desertvixen: (sexism)

 I finished the book - Equal: Women Reshape American Law which was good, because of the women lawyers fighting to make the laws more equal in how they treat women, and depressing, because this book is not talking about the damn Stone Age, it only really goes back to the 1960s.  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act which actually made it illegal to discriminate against pregnant women (because earlier laws were deemed not to discriminate against women, but against pregnant persons, which is totally different) is only a year older than me.

 What struck me somewhat was not that there was some Evil Male Conspiracy to Keep Women Down (yes, there are some men who subscribe to that idea,I know) but just that men didn't realize anything was wrong.  It wasn't a problem.  It didn't affect them, so why should they care, or try to stop it?  The system was working out just fine for them.

 Only part of the book is actually applicable to my class - mostly the fight to get pregnancy recognized as a legit disability (in terms of employment disability coverage only), and the fight against sexual harassment in the workplace.

 It also showcases a verbal trick that still gets a lot of mileage.  The author describes an incident in 1985 when Strom Thurmond met with a delegation of women judges:  The room was a "bachelor's paradise,"  he announced.  "I want to congratulate you lady judges," he said, according to the Washington Post.  "You really don't look like judges, you look like young ladies."
Old Strom had pulled an old trick: say something that sounds flattering, and if women complain, they sound bitchy.

 It's 450 pages of not light reading, but worthwhile if you're interested in the subject.

desertvixen: (feminazi)

 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."

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

 Resa LaRu Kirkland.  I succumbed to the lure of the Google.

 Can't Find A Good Man? Blame Feminism!

This piece predates the one on which [ profile] tepintzin and I discovered Ms. Kirkland - it's written in September 2004.

Does any decent American man want a modern American woman?

Signs are there…no, they don’t, or given our behavior, they shouldn’t. And we only have women to blame. Yeah, I said it—women.

She goes on to refer to feminism as "Pussy Politics", and to feminists themselves as "femmies" or the "Bitch Brigade".  (I'm just trying to figure out what the Bitch Brigade unit patch looks like.)  The point of the article is that she believes women manipulate false rape accusations, and that it is part of the Feminist Agenda to do so.

 Do I believe that there are women who make false allegations of rape?  Yes.  Do I believe that those cases somehow outweigh the problem of how rape victims are often treated?  No.

Then she warns us that we had better watch out : Being a broad, I know their emotional tricks, but unlike chicks, I am a slave to logic and reason; their tears and anger in the face of said logic doesn’t wash with me. Watching their heads explode because they don’t have a valid leg to stand on is my favorite pastime. I am their worst nightmare, and I want their Evil Empire destroyed. In other words: Ms. Steinem, Give Back Our Balls!


You’re going down, femmies, and down hard. I’ll see to that; for the two future men I’m raising. More—MUCH more—to come…

I'm scared.  I'm also kind of confused, because I though this article was going to be about something a little different.  I thought it was going to be more about how we feminists won't be able to get men because we scare them.

She's also written about English-only laws in the US, the fear that Islam will take over the world, women not being in combat (or even in the military), and seems in general to be a less-publicized Ann Coulter.  She doesn't appear to have done much lately, at least not that the Google has turned up.


desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

 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, 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 [ profile] garpu , I present a recap of the experience [ profile] 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. 



desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)

So, Washington University in St. Louis is presenting Phyllis Schlafly with a honorary doctrate.  It wouldn't be my choice, but I'm not the one making it. 

She did an interview with their school paper which makes for some interesting reading.

Phyllis Schlafly Interview

What do you mean when you say, "Feminists want women to think that they can't succeed"?

Everything that they are teaching in Women's Studies and in those courses is that women are victims and that marriage is unfair to women and that it makes them second-class, that men are naturally batterers and that if you get married you'll probably get beaten up. It's a dreary picture that they paint for women of the life of a married women or a mother.

I guess I missed that class. 

So you see the feminist position as saying that there is one acceptable path for women in the world, the path of the career woman?

That's right. Because they think that if you give them the choice, too many will pick getting married.

The two options are not always exclusive.  It is possible to have both career and family.  Men have been doing it for ages... oh wait.

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex."  It's not a blanket consent form.  Being married does NOT mean that women have to give it up anytime he wants it.  If she never wants to have sex, then you have bigger issues that probably require counseling.  Or there's always talking about the subject.  There may be a physical or emotional reason that can be dealt with.

"That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery."  OK - so it's okay for him to force you to have sex (whether physically or by nagging you into it), but it's not okay for him to hit you.  I have to tell you, I think the former is far more damaging than the latter one.  And really, if you have to nag your partner into it, what is the point?

 I mean, I have to admit here - there was a fairly long period where I just did not feel like having sex after I had my daughter (well after the six week mark).  I just didn't feel any desire to, at all.  It may have been hormonal.  I missed feeling like I wanted to have sex, and I'm grateful that my husband was understanding and didn't let his frustration become an issue between the two of us. 

 But honestly, if one partner is just submitting out of duty, is it really worth it?

To me, though, this is the saddest bit: "That's what marriage is all about"

Funny.  I thought marriage was about partnership.  And love, which may be expressed through sex.  It may also be expressed by a husband getting up on the 2AM feeding so his wife can sleep, or by a wife doing something similar for a husband. 

Marriage is about more than sex - it's about being partners.

And then she accuses feminists of wanting to keep marital rape in the grab-bag of goodies.

Sometimes, I really just find other people depressing.

desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)
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.

desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)
Holy f*ck.

This site is positively overflowing with the Crazy. The scary Crazy.

Let's take the short tour...


DNA, the "feminist silver bullet". Complete with the accusation that the majority of rape allegations are false, and a cause of the destruction of our justice system. Why would they do it? For the victim compensation.


Because, of course, you can't have a good crazy fundy site that DOESN'T bash the Catholics.

From the site: In addition to these questions, we should also add the following two hidden secret facts:

1. There were 100 MILLION fewer Protestants after WWII than before, but a few million MORE Catholics.
2. It was the RCC who banned religious freedom in 1774 who spurred on the American Revolution two years later, in 1776.

More from the site: "What we must always keep in mind is that the REAL CONTROLLERS operate“BEHIND THE SCENES”. I call these “real controllers” the Vatican-Papacy-Jesuits-Knights of Malta cabal. The leaders of this “cabal”simply LOVE to put “TOKEN Jews” in prominent, and highly visible, “mid and upper-level management” positions (e.g., the supposed “founders
of Communism”, the head of the Federal Reserve, top bank managers, Soviet Gulag camp commandants, “neo-conservatives”, etc.). Thus “the Jews” get BLAMED for the “conspiracy” while the Vatican/Papacy’s top players (high-level Roman Catholic prelates, Jesuits, Jesuit “temporal
coadjutors”, top members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, and high-level Knights of Columbus) stay HIDDEN, as much as possible, “BEHIND THE SCENES”, allowing OTHERS to take the blame for the
Vatican-Papacy-Jesuits-Knights of Malta cabal’s own sinister and nefarious activities!


Accusation that the Holocaust is fake. Despite, you know, all that proof.


Petition for good Christian women to give up the vote. Oh yes, and accusation that giving women the vote caused all that bad governmental growth. The nation must be protected from half of its population having an actual voice.


AIDS. "Mostly carried by blacks". Additional focus on AIDS being the fault of the Jews because of the fact that there are "112 hereditary diseases only carried by Jews".

*** *** ***

There are really no words to describe the pathetic factor of these people and their conspiracy theories.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)
Cross-posted to [ profile] womenwarriors:

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.

desertvixen: (sexism)

I lurk at Feministing a lot, but I had to pass this gem along:

Most people believe not only that the 19th Amendment permitted women the right to vote but that since women serve in Congress, the courts and other offices of government, the office of president of the United States has been de-genderized.

Not true. This important legal question exists now and has not been constitutionally addressed. The language and syntax of the 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting. It did not identify women to be qualified to become elected president.

The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place.

That would be because what HE thinks needed to happen is incorrect. 

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states the requirements for becoming President: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”

Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

Clutching at straws, just a little bit here?  I think so. 

I must confess, I just do not understand why there is such FEAR of a female president.  I can understand not wanting to vote for Hillary, or not wanting to vote for a particular candidate, but I do NOT understand this.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

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.


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...


desertvixen: (Default)

October 2017

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 08:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios