The Secret To What Pro-Choicers REALLY Mean About Choice.

Apparently, I’ve been going about this abortion thing all wrong. By insisting that women be allowed to make decisions for themselves, I’ve actually been taking away their choices.

“Pro-aborts like choice about as much as a fetus enjoys abortion. They don’t want women to have choices. They want them to have only one choice, and that’s abortion. If any woman, anywhere, has an unplanned pregnancy, the pro-aborts want her to do nothing but abort the baby. They will try to silence anyone who could present alternatives, demonize crisis pregnancy centers, keep options like adoption quiet, and fight against any kind of informed consent laws. These are radical pro-abortion extremists. And it just sounds so much better to say that they’re fighting for “choice” than fighting to keep women killing their babies.” ~ Cassy Fiano

All this time it turns out that I’ve been supporting mass genocide of my own species. Who knew!?! By insisting that women have options and not be lied to, shamed, and bullied into keeping an unwanted pregnancy I’ve been ‘silencing’ the opposition. You know, the ‘real heroes’. The ones who want abortion outlawed…to give women more choices by eliminating their choices. Those wonderful defenders of life who bomb clinics and murder health care workers to show how important human life is. Or something… I’m still attempting to do the mental aerobics necessary to wrap my brain around this, uh, ‘logic’. What can I say, I must be slow.

It all makes sense, really. I’ve often heard from completely reliable MRA sources (who are totally not just whiny-pants assholes hating on women) that feminists are trying to destroy the world. If they write it, it must be true! Because, lord knows, the MRA certainly doesn’t have an anti-woman agenda. What better way to destroy the world than to eradicate the species? It’s even more effective at destroying the world than feminism’s other strategies of insisting on equal opportunities and demanding to be allowed to vote and own property and work and stuff.

And it gets worse! So much worse!

“Lose abortion, and suddenly, the abortion advocates have lost not just their cash cow, but their ticket to political power and influence. So just remember, on Blog for Choice Day… it’s not choice they’re fighting for, and it’s not women they care about.”

This whole time I’ve been supporting the pro-choice movement out of a sense of fairness and wanting to do what’s right, when I could have been making money at it! When do my abortion cheques come in, damn it!

This marvelous gem of stupidity is brought to you by the Live Action News blog.

There’s so much dishonesty and projection going on in that blog post that I think I may have lost IQ points reading it. They must have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of women. Live Action News Blog; Where truth and rational thinking are optional.

Badass Bitches, Turkey Edition

Violence is wrong, and stuff… >.>

But holy fuck! What a badass!

According to the Daily Mail, a woman in Turkey is abused for months on end, finally her rapist threatens to post nude photos of her and she goes Pulp Fiction on him. Shoots him to bits and cuts off his head. She flings the head into the town square and announces to the police ‘This is the One who toyed with my honour!

You can’t make shit up like that.

So on the one hand violence is bad mmmkay. On the other hand, holy shit woman, you are awesome!

31 States

Thirty One. Thirty One is how many states in the USA currently allow visitation rights or child custody rights for rapists. So those estimated 32,000 children conceived in the US each year through rape? The rapists can sue for custody of the resulting children. I’m guessing that if many women knew they may be forced to deal with their rapist for the next 18 years, more of them would choose to abort those fetuses. But that’s just me projecting.

“I was struck with terror, not only with the idea of letting my child be around him, but also having to spend the next 18 years of my life tied to him,”
Shauna Prewitt

Shauna Prewitt, a lawyer and mother of a child conceived through rape, recently wrote about her story for CNN. The short version is that she was lucky and stopped the raping scumbag from asserting his ‘rights’ as father. He did try. The comments for that story are absolutely toxic. Be forewarned. There’s a lot of ‘But women lie about rape all the time’, ‘Get over yourself and move on’, ‘It wasn’t rape unless I say it was rape’. In other words, it’s the typical commentariat of Rape Culture and it’s bloody depressing.

It’s telling that those who scoffed at Todd Akin’s embarrassing biology fail still agree with his main (and not so subtly disguised) point: Real rapes don’t result in pregnancy. So women who claim they were raped and are pregnant are obviously liars. One commenter on the CNN piece asked incredulously : ‘Are we supposed to take a woman’s word at face value?’ No. Of course not. We all know women are sneaky. It’s in the bible, isn’t it? Women are inherently more deceitful then men. We should always mistrust anything any woman says. You can insert some copious eye rolling here. I know I did.

It’s also interesting to note that those (like our dear Todd Akin) who are insisting that women have no right to ever abort a pregnancy, even in cases of rape or incest, fail to mention that more than half of the states have laws that may force the woman to further be victimized by a violent sexual aggressor moving into her life and demanding child custody rights. They’re fine with it and didn’t think it was worth mentioning. The important thing is that the rapist and the fetus are being taken care of. As we should know by now, Republicans always place the rights of men and fetuses first. Who gives a fuck what happens to the woman who was attacked? They certainly don’t. Not to mention how much it could mess a child up to be partially raised by a filthy criminal who has no respect for his/her mother.

Then again, it comes down to biblical law. Maybe that is exactly what these Republicans, who keep reminding us that the USA is a christian nation, really want. They didn’t mention it because it’s part of their belief system and they’re okay with it.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29, New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Atheism Plus. Where Atheism and Feminism Meet – Part II

The first part of this post can be found here : Where Atheism and Feminism Meet – Part I

Atheism Plus. The term was coined by Jennifer McCreight and the commentariat of her blog, Blag Hag. The idea being that we want a label that applies to more of what we do believe, and not just what we don’t believe. Jason Thibeault , from Lousy Canuck, defines it thusly : ‘the “atheism plus” label takes the part of the Venn diagram where humanists and “new” atheists and social justice advocates overlap, and defines itself as that overlap.

I am wholeheartedly on board with this suggestion. I’ve often said that my feminism and social justice ideals stem from my atheism. And yet, atheism at its core has nothing to do with either of the other movements. I am a feminist because believing half the population is somehow inferior to the other is irrational. I believe in Social Justice because we only have one life and we should strive to make this place where we live the most pleasant place we can, before we die and the ride is over.

At its core, atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods. Many people have no belief in gods. People who identify as MRAs, and racists, homophobes, people who are not skeptics, and people who are capitalists all may have no belief in god. I share this label with people who do not share any of my philosophies. The irony being that it was my atheism that brought me to these other philosophies. It didn’t bring everyone here. It did bring enough of us to the destination where we should probably have a label to describe where we’re coming from.

The idea of creating a new wave of atheism for those atheists who fit the description of Atheism+ seems to be receiving a lot of pushback. People who insist that tossing all this extra luggage into the trunk is going to cause division and strife amongst atheists. Guess what? The division and strife is already there. As I noted in my previous post, I feel very unsafe and unwelcome in the atheist movement as it stands. I am not the only one. Jen’s original post on starting a new wave of atheism explained her feelings on the subject and they are very similar to my own.

And then I found this quote :

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of atheist women… and also be inclusive of people who publicly call women ugly, fat, sluts, whores, cunts, and worse; who persistently harass them; who deliberately invade their privacy and make their personal information public; and/or who routinely threaten them with grisly violence, rape, and death.

Greta Christina, Why Atheism Plus Is Good for Atheism

Not just women, either. As it stands, the movement is already divisive and exclusive in regards to sexism and racism, and homo/trans-phobia. Which explains why the current face of the atheism is a group of old white men. That’s not my atheism. It’s not reflective of the rest of us. And there are a lot of ‘the rest of us‘. So give us a banner to crowd under. So we can march forward united. The chaff having been left to the wayside. They were making us look bad and they weren’t contributing anything worthwhile anyway.

Atheism Plus. Where Feminism and Atheism and Social Justice meet. Call me an optimist, but I have high hopes for this movement. It’s exactly the face we need to help secularism grow. One that is supportive of LGBT issues, feminism, people of colour, and one that embraces social justice. A friendly face, as it were.

Mythic Mondays – Legitimate Rape

You know, this is one post I never thought I’d have to write. The level of stupid involved in rape culture and the forced-birth movement is pretty bad, but this comment takes the cake.

Todd Akin, a United states congressman AND a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, stated this weekend that rape rarely causes pregnancy because:

“It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare, if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, But let’s assume maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist.”

Apparently, according to Akin, a woman’s uterus knows the difference between rape and consensual sex, somehow, and magically destroys sperm that doesn’t have its paperwork in order. I want to meet the incompetent doctors that he said gave him this information.

Was it Galen of Pergamon? He taught that a woman could only conceive if she’d had an orgasm. He taught this is 150 CE, mind you. While he was ahead of his time in cutting edge anatomy…this was also almost 2,000 years ago. He also was a staunch supporter of blood letting, and of fixing ‘bad humours’, which has been thoroughly discredited by modern medicine. As has the idea that a woman needs to orgasm/consent in order to get pregnant.

Todd Akin, a man who has the power to legislate laws that limit a woman’s reproductive choice, while following advice from a 2,000 year old medical book. Not to mention the fact that this man is on the House Science and Technology Committee. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. I’m not even going to debunk this one, because if you believe that a woman’s uterus knows about consent and can decide whether it should get pregnant or not, then you are an idiot. Todd is an idiot.

The really scary thing? Todd is not an isolated case. There’s plenty of documented occurrences of Republican politicians stating this very thing. These are university educated men in positions of power. Jezebel has a recent timeline of some these incidences. Not to mention that this is one of the core beliefs of the anti-choice movement.

‘Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, on Sunday called Akin’s remarks “flat-out astonishing.”

“That kind of rhetoric re-traumatizes sexual assault victims …That kind of talk, I believe, is intended to shame women,” she told AP Radio.’
The Toronto Star

There’s also the not-so-subtle undercurrent of what he’s saying: Real rapes don’t get women pregnant. Most rapes are just made up by loose women who can’t keep their legs closed and regret it after the fact. So the estimated 32,000 women a year who get pregnant each year from rape? Lying sluts who are just trying to put an innocent man in prison. Stay classy, Todd.

There’s a petition to get Todd taken off the House Science and Technology Committee. ‘Someone who believes nonsense like this has no part overseeing science policy.’ Says the poster of the petition. Seeing as the man is still living in the dark ages, it might not be a bad idea.

Here’s some good posts on the subject of Legitimate Rape, Todd, and Rape apologists:

The myth that women can’t get pregnant from rape stems from basic assumptions anti-choicers make about women.

The Offical Guide to Legitimate Rape.

Akin’s eager apologists

What Todd Akin Said

Secrecy Is Not a Valid Counter to Fear, Lies, and Shame.

Apparently Ontario is no longer allowing the whack-job forced-birthers access to abortion statistics. I have mixed feelings about this. You see, Ontario is no longer allowing access to abortion statistics for anyone. The Ministry of Health stated that “Records relating to abortion services are highly sensitive and that is why a decision was made to exempt these records.” when interviewed by the National Post.

The decision to keep Ontario abortion statistics from the public is not without precedent. B.C. has a similar law in effect and has had it since 2001, according to an article in the CBC:

Section 22.1 of B.C.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act makes abortions the only medical procedures taking place in hospitals that are subject to secrecy.

The law was brought in back in 2001 after staff at some abortion facilities were targeted in violent attacks by anti-abortion groups in the 1990s.

Ah, yes. Those violent pro-lifers. The ones who are willing to murder people in order to make their point about how pro-life they are. Life is sacred, let’s go bomb a clinic! Way to stay true to your message, guys.

Kelly McParland, a dude with a serious case of ‘what about teh menz‘ syndrome, poor understanding of feminism, and a bone to pick with women having choice, wrote a commentary of the Ontario situation today in the National Post. With typically inflammatory and dishonest language, McParland compares abortion to incest, rape, and honour killings. Compares the murder of doctors to the ‘violence against the unborn’. False equivalencies all. And not a new tactic for McParland. Because integrity and truth are not something that anti-choicers appear to value. Shocking. A white middle aged dude with a high sense of entitlement and not much apparent respect for women deciding he knows best how we should make decisions about our bodies. I’m sure that’s never happened before. But it’s easy to dismiss his article because, well, it’s not very well written. I mean it’s a great test piece if you’re looking for logical fallacies and hyperbole, but that’s about it.

Getting back on the topic of secrecy in health statistics, I do, as I said at the beginning of this post, have mixed feelings about this. While I can see the very real threat to the safety of health care providers, I also have to wonder how you can keep statistics about a publicly funded medical procedure away from the tax paying public. Shrouding this one legitimate medical procedure in secrecy is only adding fuel to the arguments of the very people you consider dangerous in the first place. Face it, people are much more likely to protest if they think there’s a government conspiracy at hand. By making an exception in transparency only for abortions we’re lending credence to the ‘conspiracy theory’.

“It’s not an ideological issue… It’s health care provided by OHIP, so I fail to see why highly sensitive applies so drastically and dramatically in this one regard,” says Andrea Mrozek who is a spokesperson for the anti-abortion Institute of Marriage and Family. It irks me to have to agree with someone who works for a cause that uses lies, fear, and shame to make their point. It especially irks me to know that a group working with such a cesspool of morality may actually have the moral high ground in this one small instance. In fact, it makes me feel very unclean indeed.

Personally, I’m thinking the stats should be out there for all who request them. Just like any other healthcare stat. Secrecy puts us on the same moral level as the anti-choicers and that’s not something I’m comfortable with. Those who prefer choice don’t need to use lies and fear and shame. We have science and we have truth. Let’s stick to that and not stoop, please.

As for the safety of the healthcare providers, that’s a serious issue. Threats and incidents of violence against women’s clinics need to be taken much more seriously. Don’t let this shit escalate. Stricter laws and stronger enforcement against the criminals who would use terrorism and violence would go a long way to protecting those who work in clinics. Whereas secrecy is just provoking the protesters and making the terrorists feel even more righteous in their violence.

Random Thoughts On Being a Crazy Cat Lady and Feminist

Yesterday I was telling a story to a coworker about the horses I had as a teenager. One of my horses had gotten into the rabbit feed and was lying down outside the barn doors groaning in pain. She had colic and needed to get up and moving. For horses this can be a life threatening situation. She was also a bossy and stubborn creature so there was a bit of a struggle in getting her to comply. In relating the story I said of the horse: ‘Get up you fat cow! Get up and walk it off!

My cat was trying to wrestle his way in to steal my ice cream from me The day before. While he got in a couple of good swings I feel I won the fight overall. When physical force didn’t work he had to resort to being cute and cuddly. He snuggled up against me and kneaded and purred, all the while eyeballing my bowl of ice cream. I told my cat that he was a ‘slutty little whore bag‘ and that I wasn’t ‘giving in to his terrorist demands.

Today my dog was wagging her tail and walking by and I told her that : ‘If you’re gonna keep wiggling your bum and smiling at me I’m gonna have to molest you a little. You’re clearly asking for it.‘ Because Corporal Cuddling is how we roll in this family. And then I pounced. There was belly rubbing involved. Some scritching. Also some growling. Hers or mine, I’m not sure.

So there’s some body snark and slut shaming topped off with some victim blaming. Now keep in mind that I identify as a feminist. These are things I would never say to a person. Not even a person I disliked immensely. Not even in a fight. Even thinking them, which still occasionally happens in moments I’m not proud of, makes me feel self loathing. So why am I using this sort of language with my critters?

For more information on Corporal Cuddling (and because it’s funny as hell) you should watch this video: