemplifies so much of what is wrong with the British press. Meredith and Amanda were turned into the British Madonna and the American whore, respectively, and this of course reflects the way that most women are portrayed in the press here, as one or the other. I have taken a screen shot of the Times this morning – I love the headline in the bottom right corner: She-devil or all-American girl? Because you know, those are the only two choices. These sorts of categories are fluid, however, so taking Katie Price as an example, one can go from whore to Madonna and then back to whore again.
Everything about the coverage of this story has been nauseating, not only the sexism but the Team Britain vs. Team America aspect to the coverage. Anything that can be turned into America vs. Britain is irresistible. See also: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. See also: England’s World Cup draw. Whether it’s mass murder or a football game, it doesn’t matter – all opportunities to feel superior to America are seized upon with gusto, no matter how crass.
Meanwhile, we’ll never know who killed Meredith Kercher because the Italian “justice” system has exceeded Inspector Clouseau levels of sheer incompetence in this case. The aforementioned sexist attitudes about women also seemed to infect the Italian trial and probably affected the verdict (see this Guardian article for examples of the Italian sexism). Three people have now been convicted of this crime and yet there’s really no convincing narrative of what happened and why. And the sad fact is, we’ll never know what happened.
[2]
And now for Tiger Woods. I am quite happy that Tiger Woods has been knocked off his pedastal. Finally! I’ve been waiting ages for this to happen. I just don’t understand Tiger Woods’s appeal. I realize he’s the greatest golfer ever (apparently), but who cares about golf? He’s also white, black and Asian all rolled into one; this apparently makes him the perfect symbol of our multi-cultural society. Well, great, he checks all the boxes on paper, but the end result is a man who is utterly bland and charmless, with no shred of charisma or personality whatsoever. He is a walking corporate brand, not a human. He might as well be a robot.
Now it turns out that Tiger Woods is also a womanizing pig. I don’t understand the shock over this. I would assume that every famous male athlete is a womanizing pig unless there is evidence presented to the contrary. What told me everything I needed to know about Tiger Woods was his marriage to a Swedish model. He clearly chose this woman because of her appearance and that told me everything I needed to know about his character and his views on women. Oh, I can hear people disagreeing with me, saying that Mrs. Woods probably has a great personality and the fact that she looks like Barbie is a mere coincidence. If you believe that, then you’re probably one of the people who is shocked over Tiger Woods’s affairs.
It’s interesting that so many people are shocked that Tiger Woods would cheat on his wife because she is apparently so beautiful and so perfect. Well, there are plenty of beautiful, “perfect” women whose husbands have cheated on them (such as Jennifer Aniston and Cheryl Cole, just to name two), but there is always shock when this happens. Of course, rich and powerful men have huge egos and a major sense of entitlement, so that’s part of why they may cheat on their “perfect” partners, but that’s not the whole story. A man who is interested in women primarily because of their looks, such as Tiger Woods and so many rich and powerful men, is superificial. End of story. A man like this is likely not capable of having a deep, meaningful relationship, since “superficial” and “deep and meaningful” cannot co-exist. When Tiger Woods’s wife became pregnant and her body less attractive, it’s not surprising that he cheated. For a man like this, women’s bodies are products to be consumed. If you don’t like the product or you get bored of it, find something new to replace it. Of course, the women in these relationships are not totally innocent. Many are only interested in men who are extremely good-looking and or/wealthy, so they are superficial as well. They also willingingly use their bodies as products. In general, these kinds of people deserve one another, so I can’t feel much sympathy for any of the parties involved when things go wrong. Mrs. Woods is clearly outraged, which is why she tried to scratch out her husband’s eyes and destroy his car with a golf club. But you know, when you enter into a relationship with a man who is interested in you because you look like Barbie, then you can’t be surprised when he turns out to be a pig. Sorry sister. While life sucks for her, I hope the rest of us will get to see less of Tiger Woods from now on.
GEMS is a wonderful organization based in NYC that helps young girls escape commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking. Their website contains many valuable resources and also information about their campaign, Girls Are Not For Sale. They also have a documentary, “Very Young Girls,” which you can get from Netflix or buy from the site. I have embedded the trailer below, as well as their PSA, which are important counterpoints to the Belle de Jour types and their admirers who claim that prostitution is a great form of feminist empowerment. I also think anyone out there who watches pornography or supports the “sex industry” in other ways should consider making a donation to this organization. By supporting the sex industry, even by downloading free porn, you are contributing to a culture where women and girls are de-humanized commodities and this, in turn, helps to create the conditions that make the horrific experiences seen in the videos below possible.
Now that the week from hell is behind me, I can write this post I’ve been meaning to write…
Last week, the identity of Belle de Jour was finally revealed. Belle de Jour is the so-called high-class “call girl” who wrote a blog and a couple memoirs (which were made into TV movies) about having sex for money in London. I’m not sure if she is well-known in the States or not. She came forward to reveal her identity last week before the Daily Mail exposed her. Belle de Jour has been a darling of British pop culture and the media for years, not surprisingly. Her appeal is obvious: She puts a glamorous face on prostitution; she’s the perfect symbol for a culture where women’s bodies are commodities, a culture where so many misguided women use the language of feminism to recast their sexual subservience in a patriarchal culture as “empowerment”; she also plays into the idea that at heart, all women are really just “whores.”
I’ve read some of Belle de Jour’s blog. It reads like fiction to me and I believe that’s what it is. She may have been a prostitute in real life and I will take her at her word that she was, but I don’t believe her blog.
It turns out that the real Belle de Jour is Brooke Magnanti, who has a PhD in the sciences and now works at a research lab. According to her, she enjoyed her time as a prostitute, has no regrets, wasn’t ever brutalized and isn’t scarred by the experience. Well, good for her, but whether you’re a high-priced “escort” or a “call girl” or you’re a “hooker” walking the streets, there is no escaping the fact that prostitution is this:
A woman reduced to three holes that men can rent, use and discard.
That’s the reality of it, no matter how it’s dressed up in silk stockings and lingerie.
Britain is certainly the place to come if you’re a man and you want to kill your wife. This is outrageous. I think I’m going to start a new blog feature – British men who kill their wives and get a slap on the wrist or in this current case, just walk right out of court a free man. You can kill your wife if she’s a ’slut’ and practically get away with it, you can kill your wife if you’re ‘asleep’ while you’re doing it and not surprisingly, you can rape while you’re ‘asleep’ and a jury will acquit you.
In other news from the British “justice” system (they use these quote marks on their letterhead), three months after the Lockerbie bomber was released from prison on compassionate grounds because he was on death’s door…it turns out he’s still alive and kicking. I know, what a shock. This report brought to you by:
Boys exposed to high levels of these [plastic toxins] in the womb were less likely than other boys to play with cars, trains and guns or engage in “rougher” games like playfighting.
Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the chemicals campaign group CHEM Trust, said the results were worrying.
…
She acknowledged that the boys who have been studied were still young, but she said reduced masculine play at this age might lead to other feminised developments in later life.
These “feminised developments” include peeing with the toilet seat down, liking the color pink and an obsession with calorie counting.
[Okay, I made that last part up.]
I find this study – and the way it’s reported – to be fascinating. First of all, it’s being accepted as fact that “normal” boys prefer to play with cars and guns (GUNS!!!) and that this is a biologically determined behavior, not a result of cultural conditioning.
And secondly, being “feminine” is apparently some kind of mutation.
There are all sorts of assumptions being made here about sex, gender and identity, the kinds of assumptions that underpin society at every level – sadly, this even includes the “sciences.”
On the subject of cultural conditioning, an interesting story. I know a woman who had a baby boy recently. We were talking in the reception area of a building and while we were talking, the baby began to cry. He was only 3 or 4 days old. A male security guard walked by and said to the baby, “Hey little man, don’t cry! Be a man! Don’t cry!” Babies are subjected to these messages during their first week of life, so it’s ridiculous to assume that even very young children act in a “masculine” or “feminine” way because its natural.
I’m sure you are just as distressed as I am that your Democrat colleagues in the House have recently passed a bill that effectively outlaws abortion for countless American women. Around the world, women’s bodies are used as political footballs, from Kabul to Washington. As I’m sure you’ll agree, Democrats, this is not fair. Since you are the pro-woman, pro-choice party (oops – excuse me, need to grab a glass of water, had a coughing fit there) led by the feminist-in-chief, Barack Obama (damn, more coughing!), I would like to propose an amendment to H.R.3962 as it moves into the Senate, which I call the Anglofille Amendment. This amendment seeks to redress the harm your House colleagues have done to women and will spread the injustice, pain and hardship around so that it’s equally shared by all. After all, Democrats, why should women be the only ones to get screwed?
Herewith, the Anglofille Amendment to H.R.3962:
- If a man fathers a child, he must financially support that child until the age of 18 and he must provide 50% of the childcare for that child. This may seem impossible – financially supporting the child and providing childcare! – but women do it all the time. The father’s actions will need to be verified on a weekly basis by government observers. [Note: It may be necessary to set up a new department, such as the Department of Homeland Paternity, to carry this out.] If a father fails to fulfill these duties, then he will be forcibly sterilized and sent to a hard labor camp;
- If a man rapes a woman or girl child and this results in a pregnancy, which under the House bill will be much more difficult to terminate, then everyone in the House who voted for this bill and thereby contributed to the suffering of rape and incest victims will serve the same exact prison sentence as the rapist;
- If a woman needs an abortion but cannot afford one due to her insurance plan or Medicaid not covering it, and if this woman does not have the financial means to support the child that she is being forced to have against her will, then she should receive a cash payment each month, to be paid collectively by the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the Catholic Church, in the amount of $7,500 per child per month until that child turns 18.
I think that about sums it up. Vote ‘Yes’ on Anglofille!
The Democrats in the House have sold out women’s rights and voted for a health care bill that effectively bans abortion. This article from the NYT offers a good recap of what has happened. Anti-abortionists in Congress and the Catholic Church – known collectively as the American Taliban – are celebrating their victory today in their fight to control women’s uteruses. You know who’s not celebrating? All those “Obama feminists” (as I call them) who are stunned and outraged that this has happened. All I can say to them is: Welcome to reality.
None of this is surprising to me at all. I turned my back on the Democrats in last year’s elections because I saw their true colors. I didn’t vote in the presidential election last year and if I do vote again, it certainly won’t be for the Democrats (or the Republicans, obviously). As I’ve already written about extensively, Hillary suffered tremendous abuse during the campaign because of her gender and a great deal of this came from Democrats. Sadly, many Democrat-feminists participated in this. Those of us who turned our backs on the Dems and refused to fall into line like good girls and vote for Obama were branded traitors, bitches and racists. I guess the official name was “PUMA.” But see, now I think Obama feminists are finally starting to get it. Gee, what took you so long? The Democrats are not a feminist party. In many ways, they are anti-feminist. That’s why I didn’t vote for them.
First, they made sure that women’s medical needs would not be considered part of basic healthcare. Then, today, they added in an extra special amendment to make extra-double-plus sure that abortion wouldn’t be covered. Even by private plans! That’s right: any insurance plan that participates in any way in the new exchange, or receives any federal subsidies, or is paid for with any tax credits, will not be allowed to offer abortion coverage. Gosh, it’s almost like making abortion illegal.
And to think that Barack Obama lobbied hard for this bill and is celebrating its passage. It doesn’t seem likely to pass the Senate as it is now, but who knows.
The Reclusive Leftist also has an interesting post about the PUMA movement, looking back at it one year later and in light of this disgraceful health care bill. I will include an excerpt here, but the whole post is really worth reading:
The PUMA movement alarmed the Democrats (briefly) because it threatened to disrupt the party’s blackmail-hold on women’s votes. You know the deal: the Democrats pretend to be pro-choice, and in exchange women let them get away with anything. The problem, obviously, is that the Democrats really aren’t pro-choice anymore, not in any reliable, consistent way. Any woman who votes Democrat “because they’re pro-choice” is basically running on muscle memory. It’s more like a rumor now, or a legend from the past.
But the blackmail still works, amazingly enough. Last year: apocalyptic warnings that if John McCain were elected, then Sarah Palin — his vice-president — would magically assume dictatorial powers over all the nation’s uteruses. Only Obama could save us! ‘Cause, you know, the Democrats are pro-choice. So Obama gets elected, and what does he do? Appoints the pro-life Palinesque Tim Kaine as head of the DNC. Appoints another pro-life Palin clone to Health & Human Services. Cuts women’s reproductive health from the stimulus bill. Retains the Hyde Amendment. Promises that health care reform won’t cover abortion. Psych!
It’s going to be very interesting to watch the coverage of the Ft. Hood massacre play out in the media. I don’t have access to CNN and Fox News, but I imagine it’s non-stop coverage. The mainstream-right media is going to play up the fact that the killer is Muslim (as in these headlines from the Times and the Daily Mail), whereas the mainstream-left media will go to great lengths to downplay it and turn the killer into a victim because of it (this lead report from the Guardian doesn’t mention the shooter is Muslim until the 5th paragraph and introduces it this way: “Family and fellow officers said Hasan complained of harassment by other troops about his Middle Eastern ethnicity and Muslim faith.”) Last night I was watching the BBC news coverage of this event – before the shooter’s identity was known – and it was clear that Christmas had come early for the BBC. A mass shooting in America? YAY! On an Army base? YAY! A soldier turning on other soldiers? YAY! In Texas? YIPPEE! I imagine now that the identify of the shooter is known, the BBC just wants this story to go away, since it’s their worst nightmare. On the other hand, I’m sure Fox News is feeling just the opposite way. So to sum up, I think this story will really show the biases of the various news organizations in a unique way.
Anglofille is an American living in London, finishing up a novel and a PhD, taking photos, and blogging about expat life, books, feminism and perpetual angst.
Spring…wishful thinking.
Dorothy: I don’t know whether you know the international magazine “Paragrana” already, but it might...
Jan: Hey, sounds good!!! Wanted to tell you I am currently reading Elizabeth Strout “Olive Kitteridge”...
Jan: Neither West nor Bundy were child murderers, even if they displayed “cruelty” as kids. Their example...
Anglofille: You are all making me work hard tonight! I think you are mis-stating my views. I think that gender is...
Dorothy: Anglofille: I’m with you on some points there, and I’m not with you on others, but more with Jan...
Caroline: It is well-known that serial and mass murders often start showing gratuitous cruelty very, very young. Fred...
Anglofille: I’ve never read that they are required to tell any certain people about their new identities....
Jan: OK, if by “child killers” we mean boys torturing cats, then I rest my case. I meant child murderers...
Anglofille: There’s a lot of evidence that adult killers have a history of violence as children, particularly...
Jan: Anglofille – I read the interviews with the judge / lawyers who claimed details of sexual assault...
