desert_vixen's lair

 I'm reading Equal: Women Reshape American Law as semi-prep for my final paper and this one jumped out at me.  It comes from a then-law clerk's opinion on a sex discrimination case :

 "The pedestal upon which women have been placed has all too often, upon closer inspection, been revealed as a cage."

 DV

 Since I need to get the human-beings-are-depressing-me vibe out of my head (yes, maybe I am too sensitive sometimes), allow me to present some of the WTF-y links that have been collecting in my Bookmarks folder.

 These mock one or more of the following topics: anti-feminist views, anti-choice views, religious right-wing whack jobs, people who think Single Mothers are unmaking existence. 

 1. Contraception harms people, society, and civilization
Brought to you by the good people at ProNatal.org, this article features the following gem :
Millions of women feel they are goddesses, they control a man through his contraceptive penis. What a shame. What a low down shame people have gone today. Men submitting to women and thanking them for sex? Give me a break.
Top grade males are always in high demand. Top grade males do not submit to contraceptive slavery. A woman who partners with top grade males want their sperm, they demand it, top material to make their babies with.

 I have no issue with people who don't want to use contraceptives, for whatever their personal reason - but why must people try to use bad pseudo-evo-psych BS to make their "point".  Also, "contraceptive penis"?  Is this some kind of add-on we could buy?

 2. The prologue to #1
 The gist of this one: REAL men don't sleep with "contraceptive women". 

 3. Jack Chick tracts
 I don't really need to say anything else here, do I?  The general message of the tracts is that if you aren't a born-again, evangelical Christian, when you die, you're going to HELL. 

 Catholic?  Going to Hell.  (After you get done worshipping Mary and believing in your false religion) 
 Mormon? Going to Hell. 
 Muslim? Going to Hell.  
 Mason?  Going to Hell. 
 Atheist?  Going to Hell. 
 Pagan?  Going to Hell.

 Unless, of course, after reading one of these, you accept that you must give up your life to Jesus.  All you have to do is believe (and pass these out at Halloween instead of candy).

 Allow me to present one of my favorites, Why is Mary Crying? (Maybe because she's badly drawn and being used to scare people?)

Far too many of the links I have are dead, which should actually NOT be too surprising.

 However, because I promised garpu , I present a recap of the experience tepintzin and I had with Resa LaRu Kirkland, who calls herself  "America's War Chick", is a military historian, but doesn't believe women should be in the military, unless we're WACs or WAVEs.

 The original article (from September 2006) is here.

 This is the climax of the article:
Society has paid a dear price for women choosing to listen to these wretched individuals. Women are now in a far worse position than they were 100 years ago; back then, they didn't have many other choices than to be a wife and mother. Today, if they want to be a wife and mother, they can't unless they marry a very rich man. Feminism has enslaved us into the "SuperWoman" role-an impossible place to live. But I have a sick feeling that that is exactly their goal. You see, being pro-abortion isn't enough. They want motherhood and wife-dom to be so difficult, so back-breaking, so agonizing in modern living that women will choose not to marry and have children. For those who still don't grasp it, let me say it in plain speech: Feminism is the party of the "anti-child."

"Female Empowerment" was the shameful fantasy. Now for the harsh reality. Sisters, your babies are killing each other. They are having babies at younger ages and in record numbers in a desperate search for that unconditional love they couldn't find in the myriad of minimum wage babysitters and daycares they had growing up. They are turning to gangs and drugs to ease the pain of loneliness and the longing for Mommy-a longing which is innate, necessary, and good-and it is our fault. Our children are suffering; their tender feelings have waxed cold and all signs of humanity are dying off in agonizing death throes, and we women are the cause. Women. The givers of life have turned against their own offspring in a vain quest for self-fulfillment. It is madness.

Translation: You selfish bitches can't even take care of your own children.  It's all your fault for not devoting your entire life to your children, for daring to have a job outside the home (because yes, motherhood is definitely WORK).

Here's what you're gonna do. Women, go home. Get rid of the huge mortgage and move into a trailer. It's not the neighborhood-or village, idiot!-that raises a good child. Have two cars? Get rid of one and deal with the annoyance of having to drive more. It's not the car that makes the family. Fancy clothes and vacations? Trivial and silly... those won't be what your child remembers. Be the one who drops him off and picks him up from school. Those precious moments laughing and talking will always be remembered, I guarantee it. Be in the kitchen, filling a warm home with delicious smells, sounds, and memories, and bring the whole family in to make dinner again, cleaning up together afterwards and bonding over pot roast. It is simple, it is time tested, it is true. The hand that rocks the cradle did-at one time-rule the world. The cradle is silent because the hand is at work and the baby at an institution. Sisters, go home-too much is at stake. Your babies are dying and killing, and the only one who can stop this infanticide is you. The power is-and always has been-yours. Take it back now... it's almost too late.

 Yes, because it's completely impossible to raise children and work.  Not to mention the fact that this article overlooks many women - women who work because they are the sole support of their children (yes, the dreaded Single Mothers who are Unmaking Existence), women who work because their husband's income is not enough to support a family on.  I do believe there are women working who would rather stay home, or who would rather work less hours/more flexible schedule - but for some women, not working is not an option.

 Here's what we had to say in my journal the first time around.  Response to Ms. Kirkland are in the comments.

 When I wrote that response, I was a new mother (the MV was still somewhat of a MicroVixen), home on maternity leave from the Army.  I was a happily married woman, with a husband who respected me and treated me as an equal. 

 I still stand by what I said - Don't force your beliefs down my throat.  I have no problems with women deciding to arrange their life and family so that they can stay home - depending on the number/age/special needs of children, it may be the best choice for that woman and her family.  Maybe it's the man who stays home, because he has a job that allows flexibility, or because she is the "breadwinner".  Maybe she just wants to.  It's not my place to judge anyone for that decision.

 It's not my decision to stay home.  I don't deny there are times when I don't want to go to work, times when I fantasize about just staying home all day, taking care of Adrianna - but then I realize that it would likely drive me crazy.  I like to work.  I like my job.  I like my uniform.  I like having money to do what I want. 

 I just don't buy the whole "working moms/single moms are destroying America" thing. 

 I didn't ask to be a single mother, but that's what I am right now. My former husband, the father of my child, has decided that he no longer loves me, that I'm too pushy, too argumentative, and not for him.  I'm in no hurry to replace him just so my daughter has a father figure. 

 DV

 

At least, I know this female soldier is.

1) Women aren't in combat.  Okay, not in direct combat.  Okay, not in direct combat UNITS.  And if they are, and they happen to get a Silver Star, we'll yank them out because God forbid we expose women to that kind of danger.  The fact is, there's not really a defined battlefield anymore, and the old regs are just that.  They're old.  They don't apply so well. 

2) Women can't be in combat arms (CA) units because they're weaker than men.  Or because the men can't be trusted to ignore the instinct that says, "Protect the woman at all costs".  They won't be able to keep up.  They'll destroy unit cohesion.  OMG, they menstruate!

I am NOT saying that I, myself, personally, would want to be in a CA unit.  I wouldn't.  I don't think I could make the physical qualifications.  But there are female soldiers I have worked with who could have done that.  Who wanted to do it.  And I think they should be given the chance to try.

3) The Army says it's okay to deploy a woman's who just given birth 4-6 months ago.  Despite the fact that her body is likely not physically recovered from the pregnancy/childbirth experience.  Despite the fact that this plays merry hell with her bonding with her infant.  Despite the fact that other services allow up to 12 months before a woman is deployable again.

I have a feeling that the root of this is the belief that if there's a really long grace period after childbirth, women will game the system.

Again, one of the reasons I'm getting out is because no, I don't like the prospect of spending a year away from my child.  I'll be doing it, but I'm also voting with my feet the next time I get a chance.  I tried it, I don't like it.

4) Insulting male soldiers by calling them "girls", or "ladies".  Implying that they're weak, like women.

5) Sexual assault prevention training that focuses on all the things the victim should NOT do (most of which is sensible advice), but never includes the slide that says:

 Men: Don't Rape.
           Don't keep buying drinks for someone who's already impaired.
           Don't let your buddies do either of the above.

Sorry, got a little ranty and venty there.  But still.  Truth is truth.

DV

Cross-posted to womenwarriors:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021702324.html

Article about mother and deployments.

Some interesting numbers in the article:

** The willingness of women to serve in the military has dropped faster than that of men in recent years, from a high of 10 percent among 16- to 21-year-olds in November 2003 to 4 percent last July, according to periodic youth surveys on "propensity to serve" conducted for the Army.

** Nearly 40 percent of women on active duty have children.

** Women make up about 15 percent of today's military, and about half of them have deployed for the anti-terrorism campaign at least once since 2001,

** More than 25,000 are deployed in that fight now.

** About 10 percent of women in the military become pregnant each year, and an estimated 75,000 military offspring are younger than 1 year old.

** (Major General) Pollock said last summer that she had proposed that the Army double the time women are exempt from deployment from four to eight months, noting that she would prefer 12 months. "That addresses the need for breast-feeding that is important for health, and also allows for optimal bonding time," she said. So far, Army policy remains unchanged, spokeswoman Cynthia Vaughan said this month. Senior Army officials declined requests to explain the reasoning behind the current policy.

** Other services grant longer exemptions, and all have generally shorter deployments: The Navy exemption is 12 months, and the Marine Corps's is six months, and deployments average seven months for both. The Air Force has a four-month exemption, but its deployments average only four to six months.

** Maternity leave in the military is 6 weeks. Women can take extra leave assuming they have the days and their commander approves it. I took an extra three weeks.

It's a pretty decent article, if a touch depressing.

Yes, another of the reasons I (and a lot of other people) are getting out of the military.

DV

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22558665/

Once-a-day Cialis approved by FDA

INDIANAPOLIS - Drug maker Eli Lilly and Co. has received FDA approval to offer its erectile dysfunction drug, Cialis, in a new daily dose.

The daily version will take pressure off users who would otherwise have a "shot clock" or window of effectiveness to worry about, Lilly officials say. Cialis also is offered at a higher dose that provides a 36-hour window.

With the daily dose, men will not need to take Cialis in anticipation of sex because it is already in their system, said Shawn Heffern, Lilly's U.S. marketing director for the drug.

"They've got a lot of pressure to perform, and the worst thing we can do is then put a shot clock on them or some limited amount of time ... where they need to have sex or otherwise it's out of their system and doesn't work," he said.

Lilly said in a statement the daily dose is geared for men who anticipate having sex twice a week or more frequently.

Cialis rang up $798 million in sales during the first nine months last year. In 2006, it registered $971 million for the full year, a 30 percent increase over 2005.

Cialis trails market leader Viagra in sales. The Pfizer Inc. erectile dysfunction drug collected $1.26 billion in sales during the first nine months of 2007.

Too bad we can't get some progress on the male birth control pill. (Yes, I KNOW it's a completely different set of processes.) The importance, of course, is on men being able to rise to the occasion.

Also, I wonder if insurance will cover this too.

Lastly, I notice there's not much moralizing and hand-wringing when it comes to drugs that affect men's sexual health. That apparently only comes into play when it affects OUR sexual health.

DV

I wish to note that I do not want to minimize the pain and embarrassment male impotence causes. I just can't help noticing the differences...