Abortion

This post has been quite some time in the making. I just get so angry and upset every time I read something or start writing. But here it goes (there will be a follow up on this which was written whilst somewhat intoxicated I just have to edit it somewhat first, think there might have been more swear words than actual text, but shows just how strongly I feel about this).


Few things make me angry, frustrated, sad and pissed off to the very core of my being as anti abortion and the fact that abortions are illegal and that there are people in the world that believe that abortions should never take place. The idea to me of living in a country where abortion was not a possibility would fill me with fear, and I would most certainly be a very active lobbyist. 

There's three aspects of anti abortion ideology that gets to me. Firstly, I cannot understand how people can have such strong views on the life and actions of whats happening with someone else's body; secondly, that societies and the legislature think it's acceptable to legislate about my body, and subsequently removing my ability to make decisions about my body; and thirdly men with views on abortion, seriously wtaf, just shhh.   

Let's start with the third one. As man you have a choice of walking away from the consequences of your actions in the case of a pregnancy. You have a super simply, easy breezy choice to just say 'nah don't want that shit, don't need that shit, can't deal with that shit' and simply walk away and that would be all. Women do not have that choice. Becoming pregnant is a two person job; dealing with the consequences (regardless of decision to follow through or not with the pregnancy) falls entirely on just one of those two people. And as a man you have absolutely no way of relating to what happens, you can in no way relate to hormonal surges that leave you completely fucked over by your own inexplicable emotions, to boobs so sore you can't walk without being in pain, to the tiredness, the aches, the pains, the fact that there is a life form forming inside of you and living off you, not to mention the process of getting the thing out. And I'm sorry but on the topic of pregnancy and abortion, your views are secondary and you should only be saying 'whatever she says'. 

The second and third issue about people in general and society as whole and the legislature getting involved frankly is beyond me. What is being asked of women when abortions are denied is a horrendous intrusion of women's human rights. It is giving politicians and activists the power over something that will never concern them personally. How can you so vehemently oppose me doing something that a) has no impact on your life what so ever and b) would ensure my physical and mental well-being isn't jeopardized, not to mention would change my entire life forever. How people can have such abnormally strong feelings about something growing inside of me that you feel that it requires statute to protect is beyond me. 

You are basically are saying that you and the state should have a greater power to decide over my body and what's growing inside of me (and not only growing inside of me but dependent on me for survival) than I do.

People who argue that as soon as there is a heartbeat or a nervous system or whatever attribute you want to give the fetus, there is a human life capable of protection by the law contrary to the wishes of the person that that fetus is dependent on for survival, frankly baffles me because it's an argument completely detached from reality. If you could take a fetus out of me and stick it in somewhere else and it develops and becomes a human and is raised by someone else then sure that argument has some weight. If that was the case then sure you could argue that I am by choice terminating something that could become a child without any regard for the impact on me them woman/mother as a person. But that's not how it works.

This is how it works: Two people have sex, one of them becomes pregnant, cells starts multiplying inside of that body having a physical and mental impact on that person over and above what any non pregnant person can imagine. Those cells then require 9 months to fully form into a baby. The woman then has to go through a life threatening physical trauma for that baby to exit her body. Then there is a child in the world that is entirely dependent on a capable adult for survival. So the argument about a fetus being a human protectable by law, independently from the woman it's growing inside of, the second a sperm hits an egg is entirely void of the notion that 

a) it cannot ever be detached and survive from that specific woman required for it to exist in the first place 

b) a potentially life threatening and most certainly physically altering child birth by that woman is required and 

c) someone needs to look after the damn thing when it comes out or it will die in matter of hours/days

What these people also seem to be missing the point on is that denying me an abortion doesn't save the fetus or the child. I could go on and take heroin everyday for the rest of the pregnancy leaving the child completely disfigured, I could go on and neglect and abuse that child. Making it illegal for me to abort the fetus changes nothing. People who compare abortions to killing babies fundamentally do not understand the difference about a fetus growing inside a woman and a random kid on the street.

I think these two articles very much shows the importance of letting the decision to give up your body and creating a child should in all and every instance be entirely up to the woman in question and no one else, any thing but it just horrific.

A pregnant, suicidal rape victim fought Ireland's new abortion law. The law won

Justice for Savita

Guardian Comments on Sexism

As per my usual lunch break routine I started reading the Guardian online today and ended up on this article on 10 common comments on feminist blog posts, written by the woman who started the Everyday Sexism Project. Well worth a read she makes some really good points firmly stored in the 'come back' section for future reference. I then ended up in a lovely link click spiral and started reading this article on comment sections on articles about female issues, also very much worth a read. That then lead me to this article on 10 sexist scenarios in the work place. I clicked on the link reference because in the previous article it had stated that that piece has attracted "some of the worst comments the moderators had seen" such as this "Oh God, another dose of petty feminist whinging from the Graun. Must be that time of the month. When has the guardian's unfounded 'sexism' diatribes ever been about the 'boys?' Whether it's domestic violence articles that ignore the 40% male victims, studies on single parents that are based only on mothers or the complete absence of serious studies on, say, the much higher suicide rates among certain categories of men or the ordeal of single fathers in our incredibly biased court system." 

Going into the comments on that article about sexist scenarios in the work place I notice A LOT of them have been removed.. sadly not all of them. I have not been this horrified at the men in this country for a while but I guess it was a good reminder at just how astonishingly fucking disgusting they are. 

There's a gem of a man commenting on this thread called NeilPeel here's some of his more enlightened contributions to the debate on sexism 

"How about we accept that men and women are different and realise that some people are assholes and should be dealt with appropriately - rather than splitting into this women vs men crap that the Guardian frequently drum up for click bait?"

"If you're happy to take it, they are going to keep dishing it out."

I could go on but I just couldn't take it any more. Why why why why why and how more importantly is it possible for you as a human being, when presented with evidence of reoccurring problems for a certain group of people in the society that you live in, to respond with not only doubt of the problems existing in the first place, but also respond with such disrespect towards the people face by such problems? By disrespecting and belittling those  who are experiencing these problems you are in fact acknowledging that they exist. So if you are able to comprehend that these events do occur and occur on a frequent basis then WHY would you have a need to say that the reactions to those problems are inappropriate? 

Is it not up to the person involved to determine the appropriate reaction? Do you not have a responsibility as a member of society to respect others? If I act in a certain way or say something to someone who subsequently is offended or feels abused by my actions, who should make an adjustment? Surely the person acting or saying something would suffer less of a loss by a change in behavior than the person who is offended/abused.

I know what's wrong with these men, both those who ask me to organise their meetings and those who don't see it as a problem. Unfortunately for society at large they are incapable of seeing the world from any other perspective than the small view point they have. They are ignorant. And for that I feel sorry for them. I also think we should send them to Syria. Because I cannot deal with this level of stupidity surrounding me, I'm on my period for fucks sake.  

If Men Could Menstruate. By Gloria Steinem, October 1978

If Men Could Menstruate

by Gloria Steinem
Living in India made me understand that a white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us into thinking a white skin makes people superior, even though the only thing it really does is make them more subject to ultraviolet rays and wrinkles.
Reading Freud made me just as skeptical about penis envy. The power of giving birth makes "womb envy" more logical, and an organ as external and unprotected as the penis makes men very vulnerable indeed.
But listening recently to a woman describe the unexpected arrival of her menstrual period (a red stain had spread on her dress as she argued heatedly on the public stage) still made me cringe with embarrassment. That is, until she explained that, when finally informed in whispers of the obvious event, she said to the all-male audience, "and you should be proud to have a menstruating woman on your stage. It's probably the first real thing that's happened to this group in years."
Laughter. Relief. She had turned a negative into a positive. Somehow her story merged with India and Freud to make me finally understand the power of positive thinking. Whatever a "superior" group has will be used to justify its superiority, and whatever and "inferior" group has will be used to justify its plight. Black me were given poorly paid jobs because they were said to be "stronger" than white men, while all women were relegated to poorly paid jobs because they were said to be "weaker." As the little boy said when asked if he wanted to be a lawyer like his mother, "Oh no, that's women's work." Logic has nothing to do with oppression.
So what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event:
Men would brag about how long and how much.
Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day.
To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- "For Those Light Bachelor Days."
Statistical surveys would show that men did better in sports and won more Olympic medals during their periods.
Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy high political office ("Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests, ministers, God Himself ("He gave this blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean").
Male liberals and radicals, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could join their ranks if only she were willing to recognize the primacy of menstrual rights ("Everything else is a single issue") or self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution").
Street guys would invent slang ("He's a three-pad man") and "give fives" on the corner with some exchenge like, "Man you lookin' good!"
"Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"
TV shows would treat the subject openly. (Happy Days: Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row. Hill Street Blues: The whole precinct hits the same cycle.) So would newspapers. (Summer Shark Scare Threatens Menstruating Men. Judge Cites Monthlies In Pardoning Rapist.) And so would movies. (Newman and Redford in Blood Brothers!)
Men would convince women that sex was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself, though all they needed was a good menstruating man.
Medical schools would limit women's entry ("they might faint at the sight of blood").
Of course, intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguements. Without the biological gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets, how could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics-- or the ability to measure anything at all? In philosophy and religion, how could women compensate for being disconnected from the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death and resurrection every month?
Menopause would be celebrated as a positive event, the symbol that men had accumulated enough years of cyclical wisdom to need no more.
Liberal males in every field would try to be kind. The fact that "these people" have no gift for measuring life, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.
And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine right-wing women agreeing to all these arguements with a staunch and smiling masochism. ("The ERA would force housewives to wound themselves every month": Phyllis Schlafly)
In short, we would discover, as we should already, that logic is in the eye of the logician. (For instance, here's an idea for theorists and logicians: if women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long? I leave further improvisation up to you.)
The truth is that, if men could menstruate, the power justifications would go on and on.
If we let them.

(c) Gloria Steinem, Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. NY: NAL, 1986.

Sally Kohn (sallyk@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu)

I wrote about the NSA

 “I don’t think it would be of any greater concern to most Americans than fingerprints. Well people kind of accept that because they know about it. But had we been transparent about it and say here’s one more thing we have to do as citizens for the common good, just like we have to go to airports two hours early and take our shoes off, all the other things we do for the common good, this is one more thing.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on NSA surveillance

Think this sums it up pretty well. They genuinely think that collecting all data in the world will save them from terrorist attacks, just as me putting my lip gloss in a sandwich bag saves us all from getting blown up in airplanes... I don't know quality over quantity might be a better approach.

The intelligence chief wrote in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, that the leak of the 215 program along with others “will do significant damage to the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect the nation.”

Of course it would damage the Intelligence Community's ability to protect the nation because they would be scrutinized and would have to justify the ways and means by which they "protect the nation". This thinking presumes that the ways and means they used was actually in some way protecting the nation and protecting it well. And even so one has to be able to justify those means.

I don't think anyone thinks or agrees with the statement that taking ones shoes off or being scanned as if naked is contributing to the common good of the nation. Even the TSA knows it's bullshit.

It's kinda fascinating that such a large collection of people all over the world (some of which MUST be smart) feels it's better to just keep the nonsense going, the data surveillance, the border control screenings, the airport security checks and NO ONE pipes up and says hey wait a second this is all bullshit and not doing a damn thing to prevent nutcases from blowing people up randomly all over the world.

Maybe if the NSA stopped reading my emails and my whatsapp messages and started doing something a bit more worthwhile, like I don't know, surveillance on corruption and misconduct by the US government they might save a few more lives..  

Julia Gillard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

I love this video, I love it. I sometimes listen to it just to get myself in a better mood, for inspiration. I'm listening to it as I'm typing this.

I’m sure it’s highly likely that Julia is a bad PM, I’m not that up to speed on Australian domestic politics to be able to judge whether or not she does a good job. I do however know that she is not a bad PM because she’s a woman. However women aren’t judge by the same standards as men. You know it, I know it, we all know it and it's boring. But it’s true and it makes a difference and so I’m gonna write about it. Julia Gillard get's a lot of shit, as any PM should, but Julia get a lot of shit for being a woman. 

Julia is being critised for a photo shoot in which she is knitting, she is critised for this apparently is too much of a female stereotype which she should take distance from. Make up your damn minds, she's critised for being a woman, she's critised for not being a woman enough, and now she's critised for having a hobby which typically associated with old aunts.

Where's the critisim of any typical male hobbies? Have you ever heard of a male politician being critised for having a too male of a hobby? Like WTF?

To brighten your moods here's a list of some more dickish behaviour. It's hard to not feel like I'm better than you when you behave like this. Clearly none of these men have had the pleasure of being trained by a woman to be a proper human being like stupid little children that you are.

There will only be equality when female traits are regarded as valued and respected as any of the dicking around that guys get up to, and when we are judged by the same standards rather than by our genders. Until then I will most definitely mock and belittle you and think you are less worthy of my respect.

Bring me up

I decided a long time ago to never intentionally hold a woman back either personally or at work or in general. Never to consciously make a gender degrading comment about her looks or being emotionally or whatever the fuck can be attributed to us as womenfolk. I also refuse to use any female based swear words. And I swear a lot which makes this one particularly difficult (I do use male based swear words instead. A lot.). You will never hear me say cunt, pussy, bitch, whore or any other fantastic word describing female anatomy or characteristics. I especially fucking hate the word douche, no one even seems to even know what it actually means so I can't really fault them for using it, but let’s look at this one in particular because someone ‘who’s a douche’ is generally according to the wonderful source urban dictionary "an individual who has shown themself to be very brainless in one way or another" (not to be confused with douchebag which is someone "who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole, however not yet reached fucker or motherfucker". Now a douche is a tool used for irrigation of the female genitalia. A concept in itself completely fucking insane and if nothing else bad for you. So here we have people being likened to a contraption which one inserts into the vagina to clean it out. I can’t even bring myself to spell out the sheer stupidity of that word.

 I do these things for a very simple reason - Every time a female criticise another female for being female the guys win. One point to them. Every time we call someone a bitch or a whore the guys get a free goal. Women fuck things up all the time, women do a bad job all the time, women do stupid shit all the time, and men will make that point loud and fucking clear every single time so there is no need for us to add to that choir by backing them up. There’s no need to invade a country that’s already engaged in civil war. I mean the guys still invade us on a daily basis in every single possible way they can think of but it’s made so much easier by the fact that we back them the fuck up. We do this in so many ways every day, instead of backing each other up we criticise and sneer and snigger, we take the guys side all the time. If we instead of pushed each other down and acted like we’re in competition with each other we might be able to get more of us up there to give a reaching hand down to pull the rest of us up. The guys won’t help in the fight for equality (except for in Sweden, but they also have issues with their masculinity over there so I’m not sure I agree with the Swedish male feminists...) and we’re doing fuck all at the moment to do anything about it! It’s like we’re mistaking the current let’s get sexual and naked by our own accord and call each other bitches and whores as empowerment and as working towards equality. We’re only doing what the guys want us to do without them even having to ask or harass us for it. Not so sure this latest wave of sexualised empowerment by the twerking masses is actually doing anything other than making it socially acceptable to wear less clothes, which in summer isn't such a bad thing.

 Here is an example of this wonderful phenomena of women joining the dickheads in their fight against women, I admit this one isn't your normal office bitch fight but I think it highlights something so wonderfully disturbed about the female psyche. I could give you a summary of the article but just go read it instead:

What’s shocking is the other woman who are opposing this! Why? How is that in any way shape or form doing anything to offend you? This quote by a woman is truly astounding "Women's singing is offensive here. Men who don't want to hear women singing can't close their ears. It's sexually provocative and violates local mores," she said. "This issue has been cast in terms of freedom. But it's not about the freedom of women to worship – this is violating the freedom of men not to hear women singing." So what if it offends the dudes, you offended on their behalf? If you’re going to be offended on behalf of someone else why not be offended on the behalf of the sisters who are more likely to be there for you in any issue you will go through as a human being?

 Can we all just stop fucking put each other down even though it might be justified sometimes, some idiot dude will do it anyway so no need for us to say it as well. Pretty Please?

To work or not to work

Published 2009-01-20 – 16:55:06

So there’s a bit of a debate going around the web regarding the French minister of Justice Rachida Dati going back to work 5 days after giving birth. Undoubtedly the children v work debate is an interesting one.

 A lot of people seem to use the “well a dad can go back to work the same day and no one bats an eyelid” argument, however one cannot really compare a dad going back to work the day after or the same day as his child has been born to a mum going back to work a few days after giving birth. It’s not really the same thing. Dad’s are only really physically required once and that was nine months prior and he can easily be replaced by someone other male species for the emotional requirements.

Not nice but true. For mothers there is of course the physically difference of child birth compared to the fatherly input (mostly stitches and sore nipples) but also, and this is where the real issue lies, an emotional difference. Not nice but still true. Mother and baby have not only been sharing a body for (hopefully) nine months and the baby is physically dependant on the mother for good nutrition but there is an emotional bond has also been created which needs nurturing as well.

 Not even I can deny the fact that babies need their mummies just as much after birth as before which is why I despite my exceptionally modern centre liberal approach to society thought to myself when reading about Dati going back to work; why have a baby in the first place if you rather work than be with it. Especially considering the fact it’s a test tube (or one time favour) baby and there is no father in sight. My mind instantly went on a rant (I had nothing to do with it!) thinking that I’m sure she just wanted to tick another box on the female life to do list, how selfish. I then managed to take control of my brain again and thought yes it might not be the optimal way of bringing up a child and yes one can cast doubts over her reasons for having a baby and brand them as selfish, BUT how many parents bring up their children in an optimal way? I know plenty of fucked up people whose problems are directly caused by their parents. And several of those people had stay at home mums. One can conclude that leaving your baby with someone after five days choosing work rather than looking after it yourself isn’t the best thing to do if you want to raise a well balanced kid but it’s certainly not the worst thing you can do. And if that’s what you need to do to be a happy sane mum when you’re at home go for it.

 There is also another aspect of this debate which is that businesses should be flexible and “mummy friendly” enough to allow for mums to do both or stay at home the time needed (within reason). On one side you’ve got Catherine MacKinnon claiming that the an employer isn’t acting in a sexist manner when not adapting to a mother’s need but when the job wasn’t created flexible enough for a working mum to do it. On the other hand you have the arguments that are disguised as some capitalistic reasons that businesses need a certain number of hours in the office and a certain time of dedication which is why mums are unsuitable. I would strongly argue that that is bullshit. Things hindering working mums from progression isn’t “business needs” it the office culture and office politics. How often do workers not stay late not because they have work to do but to make the impression one is working late?

What I’m trying to say is that working mums are hindered by the office culture created my males (can’t deny that boys, I wouldn’t even have a job 50 years ago) that are centered around long hours rather than productive hours, social “networking” functions down the pub, rather than achievement and a general but subtle negative attitude towards female traits and behavior in the work environment where male behavior is the norm. Interestingly enough there has been research on the employers attitude towards paternity leave in Sweden and surprisingly employers are very positive towards male employees taking long paternity leave. It’s perceived as showing signs of trustworthiness and loyalty. Not surprisingly the same does not go for maternity leave.