Posts Tagged war on women
I love it when sanctimonious, Bible-regurgitating, supposed men of honor turn out to be real letches. Like Rick Santorum. He reportedly asked Lindsay Lohan to pose for a photo at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday but true to form for someone of his character, he later denied it.
Lohan was sitting with Greta Van Susteren when Santorum approached her according to TMZ. He reportedly asked Lohan to take a picture of him with Van Susteren, then snapped a photo of Lohan alone. When a reporter asked him whether he took a picture of Lohan, a visibly uncomfortable Santorum mumbled that he “took a picture of a lot of people today.”
This all wouldn’t be a big deal, of course, if a) he had not denied it and b) if he wasn’t a chest thumping religious bigot who has been openly against non-procreative sex – even for married couples – and against contraception in general, the latter of which he believes to be a “license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
It doesn’t surprise me at all that he would be secretly feening after a twenty-something year old. After all, just a few weeks ago, he vowed to dismantle the porn industry for its alleged detrimental effects on society, and you know what they say, usually the loudest opponents to something are hiding the fact that they are thmesleves doing it. Like secretly taking jerk off pictures of a bloody young hot actress and then denying it like dirty, old men ashamed of their sexuality usually do.
One of these days, like they did with bin Laden, they will uncover a stash of porn and other similar “memorabilia” from one of his computers and he’ll turn out to be a real hustler.
But jokes aside, the hypocrisy of the religious right never ceases to amaze me. This all really wouldn’t be an issue and I could not care less about a fifty something year old feening after a girl the same age as his daughters, if it weren’t for the fact that Sanotrum has repeatedly portrayed himself as a pious man of character holding the moral high ground.
For someone who once talked about the “dangers of contraception“, warning against “the whole sexual libertine idea“, it is quite strange and hypocritical to be lusting after Lohan and then denying it too, to draw even more attention to the issue. And let’s face it, you only lie if you got something to hide.
Santroum appears to be feeling a sense of shame over this whole Lohan thing and his sexuality in general. He maybe really just thought she is attractive and he did take a picture of her because she was a celebrity – which I think is a healthy reaction to have in the first place, i.e. being attracted to a beautiful person – but since he is also such an uptight religious bigot, he appears to have a hard time reconciling his baser instincts, his human emotions, with the wall of doctrines about alleged sexual impropriety he built around himself. Hence the shame and stumbling over his words like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He probably also really enjoys high speed internet porn but because he probably once again could not reconcile that with his beliefs, he vowed to go after the porn industry when elected. If he cannot fight his own urges for gangbangs, creampies and triple anal, he will then just legislate it away. This way he rids himself of the temptation and can also claim a clean slate at the Pearly Gates (but why would god be against fucking?)
So this issue seems to be more about him than about porn or Lindsay Lohan. The one who has a problem here is Rick Santorum and everything else is mere projection in order to reconcile his human side with the stupid, repressing, religious side. One more reason religion is bad for everyone.
All of which brings me to my next point: sexual repression. The root-cause of all this hypocrisy of religious people in sexual matters – i.e. preaching one thing, doing something else – is because religion is once again unnecessarily interfering with the natural order of things. There is nothing wrong with a sexually healthy man feeling attracted to a woman, any woman, and taking her pic and openly admitting it too by stating that he is a fan. But religion and these self imposed, often false moralities it creates, have made it feel wrong and a taboo, ultimately forcing people like Santorum into hiding and having to jump through hoops to cover his “tracks” like he was doing something terrible. I mean heck, as repressed as Santorum is, he’d probably deny having sex with his own wife if he didn’t have to explain the children.
Look at Michelle Bachman’s husband who loathes himself and his homosexuality so much he created a foundation aimed at praying away the gay.
It is frightening how far people will go, even so far as to deny their own nature, to uphold some elusive, outdated moral standards and beliefs that have their basis in fairy tales. Homophobes have become the new homosexuals and in the case of Santorum, the harder a politician lobbies against something on moral grounds, the higher the chances that they are doing exactly what they preach against themselves. It is personal.
In Santorum’s case I could not care less about his sexual desires and preference for really young girls if he wasn’t standing up there preaching the opposite to everyone – even going so far as to try to influence public policy to make up for and cover his own inadequacy. Not that having a libido is an inadequacy, but for him it is, and therein lies the problem.
The word “hypocrite” does not even begin to cover his actions. He’s a closet freak and a real hustler, which is exactly what you expect out of someone who is so vehemently outspoken again sex.
In an interview addressing the issue on the war on women that Republicans are accused of having engaged in, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus stated “If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we’d have problems with caterpillars. It’s a fiction.”
Memo to Republicans and all misogynists – who don’t even have the character to stand by their beliefs – when you are arguing that you and your party are not waging a war on women or else are driven by blind misogyny as you are being accused of, you might not want to compare women to insects.
Mitt Romney, who isn’t even capable of maintaining a coherent stance on an issue in the same sentence, much less during a whole campaign, believes that Democrats have done a good job at mischaracterizing their views.
Hmm…let’s see, how can you mischaracterize misogyny?
Maybe by being callously indifferent to their health and their priorities, as evidenced by an obsession to make sure that women can’t have affordable access to birth control, legislation aimed at humiliating and shaming a woman into carrying to term a pregnancy she doesn’t want to by making her undergo a medically unnecessary and humiliating procedure she is required to pay for out of pocket and of course through the dismissive way the chairman of the RNC referred to those concerns as mere fiction; as a war on caterpillars.
Mischaracterization? I don’t think so. There is no room for grey areas here.
No Going Back For Republicans
For Republicans, especially for Romney, there is no going back. Across the party, women have been so appalled by the policies and outlandish anti-women legislation pushed by Republicans, that some believe that this might place Romney at a huge disadvantage this fall.
Romney himself has paved the path to his own demise by his support for personhood amendments, his bleief that Roe v. Wade is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court and that it should be overturned and his support for the Blunt-Rubio Amendments which state that bosses get to decide for their employees what kind of access to health care they can have.
As Gloria Steinem said “when or whether to have children is the single biggest element in whether [women] are healthy or not, whether [they] are educated or not, how long [their] life expectancy is, and whether [they] can be active in the world or not.” By stripping those rights away, Republicans control and diminish those things.
Ultimately, this is about personal liberty. Republicans talk a lot about personal liberty and complain about the Mandate in Obama’s health care legislation – which is aimed at making it possible for Americans to have access to affordable, quality healthcare really – but they themselves are putting mandates on women, in terms of not allowing access to contraception and abortion and engaging in various kinds of behavior that simply reeks of disrespect and disdain for women, their causes and priorities.
It is outrageous that in the 21st century we are still having the kinds of debates we had in the 50s with respect to a woman’s access to contraception and say over her own family planning, which is one of the most fundamental of rights.
No one is mischaracterizing Republicans on the issue. They have characterized themselves and made a mess out of things and now they are sore it backfired, so they resort to the next best action they are capable of: deflect and project to distract. In short, they want to blame democrats for the mess they created.
Every woman – or just every decent human being with integrity – has to ask themselves whether they want someone in the White House who respects and loves women or whether they want someone who thinks that women are second class citizens and human beings to be patronized and condescended to.
As Ohio State Senator Nina Turner said, some of these people apparently have not been “birthed”, they were hatched, because if you hold the kinds of views and notions we have seen Republicans hold, you do not love women. Period. You do not love women and you do not respect them.
I feel sorry for Romney’s daughters and for Santorum’s daughters and for the daughters, mothers, sister and wives of all these legislators that have been pushing for these blunt anti-women laws without shame. I wonder if those women realize the disrespect and disdain their fathers, husbands or sons have for women deep down and in a very fundamental way. I cannot imagine any woman with an ounce of self respect and integrity condoning such policies.
Cialis Ok, Contraception Bad
No one asks any questions when Viagra and Cialis, medications aimed at helping men get hard, are covered by health insurance. But it is a national “issue” when contraceptives are to be covered under the same health insurance plan that covers viagra. Forget the policy outcomes, the fact that this has even been an issue that requires “debates” and “policy decisions” – as if there are legitimate pros and cons to the issue which have to be discussed and evaluated – is what is truly outrageous here. This shouldn’t even be an issue, just like Cialis and Viagra are never, ever an issue.
They want men to get hard but they don’t want the women they get hard for have any say in what is to happen to them and their bodies post coitum.
This is just beyond sad. Being a woman has never sucked more.
Pakistani acid attack victim Fakhra Younus, who was attacked by her husband, an ex-lawmaker and son of a political powerhouse, and permanently disfigured undergoing more than three dozen surgeries over a decade, finally decided that she no longer had anything to live for and committed suicide on March 17. She reportedly jumped from the sixth floor of a building in Rome, where she had been living and receiving treatment.
As is to be expected, her ex husband Bilal Khar was acquitted on all charges.
Pakistan, a male dominated society in which women are apparently less than second class citizens and human beings, is notorious for such atrocities against women. According to the The Aurat Foundation, a women’s rights organization, more than 8,500 acid attacks, forced marriages and other forms of violence against women were reported in Pakistan in 2011 and these numbers are suspected to be an undercount because the group relies mostly on media reports.
Fakhra Younus was only 22 when her husband of three years, Bilal Khar, a member of Pakistan’s politically elite Khar family, threw acid on her face when she was sleeping in her own home. Younus was a teenage dancing girl working in the red light district of the southern city of Karachi when she met Khar. The unusual pairing was the younger Khar’s third marriage. He was in his mid-30s at the time.
The couple was married for three years, but Younus eventually left him because he allegedly physically and verbally abused her. She claimed that he came to her mother’s house while she was sleeping in May 2000 and poured acid all over her in the presence of her 5-year-old son from a different man.
Tehmina Durrani, Ghulam Mustafa Khar’s ex-wife and his son’s stepmother, became an advocate for Younus after the attack, drawing international attention to the case. She said that Younus’ injuries were the worst she had ever seen on an acid attack victim.
“So many times we thought she would die in the night because her nose was melted and she couldn’t breathe,” said Durrani, who wrote a book about her own allegedly abusive relationship with the elder Khar. “We used to put a straw in the little bit of her mouth that was left because the rest was all melted together.”
She said Younus, whose life had always been hard, became a liability to her family, for whom she was once a source of income.
“Her life was a parched stretch of hard rock on which nothing bloomed,” Durrani wrote in a column in The News after Younus’ suicide.
The Washington Post noted that Yunus became the face of violence against women in the country after Pakistani activist Tehmina Durrani, author of “My Feudal Lord,” helped Yunus escape to Rome and get treatment for her disfigurement. Durrani is known to speak out against the injustices women face in Muslim society. Over the years, Yunus underwent 38 facial reconstructive and plastic surgeries after the attack.
Durrani wrote of Yunus in The News Daily, “I have met many acid victims. Never have I seen one as completely disfigured as Fakhra. She had not just become faceless; her body had also melted to the bone. Despite her stark and hopeless condition, the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not in the least God-fearing. She was provided nothing…but disdain…and trashed.”
Acid attacks are prevalent in certain parts of Asia. According to the New York Times’ Nicholas D. Kristof, who reported in 2008 that attacks were then at an all-time high in Pakistan, they are often the work of husbands who attack their wives as a form of revenge for refusing sexual advances or other proposals.
Yunus’ body was buried Sunday, according to News Daily, which also reported that she left a written message saying that she was committing suicide because of the silence and atrocities committed by Pakistani leaders.
Women Under Assault
It is one thing to be oppressed something like 500 years ago but to still endure such things in 2012 is beyond comprehension and worse actually than what happened 500 or 200 or 100 years ago, because back then we as human kind didn’t know better, but now we do.
Yet women are still treated like second class citizens and human beings. Pakistan is one extreme of the spectrum, where women are regularly physically assaulted and disfigured and spit on, with no rights whatsoever, but make no mistake about it that woman are under attack, physically or emotionally, directly or indirectly, even in so-called enlightened western cultures and countires. The Planned Parenthood debates of late, as well as the issues surrounding women’s reproductive rights, including legislated vaginal ultrasound probing of women who want to get an abortion, are just a few examples to the point. Violence and injustice come in man y forms. Don’t think for one second that simply because you are spared from acid attacks, you – as a woman – are not under attack in the U.S.
I do not, by any means, want to trivialize Fakhra’s horrible situation. Getting vaginally probed, paid less salary and just generally treated like a liability is nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to what she had to endure. The point I am trying to make, however, is that all womanhood in general has become a liability and is under attack. This is all part of the same problem.
I was just reading an article in the Marie Claire that women, over the course of their lifetime, pay more than a man for everything from dry cleaning to deodorant, mortgage rates and cars. Even health insurance premiums. A 25 year old women who doesn’t smoke pays more than a 25 year old male who does smoke. And this is in our own country. As the article states, despite the civil rights laws prohibiting job and housing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, there’s no federal law banning discrimination in the sale of goods and services, so women – naturally – get the shit end of the stick.
California, which in 1996 became the first state to ban gender pricing, found that women paid about $1,351 annually in extra costs and fees. Apply that figure to the rest of the women in the country and the total burden is staggering — roughly $151 billion in markups, more than what the federal government spent on education last year and greater than the budgets of 43 states.
Discrimination is actually costing us money. The startling thing is – as professor John Banzhaf of the George Washington University Law School pointed out – that “Even though it’s well recognized, people sit back and go, ‘Well, that’s just the way it is.’ Gender pricing is standard industry practice and they get away with it, because no one says anything. Men sure are not going to object and as long as woman adhere to the doormat “well it is just how it is” mentality, nothing will change.
The far reaching, long term consequences of such forms of discrimination that have been firmly institutionalized and engraved in our society, its practices and even our minds, is the general undermining of women in all aspects of life and society, not to mention that such practices become a habit so ingrained that no one even stops to think to question them. We only go after the low hanging fruit, the truly blatant and obvious forms of discrimination, such as sexual harassment at the work place or getting fired for being pregnant. But we are not going after the not-so obvious ones. Gender pricing is just the beginning – the seedling. You leave it untouched, that seedling will grow into the most atrocious monster Miss Fakhra Younus had the misfortune of meeting.
Yeah, being a woman never sucked more and it doesn’t look like it is going to change anytime soon.
Human kind is a failed experiment, that’s for sure
Governor Corbett from Pennsylvania Wants Women Who Have to Undergo Transvaginal Ultrasound to “Just Close” Their Eyes
Yeah, another man violating a woman and telling her to just close her eyes and take it while he’s giving it to her and looking to codify that behavior into law while he’s at it.
During a discussion of a far-reaching mandatory ultrasound bill, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett dismissed off-handedly the insinuation that the measure goes too far, saying, “You just have to close your eyes.”
Republicans and the few Democrats that support them have taken the notion of misogyny and violating a woman to new heights, all beautifully wrapped in obfuscating language that makes being vaginally probed and humiliated sound like a trip to the spa and personal salvation, all at once.
The transvaginal ultrasound bill is misleadingly called the Woman’s Right to Know Act and its introduction reads like a dream come true for all lovers of humanity and especially all those who hold women in high esteem:
“An act providing for ultrasound test requirements to determine gestational ages of unborn children; establishing the right to view ultrasound image and ultrasound video of unborn child and the right to observe or hear the fetal heartbeat.”
Note how it refers to the fetus as a child already, implying personhood.
Also note the reversal of language they use: establishing the right to view and hear as opposed to shaming a woman into carrying a pregnancy she doesn’t want to full term, which is really what this bill really is about.
The bill goes on to say that
“A woman considering an abortion has the right to receive complete and accurate information regarding the development and health of her unborn child.[…] In recognition of the importance of a woman’s dignity in making an informed choice, the factual information provided by an ultrasound test should be provided to a woman as an integral part of the informed consent necessary to undergo an abortion.”
According to the bill, a woman who has been patronized regarding her decision making abilities and who is being forced to undergo an invasive procedure under the guise of “informed consent” should take whatever dignity she has left – and which the State of Pennsylvania generously grants her according to the bill – so she can make an informed decision. One which lawmakers apparently believe a woman is really incapable of making unless they spell it out for her.
Instead of describing this bill as what it really is, namely violation of a woman’s body and insulting, they call shaming a woman into a pregnancy she never wanted as protecting her rights.
So ladies, this is all for your own good and protection. Lean back, take a deep breath, close your eyes and take it.
Segregation, Jim Crow Laws and the Woman’s Right to Know Act
This all sounds suspiciously like another epoch of our history; a dark epoch called Segregation and the Jim Crow laws that followed it. Back then, the same rationale of “this is done for your own protection” was used to justify de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with a supposedly “separate but equal” status for black Americans. One rationale for the systematic exclusion of black Americans from southern public society was that it was for their own protection. An early 20th century scholar suggested that having allowed blacks in white schools would mean “constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion“, which might lead to “a morbid race consciousness“. This perspective took anti-black sentiment for granted, because bigotry was widespread in the South (Murphy, Edgar Gardner. The Problems of the Present South. 1910, page 37).
History repeats itself over and over again and yet we don’t learn our lessons.
Corbett’s comments are disturbingly offensive and yet just one of the many hits agaisnt women and women’s rights in honor of Women’s History Month. Yep, no one knows how to better honor and respect women than men who legislate them to get unnecessary and invasive procedures as a means of getting a government permission slip to undergo legal medical care, who shame them by shoving an ultrasound screen in their face and who casually dismiss their concerns regarding it by advising them to just close their eyes.
Speaking of respect for women: in another totally non-intrusive way in the finest tradition of non-government interference that is so dear and near to Republicans, Ayatollah Santorum has vowed to ban hard-core pornography when elected into office, stating that “pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.”
I am going to get into Santorum’s epic misinformation about porn in another post, but it is good to know that pleasure fucking, and not something like mandatory vaginal probing for a legal medical procedure, constitutes misogyny in the bubble unembarrassed, supposedly righteous, pious and god fearing hypocrites like Santorum live in.