Paradoxes

How does one define "sanity" or "healthy" while living in an "insane" and "unhealthy" world.

I would like to be a person who is completely free of capitalism; how do I achieve that living in a capitalistic society? I could perhaps go live somewhere and grow my own food and build my own house using tools I made for myself and sew my own clothes which I've woven myself if I can perhaps find a community in which I can barter with and for those things which each the other needs. Will they let me in for free or do I have to pay admittance thereby requiring capital? How do I get there? Drive? More money for vehicle and gas. Walk? How do I feed myself along the way? More money. Do they own the property outright? Taxes? More money. My point being, it may be doable but how do I get from here to there without, in some small part, participating in the capitalistic society in which I don't want to participate? The same paradoxes apply when discussing sex.

What is healthy sex? What is a healthy sexual self-image? Who decides? Based on what criteria and standards which are in turn defined by who? And of those definitions, how do I know which are truly healthy and which are derived from the definer's, possibly twisted possibly not, view of the world? How do I know my own definitions are healthy? Is BDSM healthy? Those who participate believe it is. As for me, it doesn't do much for me. Does that mean I'm not healthy? Does it mean they're not? There may be great minds out there who have that answer; I'm not one of them. And of the "great minds," are they healthy enough in their own sexuality to decide and define? Is it healthy to constantly look to get laid to the exclusion of any other activity? I've known men and women who go through their lives (or part of their lives) doing exactly that. I have other interests as well as sex. Who's "right"? Me or them? Both? Who decides?

My point being, how does one take information which we've internalized and examine that information without projecting our internalized information on the internalized information we're examining?

As to defining the opposite of sex-positive...why define an opposition to an already conflicted area of discussion? Instead of "either/or" why not discuss things as "both/and" and see where that leads us.

I'm curious as to why you would ask if I'm for "limiting rights" rather asking in what ways I can see expanding or increasing our rights and/or participation in the debate. My post dealt mostly with, what we refer to around here as "the law of unintended consequences" or "be careful what you wish for."

For example, speaking of government , women's rights activists wanted a famous woman to appear on U.S. currency; remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar? Well, we got what we wanted. Not quite how we wanted it, but we got it. Women's rights activists wanted the police to more seriously address issues of domestic violence and to protect women from men who abuse them. Now, in many places, when the police arrive at a domestic violence call, both parties are taken in. Women's rights activists wanted women to live safe lives away from their abuser. We now have women's shelters. The abuser stays in the home; the woman hides for her life leaving behind her home, job, friends and family. No-fault divorce so women could leave bad relationships. Say buh-bye to alimony and many forms of financial support for women who, many times, have no other form of financial support. Child custody was historically given to men as their "rights" of property. Women's rights activists fought against this and won the right of women to gain custody of their children. Single-parent households in which the single parent is a woman are traditionally one of the poorest demographics reported in the U.S. Again, unintended consequences. (note: broad brush applied for brevity)

So my point is, let's have all the ducks in a row before be start legislating or limiting or even defining what is or is not "right."

For starters, we live in a world in which we still have to define healthy sex as 'consensual'. Why is that? Why is 'consensual' not just a given, inherent in the definition itself? Perhaps it implies we need to step back and look at "relationships of power;" not just within the context of the sex act, but within our broader view. Why do I see healthy sex frequently defined as between consenting 'adults'? Is sex only healthy if one is an 'adult'? At what age, chronologically or otherwise, do we switch from child to adult? All of us identically? Girls the same as boys?

Oh, hell, for that matter is sex healthy? Some people view sex in any form at any time as unhealthy and/or sinful. (I think Paul's writing is the best/worst example of that.) Do they get a seat at the table? Or do we label them sick and repressed while they label us sick and perverted? Who's right? Who decides? The medical community from whence there once was a missive in which girls were warned their uterus would atrophy if they pursued a higher education? The psychiatric community from whence came the definition of homosexuality as a perversion and who once defined a slave who was unhappy being a slave as one who had a mental disorder (the name of which escapes me at this moment)? The church? Yeah, that's worked well. /sarcasm to the church part.

So let us all talk and debate. That's a big positive as far as I'm concerned. Sex is a topic of conversation that can be discussed in the light of day rather than hidden away while each person wonders if they're weird or stunted or repressed or...or...whatever. Let's have an old-fashioned, 60s type consciousness raising (yikes! I used 60s as old-fashioned! *sigh* Guess what that makes me?) Let's start talking again about what's what for us. You know, you've read them or heard them. "Wow, women can climax multiple times?!" "Wow, women can climax?!" "Is it only a climax when it's vaginal?" "Where is my vagina?" "Vagina, hell! Where's my clitoris?" "My what does what when I climax?!" "Oral?! Ewwwww." "Oral, mmmmm" "Is the 'g' spot real or did some guy make it up?"

So let's talk...again. Let's define, together with each other, for ourselves and for each other, what sexual health is, what healthy sex is. Then, when we've defined the myriad healthy sexual experiences and sexually healthy bodies, let's talk about what's "right" and what's "wrong". Some strippers love the attention and feel powerful using their bodies in that way. For some it's a soul-destroying way to make money. For others it's somewhere in between. Some women enjoy making money for providing sex; they feel powerful, beautiful and they can pay the rent or go on a cruise. Some are coerced or know no other way or feel unworthy of anything but. And others are somewhere in between. It's my job to define what "is" for me and, sometimes, it's my "job" to share what "is" for me with others to see if that's what "is" for them. And sometimes it's my job to listen or help those who are hurting or validate and celebrate those who aren't. And sometimes it's my job to just shut-up. Which I will do right after I note; as you may have noticed, I don't view this as a binary, on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/bad, issue - there's just too much "in-between" in there.

Abortion before it was legal.

and pictures of what can happen when abortion is illegal.

The site is graphic! Proceed with caution if you go there to read the stories, which are also very graphic, and to view the site.

Life and Liberty for Women

Is it the intent of anti-abortion extremists to ban all abortions?

Of course.

And does their intent involve another method of banning abortions other than overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Yes.

One strategy is to ban abortion procedures one procedure at a time which would effectively make abortion illegal.

In a perfect world.

sex would not have a stigma attached to it.

Were that the case, then yes, by all means let's discuss what causes sexual excitement in an individual. Let's discover the different forms of excitement and categorize those which are sexual and those which are induced by violence. The commonalities between and the differences of. What does sex look like when it's not commodified, stigmatized and brutalized?

In my previous post, I started to post about the notion that "fear is excitement without the breath." Two distinct emotions with similar physiological responses. Few, I think, confuse one with the other. Yet we frequently confuse emotions induced by a brutal act with emotions induced by sex.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could discover the different forms of "sexual" excitement. In the meantime...sex is taboo unless selling something or for procreation, except for "studly" men and never for women and lets not even talk about same sex or racially "mixed." I'm not sure I, or anyone actually, can define "healthy" sex or "healthy" sexual arousal.

Until the time we have valid information we gets to work with whats we got. And what we got is a society in which women who are raped are frequently stigmatized, demonized and vilified. And what about men who are raped? We haven't even begun to deal with that; perhaps because that might start to show that rape is a violent crime, used by men (most rapists are male) as a means to humiliate, control, punish, destroy, dishonor and/or demoralize a person or persons. Think of the use of rape to dishonor families and demoralize the enemy during wartime.

I wish I had an answer. I wish we lived in a "perfect" world. I wish sex and sexuality were honored or sacred or healthy or good.

I wish.

Understanding Sexism

Understanding sexism, racism and other isms in the progressive/liberal communities.

The full book title for those of you who have not already read it is "Sacred Pleasure: sex, myth, and the politics of the body" by Riane Eisler; who, some of you know, also wrote "The Chalice and the Blade."

It has been my experience that many feminists cringe when confronted with anything related to spirituality and/or religion; with good cause given what has been done against/to women in the name of god and/or religion. I believe and I have believed since beginning my feminist research and career that we avoid the spiritual realm to our own detriment. It has been such an effective tool against us, we must understand its workings in order to defeat its efficacy. I've spent much of my feminist career examining religions and comparing mythologies of the sacred feminine and how many of those myths define what it is to be human and to define what it is to be female; usually different and conflicting pictures. As a matter of fact, I realized recently, that my feminist consciousness came about due to the fact that I questioned many of the tenets within the religion of my childhood; the catholic church.

Since this may be a book which would be overlooked by feminists due to its spiritual theme, I felt I should post about it here. Quite frankly, I hope that I'm wrong and that my experiences within the feminist community are now quaint anachronisms of the feminist movement past. :D

The theme throughout both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" is that of dominator versus partnership societies. "Sacred Pleasure" begins where "Chalice" left off and shows the inter-connectedness of dominator ideals as they impact the "nuclear" family, economic realities, the political sphere, the role of religion and myth-making, the role of media to promote approved mythology, and the ever present need and erotization of "sacred" violence or threat of violence in order to maintain dominator (patriarchal) systems of oppression over those defined as less than, weaker, less worthy, less god-like, i.e., "feminine." Her theories say that sexism against women is the "linchpin" upon which all isms are modeled. Sexism is the "template" for all forms of discrimination and hatred toward "out groups."

Her theories about dominator versus partnership help to explain sexism, racism, homophobia, and other anti-"other" behaviors and comments many here experience within our own progressive/liberal movement; from men and women.

I highly recommend you investigate both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" with an eye toward defining that which continues to "defeat" us and separate us as we continue to re-define the world in which we live and to see those dominator ideals which we and "ours" continue to propagate within our work toward peace, partnership and equality rather than violence, hatred and power-over.

We may have come a long way, but we have a long way still to go.

How the Right Wing will Attack Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker

Every "mistake" she makes will be analyzed ad nauseum; every success will be glossed over or framed as a loss.

Every move she makes will be analyzed down to dots on 'i's and crosses on 't's.

Pictures will show her in the worst light. She will look "tired," "angry" or small.

Her choices for office furniture, clothes, hairstyle, makeup and diet will be discussed ad nauseum.

There will be comments about her "looking tired" in order to suggest the job is too much for her.

Anytime she has a disagreement with another woman it will be called a "cat-fight" or words to invoke the image of cat-fight.

Her tone of voice will be frequently described as angry, shrill, hysterical or grating rather than passionate, firm, etc.

If she is persistent on an issue she will be described as being stubborn, pugnacious, unbending, unyielding rather than focused, persistent, determined, etc.

If she does compromise she'll be labeled weak, inefficient, wishy-washy, etc.

And, finally, she will be responsible for single-handedly "feminizing" the Democratic Party and liberals.

I'm not gonna sit still for it!

The fact that you used every filthy, misogynistic stereotype known to women in order to slam a vitriol spewing, right wing bag of pus, was way too much for me. I had to comment. Hate her message? Say so. Sling misogynistic stereotypes used to keep girls and women in their place at her? Not gonna sit still for it.

I'll call her "Ann'. Every high school had one. She went steady with every boy on every sports team. She also went steady with every boy on the debate team, the chess team, and the detention room. There were also rumors of her going steady with a few of the male teachers.

She never really did but all the teenage boys sitting around in the locker room having a mental circle jerk sure made sure to say they had so they wouldn't feel left out. The ones who were most pissed off about her turning them down even said she'd "done it with the math teacher".

Everybody liked Ann because she would do anything. At one point, Ann was the most popular girl in school. She played the flame to every boy's audition for the the role of 'moth'. By Junior year, even your parents knew of Ann.

She rarely if ever really did the things she was accused of. But, boy, them teenage boys were gonna "get them some 'o that" and they'd crucify her for the fact all the other boys lied to them about it. It was called being a "prick tease" back in those days. Or even a "dyke". What're they calling those girls these days?

But into Senior year, Ann was finding it harder and harder to get dates. The boys had moved on to more serious social lives. Ann, rather than being the object of everyone's fantasies and desires, was little more than a locker room joke. Or an object lesson.

Ann never did go to the prom. Nobody wanted to take her.

Yep, the nascent neo-cons had done quite a number on the poor girl's good name. Everyone was convinced she was nothing but a sleazy, skanky, whore. Of course the little monsters were still throwing her name around their daily locker room circle jerk.

She was seen, a few years after high school, at a few of the bachelor parties given for her former 'steadies'. No one really wanted to confirm that she was there, or why.

Too bad she came from a small community, huh? Years of being treated and called a whore and all she could get were a couple of gigs here and there playing "mind fuck" with some of those former "steadies" who'd lied about her all those years. Fortunately, she'd learned to sock away the bucks made off her previous enemies.

Its kinda sad. When she was old enough, she started hanging out in bars. She had a reputation for short dresses and outrageous antics. It was again kind of like high school, but with older 'boys' now. With jobs. Ann took to promoting whoever her current flame was. Working to make him, in the eyes of others, more than he was. She'd say and do damned near anything to enhance the image of her latest beau.

Yeah, still thinking there might actually be a couple of good men out there. Unfortunately for her, she still kept meeting the "circle jerk club". Sad what a woman will do to herself to be "accepted" into a group. She even went so far as to try to win over one of the circle jerks by being the "woman behind the man". It didn't work of course. Those kind of men only want eye candy and whores anyway. She was traded in on the newest model.

But then it was found out she was taking money to do this. The boys were paying her and using her. And then moving on and settling down with a 'nice girl'.

And she was laughing all the way to the bank after exploiting the jerks' own teenage fantasies. Watching as their "nice girls" turned into "religious" whackos because their new husbands only knew to treat women as whores.

Ann took to wearing shorter and shorter skirts. She was rumored to have an eating disorder as she became obsessed with her image.

She lost weight working all those weird hours and putting herself through college to make something of herself. People who remembered "her past" constantly found fault with anything and everything she did. Even the fact she stayed her high school weight was fodder for snarky remarks. So, she kept her nose to the grindstone and made a point of wearing shorter and shorter skirts to really piss off the now, full grown neocons with their Valium-taking, wacked out wives and their beer guts and juvenile delinquent kids.

Soon enough, everyone in her social circle was ...... somewhere else. Ann was all alone. Her only loves? Chardonnay and cigarettes.

Whatever happened to Ann? Maybe someone can find her on one of those high school reunion web sites .........

Did she ever make something of herself?

She moved on, far from her old neighborhood to get away from the narrow minded circle jerks, and became successful as a lawyer helping women whose husbands beat them bloody, working for women's rights in the U.S. and helping to educate the public about sex, sex education and the teenage male habit of demonizing girls who "don't put out."

She lives in a modest home with her husband who, as a teenager, thought the locker room circle jerks were asinine. She's raising her daughter and her son to respect women and to understand healthy sex and healthy relationships.

The neocon assholes of her childhood are regularly spewing filth on the nightly news about pot smoking, oversexed, "wine loving" elitist liberals.

One especially has become infamous. An old "enemy" of our girl who hated her with a passion because she'd seen our girl as prettier, smarter and more popular than she; and more importantly, because our girl got out of this narrow minded hell hole while your Ann was stuck married to one of the more "popular" circle jerks. The enemy of our girl is named Ann, too.

I am one of many women whose been called many of the things you listed by men who blamed me because they were jerks.

If only women wouldn't act that way...

they wouldn't get raped.

The thing is, "advising people not to act in those ways" impliesand is frequently extrapolated to mean that what might have worked in "negligible" "number of rapes the victim could clearly have prevented," would be effective deterrents to all cases in which men rape.

I said "It seems an uneven and dangerous presumption to make that women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves." I didn't say you held this presumption. I do believe it is a "commonly" held presumption by many.

"Normal men don't take precautions against raping women because they don't need to..." but do they take active measures to let the men and boys around them know that rape is wrong? Do they speak up when a group gets together in a locker room, a sports bar, a fraternity or even one on one with their friends when those friends start talking about what they'd like to do to/with such-and-so-woman-of-"note"? Do "normal" men correct or rebuke or educate the guys who talk of rape and/or sexual "conquest" as a cool, "manly" thing to do or that some woman "deserved it"? Or do "normal" men sit back and figure "it's none of my business" and let the talking and boasting and ragging continue and accept that their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and female friends are just gonna have to learn to protect themselves from "normal" guy's friends?

I bet there are many guys here who have stopped or attempted to stop a female friend or family member from going out with one of their "dickhead" (used soley for differentiation from "normal" men) friends? I wonder how many have ever attempted to educate previously mentioned "dickhead" about their questionable behavior? Which tact may do the "greatest" good? "Saving" one female on one occasion or "saving" many women with whom previously mentioned "dickhead" will come into contact throughout his life. Better yet, "saving" one female AND educating previously mentioned "dickhead."

An Internet Feminist's Manifesta on Language

A resource for online feminists

Whereas words and language have power to create meaning and ideas which, in turn, have power to create words and language;

Whereas each individual on this planet has the right to create their own identity within the larger group;

Whereas each individual's power within a group contributes to the power of the group which, in turn, contributes to the power of the individual;

And

Whereas all things female/feminine have been defined and codified throughout history as "other," lesser, weaker, "sinful," dangerous, repulsive, dirty, evil, petty, unworthy, pathological;

And

Whereas the leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals purport to be inclusive, diverse, welcoming, all-encompassing and empowering;

Whereas the group can only be as strong as its weakest member;

Whereas we find the following words, phrases, language and ideas with their subsequent subtext, to be antithetical to and destructive of leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals;

Therefore

We, encourage our fellow netizens to cease the use of and to cultivate their knowledge of the offensive, repressive, and dis-empowering nature of sexist, abusive, oppressive, regressive and destructive language, words, phrases and ideas; such as defined in the categories below:


A. Derogatory Language

1. "Cat fight" - usually used to describe passionate debate or argument between 2 or more women; used to degrade the import of the discussion as being unworthy of serious thought or concern. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things female are petty)

2. "Bitch" - the context and tone in which it is used and to what purpose, can be extremely negative and offensive. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "bitch slap," "make someone his/her/their bitch," etc.) (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

3. "Whore" - see "bitch" and include the added double standard applied to women and our sexuality in which our sexuality equates with our inherent character and that character is deemed evil, dirty, immoral, etc. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "media whore," "whoring for fill in the name.") (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

4. "Slut" - see "bitch" and "whore." other examples of anti-female epithets in this vein include: "Bi-Yach," "Ho," "skank" and "douche bag." That they may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when they are used against males it is precisely because of their anti-female associated meanings that they considered such a powerful insults. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

5."Pussy" - equates anything less than a sociologically defined masculinity as weak therefore bad, lesser, unworthy, not tough enough, in short, not "male" enough. Implies that only "masculine" traits are desired or the norm. Accepts the idea that to ascribe anything woman/female-like to a male is an insult. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)

6. "Sissy" - see "Pussy" also includes such "insults" as "cry/throw/hit like a girl" (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)

7. "Cunt" - derogatory slang for woman's genitalia usually used as an insult. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that women's genitalia are somehow evil, dirty, immoral, etc. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)


B. Exploiting Rape to Vilify Women

1. "She asked for it" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. All statements place responsibility for the actions of a rapist on the shoulders of the women/girls who men rape. (see G. The Bandwagon Argument for why this section says specifically "men rape women.")

• 1.a. "she shouldn't have gotten drunk/high," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and will "fuck anything" (denying the humanity of women who men rape) and also makes an assertion that men have no responsibility nor will take responsibility for their own "monstrous sexual appetites."


• 1.b. "she was dressed like a ho/skank/whore/slut, etc." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and holds women responsible for controlling men's "monstrous sexual appetites" even though men, apparently, can't.


• 1.c. "she shouldn't have been there in the first place," or its inverse, "what was she doing there in the first place?" - perpetuates the illusion that all rape is "stranger rape," and since men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites," women "should" live their lives avoiding the places in which our lives take place; such as, the privacy of our own homes; at a party with friends whom we trust; the parking lot at the grocery store or work or a club or...; the playground with the kids; walking to and from work, school, the bus, the train; riding the bus or train or driving in our car; camping; family outings or family gatherings; or...anyplace that is not inside the illusionary safety of our homes.


• 1.d. "Women/girls need to take responsibility for their safety," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that women have the sole responsibility to control men's "monstrous sexual appetites" and that we forget that responsibility at our peril


• 1.e. "If she had been smart..." or its inverse "If she hadn't been so stupid..." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men rape only "stupid/slutty/whorish" women and that all women who men rape are "stupid/slutty/whorish."

2. "Boys will be boys" - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men begin to lose control over their "monstrous sexual appetites" at or near puberty and that they have no responsibility to learn such control.

3. "Date rape isn't as bad as 'violent rape'" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. Perpetuates the destructive and false idea that rape is just sex that got a "little out of hand." Denies and obfuscates the violently emotional toll rape has on women/girls regardless of presence or absence of physical evidence. Implies that women's emotional health is less important than not only her physical health, but in the "grand scheme of things."

4. "She's lying" or its inverse "the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty (implies "she's lying")" - perpetuates the assumption that sensational accusations of "false reports" of rape that appear in the corporate media, a) are false rather then "unprovable" in "a court of law," b) are indicative of the actual ratio of false to "provable" reports of rape, c) that the ratio is accurate in the number of "false" accusations to actual number of rapes d) that all acts of rape are reported and provable in a court of law and e) "proof" that women are a bunch of "gold-digging, money grubbing, liars". Further insults women by denying our credibility on a board whose members will "judge, try and 'hang'" a republican or a pedophile with never a though of "innocent until proven guilty" and whose members protest loudly and vociferously that the "media cannot be trusted!" Perpetuates the idea, that when a woman files a charge of rape, she is "guilty until proven raped."

5. Rape as "comedy" material; a source of jokes and amusement of the "it'll never happen (hasn't happened) to me so it's not important," and the "if it's inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it" crowds - used to deny the violent emotional and/or physical impact rape has on a girl's/woman's "sense of Self" and her, forever changed, place in the world. Denies and obfuscates that When a man rapes a woman or girl, he has not perpetrated just one violent act against one woman. Rape can irreparably change the entire course of a woman's life and those whose lives intersect hers. Thereby illuminating the "attraction" of using rape as a weapon of war. Rape is NOT funny.

(sexist, abusive, destructive: because the statements above remove all responsibility from rapists.)


C. Language Used to Glorify a Perverted and Anti-survival Form of "Masculinity"

1. "He's got balls!" - validates the pervasive and destructive and false idea that only those with the proper physiological equipment are capable of showing great strength or power and frequently used to promote an ideal in which, since women have no balls women are therefore handicapped in a world which values strength and power. Also validates and perpetuates the idea that "might makes right," in and of itself an anti-survival idea. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's got balls!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")

2. "Be a man!" - usually used in discussions in which a poster has questioned a perverted or anti-survival form of "masculinity" and implies that the poster is in some way weak or less than and therefore to be disregarded, ridiculed, or ignored. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's the man!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")


D. Objectification

1. Comments about women's appearance/dress - used as a weapon of attack against any woman with whom the poster has a difference of opinion. Used to attack the messenger rather than debating the message. Used to obfuscate the merit (or lack thereof) of the words, ideas, actions or contributions to society made by the object of such remarks. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that said body parts are the standard by which women are measured. Sometimes referred to as the "fuckability quotient." (Examples include: "I'd do her," "Check out insert description of female body part," "She's hot!" "She's ugly (or some other adjective to define less-than-beautiful)", "Progressive women are hotter than conservative women (or some variation thereof)," "Can you believe she'd wear something like that?" "She dresses like a whore/slut/skank/etc." "She's had a boob job." "What a cow!") (sexist: because it objectifies women and it assumes and validates the idea that women are permanently on a runway to be constantly critiqued as sexual objects, no matter what context they are acting in; abusive: because it attempts to silence the message and the messenger.)

• 1.a. "She slept her way to the top" - used to promote the idea that women are incapable of succeeding without using their bodies and sex. Denies that the targeted woman is intelligent, talented or skillful in anything other than the "womanly arts" of seduction and/or sex. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult.(the same stereotype when used in the context of marriage is "gold digger" and "trophy wife.")

E. Gender Identity Attacks

1. "Mann Coulter" – the implications of this phrase are that:

• 1.a. - because a woman looks a certain way, i.e., not "feminine" enough, she is not a "real woman;"


• 1.a.1. - that there is something pathological about not being a "real woman;"


• 1.b. - that a person's personality and/or pathology is tied to their appearance and or sex/gender;


• 1.c. - that there is something pathological with a person if their physiology does not match their gender identification;


• 1.c.1. - and that subsequently there is something pathological about transgendered people;


• 1.d. - That there is something pathological about a man wanting to be a woman.

(sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are bad, evil, dirty, weak, pathological, etc.)


F. Pompous Negation of Critiques of the Systems of Patriarchy and Authoritarianism

1. "Can't you take a joke?" - usually used in response to an individual's concern that a comment or post was offensive or sexist; implies that the individual concerned does not have the right to express their concern or that their concern is in some manner petty (other forms include: "lighten up," "get over yourself," "get a life," "not this again," "oh, you're one of those feminazis/militant feminists/radical feminists," "word police," "PC Police," etc.) {special note: many women on this board hear these phrases with the word "bitch" implied, for example; "geez, bitch, can't you take a joke?" or "jesus, bitch, get over yourself" and so on.} (abusive: because the concerned individual is being denied their own perspective)

2. "Male bashing" - usually used in response to a post in which an individual had the audacity to criticize men/males/boys and/or their actions. A form of hyperbole and duplicitous rhetoric in which the accuser purposely muddles a critique of behaviors and symptoms of a system of patriarchy with a critique of all men as individuals because the original poster did not weaken their statement or argument by including confusing and muddying conditional adjectives and statements such as "some" men/males/boys or "I know that it's not all men/males/boys, but..." or "with all due respect to the men/males/boys on this board" and so on. (abusive: because it is used to derail the original content of the post, i.e., deny or obfuscate the OP's message.)


G. The Bandwagon Argument

1. "It happens to men, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "it happens to men, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate. An in-depth view of the insidious nature of this remark, see Why I Write Not of Men posted by White Bear at Bitch Ph.D..

2. "Woman do it, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "women do it, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate.

3. "I'm a humanist" - used to promote the idea that feminists and feminism are elitist, narrowly focused, or an exclusive club and that feminist ideals are nothing more than a selfish attempt by a few women and men to promote an agenda which will take rights for themselves at a cost to others' rights. Denies and obscures the comprehensive nature of feminism and the very existence of patriarchal oppression.

4. "All feminists are/believe/do/think fill in negative stereotype" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. Sometimes used to catapult anti-feminist propaganda or an anti-feminist writer as indicative of the "feminist" movement. {editor's note: Anyone who thinks "all feminists think alike" has obviously never been in a room with 2 or more feminists in their life.}

5. "Not all men do/think/act fill in the blank" - used when a woman or man has the "audacity" to make a declarative statement rather than placating the reader with conditional words such as "some," "not all, but" "with all due respect," and so on, when writing about traits, actions, ideals which have traditionally been associated with a perverted and anti-survival for of "masculinity." It is usually an attempt to deny the existence of patriarchal systems of domination and their horrible impact on women and men. (abusive: because it is used to divert and/or silence the message.)

• G.A. Jumping Off the Bandwagon


• "I'm not a feminist, but..." - usually followed by a list of women's rights for which many feminists, female and male, now and throughout history have fought, were imprisoned, have had their lives destroyed, and for which, some have died. Dishonors the long history of struggle from which we, women and men, have benefited. Usually used to distance herself from the myths that feminists are: humorless (F.1.), frigid (H.1.), manhating and/or angry (H.4.) or pathological (listed throughout). Corollaries include: "I'm a feminist, but I love/like porn/sex/men" (subtext: but not one of "those" feminists (H.1., H.2., H.4., G.4., F.2. and throughout), use by women of destructive and sexist language because "I'm not that sensitive," "It's just words," "I'm not like that," "It doesn't mean anything," "I've never taken it that way," etc. usually as an attempt to distance the poster from "those women" and to show how "unlike" "those women" the poster is. Validates the destructive idea that language has NO power. Validates the usage of destructive language since "women do it, too" (G.2.). Denies and dishonors the long history of struggle as mentioned above.

H. Anti-Feminist Propaganda

The intentional and the unintentional use of anti-feminist rhetoric used to "catapult the propaganda" that falsely portrays feminists and feminism in a negative, sometimes pathological, light. Many of the falsehoods listed below have been repeated so frequently for so long they have become "common knowledge;" though they have unfortunately become common, they are not knowledge as they are falsehoods created to discredit feminists and feminist ideals.

1. "Feminists want to outlaw porn" - usually used in a debate to define feminists as "frigid," anti-sex, "man haters," cold, sexually repressed and so on. It is also used on occasion to equate feminists with neo-con religious fundamentalists as an added insult. Will sometimes include an incomplete quote of Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography legislation. "1. "Pornography" means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words" and does not include the rest of the line which states: "that also includes one or more of the following:" followed by a list of depictions of women in pornography with which many might actually agree. Click here for the full text of Mackinnon's definition of pornography within the anti-pornography legislation which she proposed.

2. "Feminists believe all sex is rape" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. "MacKinnon claims the first reference... surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. ..., the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws. Full story.

3. "Womens libbers burned their bras" -

• 3.a. the use of the word "libbers," as was the case with the use of the word "suffragette" in its time, was devised by the media and women's rights opponents of the day, to ridicule and denigrate women who spoke out in an "uppity," "strident," "shrill" and "unlady-like" manner. "Dyke," "man-hater," "lesbian," "castrating bitch," "ice queen," and "dragon lady" are other examples of epithets which are used against feminists. {special note: most feminists today have healed their own homophobia and are no longer "cowed" by the use of "dyke," "lesbian," and *wink*wink*"Oh, you're one of those."}


• 3.b. "the bra burning incident" - "That's a myth. It was the time of draft-card burning, and some smart headline writer decided to call it a 'bra burning' because it sounded insulting to the then-new women's movement. We only threw a bra symbolically in a trash can." (emphasis added) Full story.

4. "Abortion clinic," "Abortion doctor" - the subtext of these phrases is that all women's health clinics and all OB/GYNs associated with them are "killing babies." They are "intellectually dishonest" and obfuscate the wide range of "non-controversial" services provided by many women's health care clinics and our doctors. "Saving babies" is then used to justify closing clinics which provide vital "women's" health services such as, contraception, emergency contraception, family planning advice, sex education, pap smears and/or other gynecological exams, breast exams, etc.

5. "Feminists are 'manhaters'" or its corollary, "Feminists are 'angry'" and the placating versions "I don't hate men, but..," "I love men, but..." - used to imply that if the poster in question, would only "learn to love men," read that as "get laid" or "get a man," rather than "hating men" or "being angry" read that as "instead of being a frigid bitch," the poster would "be cured of her pathology," read that as "remember her 'place' as chattel." Used as a tactic to imply the poster is pathological because she is "angry" or because she "hates men." The men and women who accuse a poster of "hating men" because the poster has criticized or commented on a sexist or abusive post, could perhaps put their defensive outrage in perspective by reading any version of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto to see what angry, manhating looks like. Its author, Valerie Solanas, took her angry, manhating to its logical and extreme conclusion as depicted in I Shot Andy Warhol.

Stealth Campaigns in the Democratic Party

"Democrats for Life" uses the same rhetoric as many rabid anti-choice organizations, e.g. pro-life versus pro-abortion, unborn rather than zygote or fetus, pro-choice="radical", stem cells are people, and wrap their message in religious terms.

If all pro-life people shunned the Democratic party, who would then speak up for the unborn?

--snip--

It is too dangerous to allow a group with that much power to be totally under the influence of the pro-abortion mentality....serve as a buffer against the more radical elements in the party.

--snip--

The party has sent out such a strong and pervasive pro-abortion message that many pro-life people have felt silenced or alienated.

link accessed from this page

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

They are anti-stem cell research:

Because embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) doesn't have the starkness of other pro-life issues, some people may not realize what an urgent issue it is. My wife, a former AIDS and cancer-research technician at Johns Hopkins University, put it simply: When it comes to ESCR, "the problem isn't the cells, it's the person you have to kill to get the cells."

--snip--

You have to be able to see and understand that your debate partners really are trying to do what they think is right, and appreciate that they might not have been presented the truth in a way they can understand. You have to love them as Jesus did when He wept for them—to see them with His compassion when He said they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mk 6:34).

link accessed from this page

Supporters of the 95 10 initiative include, wow, a token woman beyond the ED, /sarcasm who'd have guessed? /sarcasm:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet - who stands to profit quite handsomely from "Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program - Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

Through our phone and internet services, we have been able to educate men and women on the risks of abortion as well as provide them with resources and information about abortion alternatives. But more importantly, through the Option Line and the work of affiliate centers, these men and women have been exposed to the message of the Gospel, and by the grace of God, we have seen many make decisions for Christ. Care Net's "Option Line"

CareNet also opposes emergency contraception for women.

The 95 10 initiative also presents, as fact, that abortion (has) adverse side effects to a woman's health in spite of the fact that there is no valid proof of detrimental effects to a woman's health, mental or physical despite years of anti-choice activists who insist on proving otherwise.

Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental (or physical, read the article) health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.

So, to summarize to this point,

- the federally funded "informational" hot-line is bait-and-switch and removes abortion from the choices offered
- women's "right to know" will include false and disproved information
- college women will be given the option (bribed?) to receive help to carry a pregnancy to term but removes abortion from her federally funded choices
- requires women's clinics to provide "adoption referral information" to further complicate a difficult decision during a stressful time and is part of a collection of trap laws which are used "to subject abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals"
- provide additionally confusing and distressing information should a woman choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing; will they cover a second opinion? Is this another trap law?
- federally funding to "collect accurate data on why women choose abortions"?! There are several studies already available; here's one. Why do they need more studies and research? Do they not like the answers they've received to date?


This initiative is a "beard". The more I research the more it looks like the anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti-women people have infiltrated the Democratic Party. /sarcasm Gee, what a surprise. /sarcasm

You will know us by our warts

What would feminists look like and what would feminists do if we fit the image the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich presented of us?

Well, for starters, we'd be dragging pregnant women off the streets into "abortion clinics" and forcing them to have abortions. Or, we'd be dragging pregnant women, mid-delivery, out of hospitals and into ritual rooms and immediately sacrificing their newborn babies in the name of Satan. Then we'd eat the pieces parts of the newly murdered babies.

We'd be out on the streets grabbing small children and dragging them into other ritual rooms where we'd indoctrinate them into our perverse life styles of homosexuality and/or sexual orgies.

We'd be dragging men in off the streets and castrating them or cutting off their penises.

We'd be practicing strange rites of witchcraft where all the above mentioned would be incorporated into strange and hellish rites of debauchery and murder, mayhem and maiming.

Oh yeah, and we'd ride broomsticks, have warts all over, and scare the hell out of all and a sundry who looked at us.

Have you seen any of us, yet? You'll know when you do. Just look for the warts.