This blogaround brought to you by reproductive choice.
Recommended Reading:
Igor: Appeals Court Finds Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
Peter: Kill Switch Redux: British PM Cameron Considers Muzzling Social Media During Riots
Fannie: Losing Privilege Is So Oppressive
Arthur: [TW for racism] History happens. Try to understand it.
Susie: Who Won't Hire the Unemployed?
Adrienne: [TW for racism] Native Ex-NBC Employee "Siouxs" for Harassment
moyazb: (More) Love for Awkward Black Girl
And so much joy to Blue Gal and Drifty, on their wedding day.
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Friday Blogaround
Update: Virulent Video
[Trigger warning for transphobia]
On Tuesday, I posted about an advertisement for Always pads that's been making its way around the Internet.
Liss recently received a statement from Leo Burnett UK, the agency responsible for the film:
All creative agencies will look at different creative ideas to push boundaries and engage consumers. We will occasionally make test films to try and bring an idea to life without a request from the client. These films are for internal use only, for us to understand the power of an idea and are not for publication. The creative was never commissioned nor approved by P&G. We regret this has been made public without our approval or authorization and apologise for any offence caused.
Essentially, someone at Leo Burnett UK, leaked a copy of the video. Oh, and if any passive-tense offence was caused, the agency apologizes.
I still have a few questions.
Where's Proctor and Gamble in all of this? Somebody leaked an unauthorized advertisement for one of their products. You'd think this would call for a statement. Is P&G waiting to see what happens with the video, before they take a stand, possibly absolving themselves of any involvement?
Why did Leo Burnett UK make this ad in the first place? Don't clients typically give ad agencies reasonably clear parameters for the design of marketing campaigns? I mean, I doubt Leo Burnett would have devoted the resources to put together this video if they thought there was zero chance P&G would actually use it, or more to the point, if they thought it would offend their paying client.
I'm willing to buy Leo Burnett UK's assertion that something unfortunate happened, but I have to say, I think they and I might be talking about different things.
Rick Santorum Is Gross
[Trigger warning for sexual violence; body policing; misogyny.]
Rick Santorum, on his extreme abortion views, at the Republican Debate last night:
Moderator: Our next question is for Senator Santorum: In June, you said, quote, "I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so." You would allow no exceptions for cases of rape and incest. [Santorum nods.] Polls have long shown that large majorities of Americans support at least some exceptions for abortion. Are your views too much even for many conservatives to support?Yes, Rick Santorum, to be victimized twice would be a horrible thing—and many women who get pregnant via rape consider being forced to carry to term a pregnancy caused by rape and bear their rapist's child a revictimization of their bodies. Which is why women have a choice. No pregnant rape survivor is required to get an abortion; and no pregnant rape survivor should be denied an abortion, either. And if you genuinely believed that to be victimized twice is a horrible thing, you would agree with me, you despicable, body-policing, misogynistic, hypocritical dipshit.
Santorum: You know, the Supreme Court of the Unites States, on a recent case, said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, would not be subject to the death penalty—yet the child [sic] conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. That child [sic] did nothing wrong. That child [sic] is— [pauses for audience applause]. That child [sic] is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing.
It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception—it is a human life—and we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations—they've been traumatized already! To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is, uh, is too much to ask, and I so I would, I would just absolutely stand and say that ONE violence in enough!
I have said before that I ardently believe, by virtue of what giving birth demands of the human body, the anti-choice position to be inherently violent. To take an anti-choice position in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape is to turn the inherent violence up to 11.
Let me be blunt: Rick Santorum is suggesting that after a man violates my body without my consent, sticks his penis in my vagina without my consent, ejaculates into my body without my consent, impregnates me without my consent, that he, Rick Santorum, should then have the right to force me to submit my body for nine months to a pregnancy I do not want, force me to submit my body to all that pregnancy can entail, from morning sickness to milk-engorged breasts to stretch marks to potentially life-threatening complications, and then force me to push out a baby I did not consent to conceive through the same vagina that was raped nine months earlier, and then decide whether to parent my rapist's child or give up my child for adoption.
Which doesn't even take into consideration the financial cost of a pregnancy, nor the possible threat to my job, nor that I might have a husband, who would be obliged to raise my rapist's child with me, and about a million other things that are masked behind his casual grin as he suggests "let's rally behind women who are impregnated by rapists," as if a lack of support from misogynist shitbags is their primary reason for termination.
And he's worried about the double victimization of a fucking blastocyst.
The profundity of my contempt is cavernous.
[H/T to Steph Herold.]
Quote of the Day
"I hate wars and violence but if they come then I don't see why we women should just wave our men a proud goodbye and then knit them balaclavas." — Nancy Wake, who kicked all kinds of Nazi ass during WWII after parachuting into the Auvergne as a member of the British Special Operations Executive. She died this week in London at age 98. RIP Nancy Wake.
Read the whole piece. She's awesome.
Arizona Upholds Restrictions
Back in 2009, Arizona passed a bunch of new restrictions in regards to abortion care and access. The Democrats in the (state) House were outnumbered, so they walked out in protest when it came time to vote on HB 2564. Well, the legislation went to court and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton granted an injunction two years ago agreeing that the legislation could cause irreparable harm to women.
Yesterday the AZ Court of Appeals ruled against Judge Daughton's ruling. The court said that simply because it (the law) places a burden on some women, that is not enough to warrant the injunction. Sorry poor women or rural-living women or women who cannot afford so much time off from work! You don't count.
The judges said prohibiting anyone but a licensed physician from surgically terminating a pregnancy does not impose undue restrictions on a woman's constitutional right to choose.The ruling also stated that any medical professional definitely has the right of refusal to perform anything that they think may be an abortion or related to one--including dispensing contraception.
Judge Peter Swann, writing for the unanimous court, said the facts that nurse practitioners are specifically trained to do the procedure, are available in rural areas where Planned Parenthood does not have doctors, and have a comparable safety record are legally irrelevant.
The court also upheld laws requiring a woman to meet personally with the surgeon 24 hours before an abortion and for parental-consent forms for minors to be notarized, and allowing medical personnel, including pharmacists, to opt out of any participation in an abortion.
[...]
In his original ruling, Daughton upheld a requirement women wait 24 hours after meeting with their doctor to have the procedure, but said a personal meeting is not necessary. A consultation by telephone is sufficient, he ruled.
The appeals court disagreed.
"Courts have long recognized that eye-to-eye, face-to-face interaction is superior to videoconferencing," Swann wrote. He acknowledged the in-person consultation requirement could increase the cost, but said, "It does not practically deny a large portion of affected women their right to choose an abortion." He added Planned Parenthood provided no evidence it could not find enough doctors to meet the need.
Howard disagreed, saying there was testimony about the shortage of doctors trained to perform abortions. He also pointed out that state lawmakers just this year made it illegal for the University of Arizona College of Medicine to train doctors how to terminate pregnancies.
The injunction is, however, still in effect while Planned Parenthood decides to appeal and the state Supreme Court decides on whether it will review the case.
An Observation
Someone could make a lot of money with a cable channel that airs nothing but the last 30 seconds of every show my fucking DVR cuts off.
Bi-Monthly Reminder & Thank-You
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville and/or to make sure to renew subscriptions that have lapsed.
Managing Shakesville as a safe space requires, in addition to the time of our volunteer mods, my full-time commitment, and my salary is drawn exclusively from donations.** I cannot afford to do this full-time for free, but, even if I could, fundraising is also one of the most feminist acts I do here. I ask to be paid for my work because progressive feminist advocacy has value.
If you have recently appreciated getting distilled news about the debt ceiling negotiations; being able to discuss the UK Riots in a space interested in social justice; finding out where to direct your teaspoon to help in Somalia or be an ally to a community under attack; getting election news about candidates who are discussed on the basis on their policies alone, I hope you will, if you are able, contribute to support this space and make sure it continues to flourish.
I hope you will also consider the value of whatever else you appreciate at Shakesville, whether it's the moderation, Film Corner!, the community in Open Threads, video transcripts, the blogarounds, Butch Pornstache, the Daily Dose of Cute, your blogmistress' penchant for inventing new words, or anything else you enjoy.
You can donate once by clicking the "Make a Donation" button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription using the "Subscribe" button just below it, which has a dropdown menu of subscription options—or visit the Subscribe to Shakesville page, for even more options.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
My thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a regular contributor, a guest contributor, a moderator, a transcriber, or as someone who takes the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
** I do not raise funds by required subscription, i.e. locking content behind a pay wall, as I want Shakesville to be accessible as possible irrespective of one's financial situation. And I do not raise funds via ads, for reasons explained here. In June, for example, because of my post criticizing body policing and fat hatred, I was served [TW for body policing and fat hatred] these content-generated ads on my Blogger dashboard.
[Please Note: I am not seeking suggestions on how to raise revenue; I am asking for donations in exchange for the work of providing valued content in as safe and accessible a space as possible.]
Rick Perry Is Terrible
I mean, obviously we all know that Republican Governor of Texas Rick Perry, who wants to be US president, is terrible. I'm just not sure those of us who live outside of Texas know just exactly how terrible he actually is.
Like, for instance, did you know that he thinks the 17th Amendment the the US Constitution, which took the power to elect US Senators from state governments and put it in the hands of citizens, is garbage, for reasons he cannot logically defend? It's true!
That is only one of many fun facts you can find out about Rick Perry in this interview with Andrew Romano for Newsweek/The Daily Beast, my favorite part of which is this exchange about Perry's belief that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional (reporter in bold):
The Constitution says that "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States." But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left "general welfare" out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that "general welfare" includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does "general welfare" mean to you?A gentleman AND a Constitutional scholar!
I don't think our founding fathers when they were putting the term "general welfare" in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that's what those states decided to do.
So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by "general welfare"?
I don't know if I'm going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.
But you just said what you thought they didn't mean by general welfare. So isn't it fair to ask what they did mean? It's in the Constitution.
[Silence.]
OK. Moving on.
Number of the Day
3.7 million: The number of people in crisis in Somalia, because of the drought and subsequent famine: "In Somalia 3.7 million people are in crisis, 3.2 million people need immediate, life-saving assistance and 2.8 million or 80 per cent are in the south. Five areas of Somalia are officially in a state of famine, and the rest of southern Somalia could follow within the next four to six weeks."
Additionally: "The World Health Organization is warning of a cholera epidemic in Somalia."
The Huffington Post has a list of organizations working in the horn of Africa here. Please note that donations are not the only way you can help. Particularly in the media shadow of financial crises, UK riots, violence in Syria, and the US election, awareness-raising is desperately needed. Write about the famine on your blog, post about it on Facebook, Twitter, etc., talk to people one-on-one and ask them if they can help, via donations or spreading the word.
Five million people+ need our teaspoons.
So the Republicans Had a Debate Last Night
[Trigger warning for homophobia.]
And it was garbage no doy. But in addition to the usual refrains of class warfare, Obama's a socialist, and corporatocratic genuflection, the room was thick with the odor of dinosaur scat: At Think Progress, Igor notes that, despite 11.4% of the US population now living in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages, and a majority of USians now in favor of same-sex marriage, the anti-gay rhetoric was still flowing like whiiiiiine at the GOP debate—which, by the way, openly gay GOP candidate Fred Karger was not allowed to attend. GOP candidate Jon Huntsman effectively resigned from the campaign by unequivocally supporting civil unions.
Mitt Romney: Marriage should be decided at the federal level. Marriage is a status. It's not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state, and, as a result, our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.Man-woman marriage! LOL!
Jon Huntsman: I also believe in civil unions, because I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality, and I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights. And I believe that this is something that ought to be discussed among the various states. I don't have any problem with states having this discussion—but, as for me, I support civil unions.
Ron Paul: [asked about Santorum's rhetorical, "If a state wanted to allow polygamy, would that be okay, too?"] Well, it's sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that, that is so past reality that no state is going to do that. But, uh, on the issue of marriage, I think marriages should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn't be involved. I want less government involvement. I don't want the federal government having a marriage police.
Rick Santorum: It sounds to me like Representative Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are okay. If the state has the right to do it, they have the right to do it.
Michele Bachmann: I support the federal marriage amendment, because I believe that we will see this issue at the Supreme Court someday, and, as president, I will not nominate activist judges who legislate from the bench. I also want to say, when I was in Minnesota, I was the chief author of the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman. I have an absolutely unblemished record when it comes to this issue—man-woman marriage.
Congratulations on your unblemished record of bigotry, Rep. Bachmann. Good job on being a TOTAL asshole, and not just half-assin' it like Jon Huntsman.
Summary: Yiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Question of the Day
So, six years ago today my youngest kiddo was born--and I cannot believe how fast the last six years have gone by! Six years ago today: I had a newborn, a one year old, a two & a half year old, and a five year old (and I didn't sleep! LOL); we lived in Ohio in a rented townhouse in the town we grew up in; I wasn't yet writing for Shakesville (though I'd start a bit later that year), nor had I become the activist I am today (not that I had much time right then, LOL).
In those six years we've come a long way as a family (in a lot of ways, including moving 2300 miles away!) and I have personally, as well. It's not always been roses--not by a long, long shot--but I definitely have many blessings to count, as the saying goes. I can only imagine what I'll be looking back on six years from now.
How was life for you six years ago? Have things gone how you thought they would six years ago? Any plans for the next six?
Nope!
Promoting some garbage film that will be out next summer (whut?) about a couple who wish a child into existence, actress Jennifer Garner said she "understands her character's yearning [for a child because] 'There's no deeper want for a woman' than to be a mother."
Nope!
For some women. Not all women.
This is seriously like the hundredth article I've read in which an actress cast as a mother says the same thing.
It aggravates me because it is not true, and because it disappears women who don't want children as well as women who do want (or have) children but want something else even more, but it also grieves me because I suspect that the actresses who say this, most of whom are in their 30s and starting to find that the film industry is offering them increasingly fewer roles besides "mom," are saying this thing, at least in part, to try to imbue with greater importance the only role they are allowed to fill.
I can imagine it feels less demeaning to play "mom" over and over, if you believe that "mom" is the best and only role that women really want to play.
Maybe I wouldn't have read a hundred actresses offering some variation on "motherhood is woman's true nature" if actresses played astronauts and scientists and cops and writers and assassins and ranchers and politicians and thieves and sculptors and loggers and ophthalmologists as often as they played mothers. Is what I'm saying.
Not that those vocations and motherhood are mutually exclusive pursuits, anywhere else in the world besides the Big Screen.
Number of the Day
Ten Thousand: The number of hours I spent laughing at Senator Jim DeMint's contention that the Obama administration is "the most anti-business and I consider anti-American administration in my lifetime."
GOOD ONE, JIM!
I guess President Obama isn't wearing his flag lapel pin hard enough while creating new ways for corporations to exploit people. Actual people.
Seriously, to call Obama anti-business is a joke. And to call him anti-American is straight-up racist. There's nothing anti-American about Barack Obama or his administration, except by definitions that are privileged, prejudiced, dog-whistlin' horseshit.
The only way that could be not a thinly-veiled reference to Obama's Otherness is if DeMint was using careless shorthand to make an argument about Obama's policies' deleterious effects on not-rich Americans. But HA HA we all know Republicans don't give a fuck about them and do not make arguments that the President isn't doing enough to help the poor. Which is why DeMint was complaining about Obama being anti-business and not anti-working people or anti-unemployed people or anti-PEOPLE OF ANY KIND WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY JIM DEMINT'S ALLEGIANCE in the first place.
SUPERCOMMITTEE!!!
Representatives James Clyburn, Xavier Becerra, and Chris Van Hollen: Those are the three Democratic dudes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has named to the SUPERCOMMITTEE!!!, making Democratic Senator Patty Murray the only woman chosen for the dirty dozen tasked with figuring out how to austere the shit out of the national budget.
That's 8.3% representation, ladies. Which is twice as bad as the 16% representation we've got in the regular Congress. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!
Senator Harry Reid's picks are here. Senator Mitch McConnell's and Speaker John Boehner's picks are here.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for violence; sexual assault; gender essentialism; misogyny.]
If you haven't already used up ALL the barf bags reading Max Hastings argue that liberalism is to blame for the decay of English society, grab whatever's left and head over to read Frank Miniter argue that feminization is to blame, in his piece inevitably titled "England Used to Be a Country of Men."
"Fuck you."—Every English Queen.
Miniter, based on "several recent conversations with Englishmen," has concluded that the English are lost if they don't start packing heat, which will help restore the nation's manliness, a loss for which he finds evidence in an image of a (white) English man being forced to disrobe in the street by a (black) English man.
He refers to the man being assaulted as "the feeble Englishman." The man assaulting him is, naturally, not even identified as an "Englishman," but is merely "an impatient looter."
Suffice it to say, I could not more profoundly disagree with Miniter's contention that being assaulted makes one "unmanly," but, granting that rotten definition for the purposes of argument, it defies Miniter's own logic (such as it is) to fail to praise the black looter for his manly show of violent strength—unless, of course, one fails to acknowledge that the black looter is also "an Englishman."
And also if one argues that only violent self-defense against looters is manly, but violent self-defense against oppressive governments is not.
(Hey, Tea Party—don't look now, but Frank Miniter is calling the Founding Fathers pussies!)
Miniter admonishes "England's law-abiding citizens" that "giving up their natural right to self-defense" has left them "defenseless both physically and psychologically. The loss of their right to self-preservation has created a culture of dependency on government (for protection and so much more) that has helped neuter the English male."
But lest you mistake him for some kind of sexist, he assures us that "gun rights are women's rights, as they make the frailest woman the equal of the strongest male."
Take note, Queen Elizabeth!
Great Candidate! Successful Campaign Stop!
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) exchange with a few hecklers turned into somewhat of a shouting match while he was stumping Thursday in Iowa.Soylent Green is corporations!
...The first two questioners pointedly asked Romney why he wouldn't raise the cap on Social Security taxes, or promise not to cut Medicare benefits.
...Romney defended his free-market belief with a line sure to be dredged up by his political opponents: "Corporations are people, my friend."
During the back-and-forth, Romney also admonished his hecklers: "If you don't like my answer, you can go vote for someone else. If you want someone who will raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama." IF ONLY.
