?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

*Gnarrrrrr*


Fnargle.  My head hurts.  It's not been made better by following the woman-hating antics of the various Republican fucknecks who value a clump of non-viable cells over a human being with a vagina.  We used to joke about the US becoming the Republic of Gilead, but it's not a joke any longer.  I made a sarcastic comment to Bob last night that the Republican attack on reproductive (it's not just abortion!) rights must be part of their job-creative initiative; clearly they desire to turn women back into the upaid domestic servants and sex providers for men, so that all the jobs women now hold will be available for men again, and voila!  No unemployment!  QED.

I really wish I didn't think they were serious, but on some level, I really think they do want us back in the 19th century, when women didn't have the vote, and a few people made themselves obscenely rich on the backs of poorly-paid workers who toiled in unsafe conditions without any right of redress.

Good times, eh? 

How nice, then, to see that Obama has finally stepped up and said he will not support DOMA and considers it unconstitutional.  Finally, something good from the White House.  As a follow-up, Mr. President, how about making it absolutely clear that you will veto the attempt to de-fund Title X, and make sure that women, children, and men who rely on Planned Parenthood for basic reproductive health needs and care will continue to receive that care?  After all, every dollar spent by PP saves >$3 in Medicare costs, and we're all about reducing costs, right?

The Right Wing may be using The Handmaid's Tale as a how-to manual, but we don't have to follow them down that path - assuming that we can get our heads out of the sand and realize that it's not just a few "wingnuts" putting in ridiculous legislation, but a concerted effort by the Right Wing dominated Republican party to turn the US into a Christian patriarchal theocracy. 

Comments

( 31 brains — Leave a chunk of brain! )
cormac
Feb. 24th, 2011 05:24 pm (UTC)
Well said. "Cooler heads" have asserted for decades that both sides have the same goal of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions), and that it's only a matter of how to go affect this change that is the controversy. This is clearly not the case.

While both sides agree that it would be nice to have fewer abortions, the Right Wing does not want to limit the number of pregnancies, as evidenced by their unwavering support of the demonstrably inept Abstinence-Only Education, and their incessant attempts to eliminate any and all forms of birth control. The dividing line isn't "should abortions be legal," but instead "should a woman have a baby every time she has sex, whether she wants one or no."
living400lbs
Feb. 24th, 2011 06:48 pm (UTC)
Just remember you don't need to gnaw your arm off to escape.
reasie
Feb. 24th, 2011 07:13 pm (UTC)
Preach it! Having difficulty restraining fist of death!!

Bastards!!

*inchoate rage*


What I really don't get is the many women in the anti-abortion "movement" who scream and foam at the mouth over the poor "babies" never realizing that they are calling the woman worthless in comparison.

And they spew vitriol about a difficult life decision they have never had to make.
lady_guenievre
Feb. 24th, 2011 07:22 pm (UTC)
Oh, I think they realize it. I think they just think of abortion as something that only happens to "bad" women and therefore they dont care.

::more rage::
(no subject) - mariedeblois - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bunnyjadwiga - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mariedeblois - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bunnyjadwiga - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - baronesspixie - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - reasie - Feb. 24th, 2011 10:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - baronesspixie - Feb. 25th, 2011 12:45 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fiberferret - Feb. 26th, 2011 04:30 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bunnyjadwiga - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mariedeblois - Feb. 24th, 2011 07:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fiberferret - Feb. 26th, 2011 04:32 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mariedeblois - Feb. 26th, 2011 07:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fiberferret - Feb. 26th, 2011 04:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fiberferret - Feb. 26th, 2011 04:36 am (UTC) - Expand
jeru
Feb. 24th, 2011 07:55 pm (UTC)
Excellent comparison between the book and our times. One needs to read the epilogue, though, to realize that it won't work. :)
fitchwitch
Feb. 24th, 2011 08:00 pm (UTC)
What really annoys me....
What really annoys me is the people who consider the fetus is sacred and to be protected--RIGHT UP TO THE MOMENT OF ITS BIRTH.

THEN? You're on your own. There are some, but FAR TOO FEW of them who are willing to put their money where their mouths are and give support to mothers who have children that they can't afford. Once the kid is out, it's no longer THEIR concern. They literally don't care if the kid gets enough to eat, or a good education, or even shelter.

I also don't appreciate, and thus don't contribute to all of the agencies that claim to "Save the Children." Why? Because they refuse to provide birth control to women who WANT it. Many of these women would be more than happy to limit their families to what they could afford--but the same agencies that claim to "help the whole community of the children" refuse to give help in family planning.
reasie
Feb. 24th, 2011 10:11 pm (UTC)
Re: What really annoys me....
YES. It's often the same people refusing the right of birth control or reproductive decision-making to women that are also against welfare and infant-care programs.

The... explicative explicative explicatives!
Re: What really annoys me.... - baronesspixie - Feb. 25th, 2011 12:46 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: What really annoys me.... - olycaryn - Feb. 25th, 2011 02:36 am (UTC) - Expand
lorihalia
Feb. 25th, 2011 12:29 am (UTC)
"clearly they desire to turn women back into the upaid domestic servants..."

What's so very sad about this, is as one of those myself I see those very same people treat me as less than the dirt on thier shoes. Because I don't have a real job.

Child-rearing, cooking, and housekeeping aren't real work in the eyes of too many. What makes it even more unfortunate, and can send me into incoherent rants at times, is that I get that attitude from just as many (if not more) women as men.

It often feels like a can't win situation.
fiberferret
Feb. 26th, 2011 04:42 am (UTC)
That's because it's women's work so it MUST be easy. Yeah, I watched my dad do that to my mom and it killed me. He'd come home from a day at work and expect his meal and quiet and god forbid she try to talk to him when he'd been working all day while she'd just been at home puttering around. I hate that even my friends who work have generally nice husbands who STILL assume they will do all the house work because it's "so easy." I really wonder if we'll ever come to a time when "women's work" is valued for the hard work it is.
attack_laurel
Mar. 2nd, 2011 11:03 am (UTC)
Yes. I think this is also where second-wave feminism really failed SAHMs. It's still being thought about as valueless work, when the entirety of modern civilization is built on the unacknowledged work of unpaid women. Nothing is possible without the work that women do for no money - and they should be given the utmost respect for that.

Feminism should be about valuing everything women do as equal in importance to anything men do. That's what equality means. And being the bedrock upon which society builds is pretty damn respect-worthy.
alba_ny
Feb. 25th, 2011 01:58 am (UTC)
I'm having similar thoughts lately. :(
nicolaa5
Feb. 25th, 2011 02:19 am (UTC)
Yep, the whole Republic of Gilead thing is really creepy, especially sitting up here north of the border--the place of escape for those trapped in the Republic.
welamom
Mar. 1st, 2011 06:26 pm (UTC)
The sad truth is that a certain segment of powerful men *do* indeed, wish us back in the kitchen, sans shoes, preferably pregnant. They honestly believe that we belong there. I'd really like to talk to the women who raised them.
anabeladb
Mar. 1st, 2011 09:45 pm (UTC)
Please read until the end...
I am a anti-abortionist. It should NOT be used as a form of birth control. I will shout that to my dyeing day. I will help a person find other alternatives, including adopting the child so that it is not aborted. But I am also a believer that I should put my "money where my mouth is."

HOWEVER, I also would NEVER push MY CHOICE on to anyone else. Though my beliefs may differ from yours, if I offer assistance and you still want that abortion, than I am willing to stand by your side even in the doctor's office. Because, it is YOUR CHOICE.

Isn't choices what America is about?

Signed by the person who had to make the hardest decision in the world...to have a dnc when she was 3.5 months pregnant because the fetus had no heartbeat.
attack_laurel
Mar. 2nd, 2011 11:17 am (UTC)
Re: Please read until the end...
You can be anti-abortion for yourself all you want. I will never gainsay what you decide to do with your body, because consent is what this is about - you should have absolute autonomy over what will and will not happen to your body. If all people who did not choose abortion for themselves felt the same way, we would not have a problem.

I do want you, if you have not already heard about it, to read up on coerced reproduction, because it throws some light on the republican strawman of women casually using abortion as birth control. Also, in 2002, according to the Guttmacher institute, 6 in 10 women who had abortions were already mothers. Unintended pregnancy happens when people are sexually active, no matter how careful they are with their birth control - which is to say, the "slut who uses abortion as birth control" is NOT the woman who is most likely to get an abortion - poor women, hispanic women, and teenagers (of whom those who have abstinence-only or no sex education, and don't even know about contraceptives, or are told they aren't effective and/or will make them sterile) are the most likely women to need an abortion.

The only reason I am making this long comment (long comment is long!) is that the phrase "abortion as birth control" is too frequently twisted to become a slut-shaming slur against women, when in fact, the factors that lead to abortion are deeply complicated, and cannot be reduced simply to lazy middle-class white women who can't be bothered to use birth control, as much as the religious right would like to do so.

I'm not heaping this on you, but I do want to explain why "abortion=/=birth control" is a somewhat simplistic reduction. See, for instance, baronesspixie's comment above for an example of reproductive coercion.
( 31 brains — Leave a chunk of brain! )

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com