The young woman with the cascading curls walked into a dumpy house with no sign out front on the day she decided to get an abortion.

Inside, she says, she paid $200 for eight syringes filled with a milky liquid and a set of instructions. She spent the night in a Mexico City hotel room, giving herself injections that made her bleed and cry out in agony.

The next day, weak and depressed, the woman was persuaded by her sister to see a doctor, who determined that she had undergone an incomplete abortion, the woman said during an interview on condition of anonymity. He conducted an emergency procedure to complete the abortion and stave off infection.

“What have I done?” she recalled thinking. “I risked my life.”

Disturbing. Especially this bit:

But tried-and -true ways of lowering the abortion rate aren’t particularly interesting to “pro-life” politicians and leaders. Instead, they’d like to maintain the status quo in places like Mexico, where a million abortions take place every year, killing some 3,000 women and landing another 10,000 in the hospital. Abortion is the fifth leading cause of death for women in Mexico. That is not “pro-life.”

Yeah, wiggle out of that one, lifers.
The only responses I’ve seen to this are the following:

“If you want to kill an innocent baby you don’t deserve to live.”
Way to show compassion for human life there. What you don’t realize is that if you willingly allow her to die in that manner you also kill that “precious inocent baby.” May I shoot you now?

“Don’t want to die from an illegal abortion? Don’t have one.”
Another example of pro-life “compassion.” But apparently “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” isn’t enough for them. Get a clue.

I know the common response to “abortion will happen anyway” is something along the lines of murder and drugs happening anyway, but if you can find a way to both legalize murder, rape, theft, drugs, and anything else and still make a safer environment for the people’s rights and property than what exists now, I’ll be all for it.

Everyone’s seen or heard of them – the female supremacists who call themselves feminists. They support women’s rights but take the inequality to the other extreme – where women dominate men.

I know an example of this type of “feminist” that pops up in my favorite message board now and then. She’s probably one of the more extreme versions of the extremists. I’ll call her Hash.

Hash hates men with a not-so-feminine passion. To her, abortion is a good thing as long as the fetus is male, and aborting a female is murder. This double standard also applies to cases of organ donation or anything else where another woman will die, but not a man.
She has outright called men “sub-people.”

I don’t want to turn this into a roast of her, even though she’s far from my favorite person. I only provided her as an example.

Okay, we’ve got the ideas down. What’s my point? My point is that these people are hurting real feminists, not helping them.

The first way this is accomplished is by making the feminists look like jokes. The female supremacists are the loudest of the bunch, making them seem like the majority. So now the public opinion of feminism is that it seeks to take down men while pumping up women. Of course, not many people are going to pay attention to that, no matter how much of a lie it is. As a result, real feminism is laughed at instead of taken seriously.

Now for the reason that’s not so obvious: female supremacy is two steps backward for real feminists.

Personally, I’d be a bit insulted and I am insulted at girls who want to have special status over men. In the past women were put on pedestals. They were too fragile, too weak, too ignorant. They were meant to sit pretty and not do/know much.

Now it’s a different thing, only the same. These girls want to put women back on pedestals. All of a sudden it’s not that we’re not good enough, but that we’re too good for the ways of the world. We’re too special to take a punch. We’re too special to be treated equally in the workplace without sending the men to sensitivity training. We may not be too fragile to take a punch or too fragile to hear a sex joke anymore, but the impact is the same. You can hit a boy, but not a girl, no matter the reason. You can’t tell sex jokes in front of women without being called a jerk or something even less professional and sent to sensitivity training. It’s the same as before, only not so different.

So not only to female supremacists make a joke of real feminism, they send women’s social statuses back to the past. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer it if they’d just realize what they’re doing and join the other side already.

Part 1: It is not evil – How feminism essentialy isn’t the militant women’s movement it’s made out to be.
Part 2: Two steps Backward – How female supremacists make feminists’ jobs harder.
Part 3: My Way or the Highway – How “select feminism” (to be explained there) has the same effect as female supremacy.

Most of this is taken from a discussion I started in a message board. You may view it in full here.

First, let me emphasize that the feminist movement is solely for equality of the sexes. I emphasize this because it is apparent that many people do not understand this and think that it is solely for the advancement of females. While these two causes ran side by side before, in modern times it has become apparent that equality will require another approach. This approach will take a bit of advanceing and possibly downsizing the inequalities between BOTH sexes.  

To show you what I mean, I’ll provide a definition by Merriam-Webster: One entry found for feminism.

 Main Entry: fem·i·nism Pronunciation: ‘fe-m&-”ni-z&m Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests – fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective – fem·i·nis·tic /”fe-m&-’nis-tik/ adjective

What’s that you say? Both definitions are on there? I’ll explain that too. Definitions in a dictionary (or at least Merriam-Webster) are listed based on usage. Definition 1 is the one used more often than the others. In this case, that would mean that feminism is more commonly a movement of equality between the sexes.

A little explanation of dictionary definitions after a bit of searching: Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th Edition, and no doubt other editions of the same dictionary, says it generally lists them in Historical Order… Etymology followed by archaic/obsolete words, followed by “the most recent meanings still in use.” So, if this is applied to the definition of feminism (as the definition I have is by the same group of people who made the aforementioned dictionary), it can either mean that definition 1 is obsolete or that it is the most commonly used definition today if there is no obsolete definition for the word. Because that definition of feminism is still used today, it is obviously not obsolete and therefore there is no listed obsolete definition of feminism. Therefore, it can be assumed that definition 1 is the most commonly used definition of feminism today.

But what of the second one? It can exist as a halfhearted version of the first definition or as an extremist version of it. It’s either, “Women’s rights? Hell yeah! Men’s rights? Meh…” or, “DOWN WITH MEN!!” I dislike either form of this and am not talking about these forms of feminism. I want them gone just as much as you do. They are not the most common forms anyway.

=================

“But there are no inequalities!” Unfortunately, this is an incorrect statement. I’m sure it has been made familiar to many of you that there is still a gap in wages between male and female employees. (Need a source?) But because this can be explained by a few factors, I’ll let this go here.

And though we may be legally equal, this current situation is not secured. For starters, the United States currently does not have an Equal Rights Amendment in place, mostly on the grounds that it is “unecessary.” People seem to believe that the security of one’s rights is unnecessary.

(However, this begs the question of the purpose of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment )

Secondly, as I’m sure many of you know as well, abortion rights are currently at stake. If this right is revoked it will mean that women no longer have full rights to bodily integrity like anyone else. Basically, they won’t have the full protection of the right to refuse to surrender their body for the benefit of another for any reason. This right is currently inalienable, and if abortion is outlawed women’s right to BI will not be so.
(Pro-life feminism will be discussed in Part 3)

And that’s still not to say people don’t try in other areas. Phyllis Schlafly, the poster child for anti-feminists on soapboxes, wants you to know that married women cannot be raped by their husbands, among other things.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/30/with-this-ring-i-thee-own/

=================

“Okay, so you have legal rights now, why are you crying about opression that doesn’t exist?”

Nonexistant “opression”(I would rather use a better term) is another unfortunate misconception, though a lot of this today is from social relationships rather than from law. There are now laws that prevent discrimination based on race. However, it would be laughable to suggest that racism is not a part of our society today. How is that different from feminism?

Here is a fine list of social inequalities. I also encourage more browsing throughout that site, as it has other good pages.

Look closely at that list before you cry opression, boys. That list does display some inequalities against guys. An example:

Men are beat up, ridiculed, or made fun of for being “effeminate”

Keep in mind that that list is by no means a complete one for either sex. There are legal inequalities against men. One that comes to mind is issues dealing with children and family court. It is said that in family court, the mother of the children is usually favored over the father due to the assumptions of maternal instincts.

A website on Men’s activism, which obviously puts emphasis on issues negatively affecting men: http://news.mensactivism.org/

In this post I have shown that there are inequalities against men as well as women. Any feminist with brain cells would realize that equality would mean to fix both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, many girls (and perhaps even guys) who claim to be feminists do not see this. This does not change the true meaning of feminism any more than the people of Westboro Baptist Church change the true meaning of Christianity.

=================

“But I thought you were all about wearing combat boots and being masculine!”

No, that’s a misconception. The “diesel dyke” stereotype of feminists has always been around as long as the feminist movement began. Men in power would feel threatened and then smear the “opposition”. Most of these tactics dealt with physical appearance, in which even the figures considered by supporters to be “feminie and graceful” were reduced to “masculine, wearing combat boots, swearing like a trooper, with hook-billed noses, small breasts, unfeminine, etc etc.” Leading to the stereotype of man-hating lesbians.

BTW, that bra-burning thing? Nothing more than an urban legend.

Let’s take a look at other feminist stereotypes while we’re at it:

Unfeminine.

While it may be true that some feminists dislike anything frilly and victorian, there are just as many who love them. Personally I’m an in-between. Love certain skirts but can’t stand wearing one for long periods of time, dislike lace but love the color white, looks through Victorian Trading Co. magazines but can live without everything in there, etc etc. Consider the flappers of the roaring twenties. They rebelled against the traditional standards for women. They wore shorter skirts, danced wild dances, drank, smoked, cut their hair, all shockers. But would you call this unfemine and ugly? Would you call this masculine?

Activists were around before then too. Consider Olympe de Gouges, who pushed for a constitution protecting the rights of women during the French Revolution. She was executed, but it wasn’t for wearing combat boots and swearing like a sailor.

Susan B. Anthony. Everyone knows about her, right? Need I say more?

Lesbians.

This one is just ridiculous and has little backing.
While it is true that there are feminist who are also lesbians, just because a woman doesn’t want to be forced into involuntary servitude as a housewife and incubator doesn’t mean she has no romantic interest in men.

Anti-family.

To this I say: Feminist mothers at home
My link to a feminist mothers’ webring mysteriously vanished.

I dare anyone to give me something showing how feminists plan to destroy the family.

I am not convinced that the essential feminist is anything like the stereotype of the past and present.

“Boy, are YOU angry. Therefore, I’m not going to listen to you.”

That’s the attiude displayed by a lot of people today. If you’re pissed off at someone, your opinion doesn’t count. “I’ll dismiss that opinion because it’s too angry.”

So what’s the alternative? Politely ask the modeling industry to stop encouraging youing women to kill themselves for beauty? Politely ask Planned Parenthood to stop abortions? No, you’re supposed to raise hell.

Let’s face it, people. Life isn’t politically correct. People aren’t going to be happy all the time. Nothing will get done in politics by being nice about it. we’re way too stubborn for that.

Blacks didn’t get a chance to ask nicely for civil rights. They raised hell and got it.
Women had to do the same thing. We still have to do the same thing. Same goes with the GLBTQ camp, the pro-choice camp, and (though I’m hoping they don’t win) the Pro-life camp.

What do they all have in common? They raise hell and they are getting what they want.

No, I don’t condone bombing building or something to get every little thing you want.

Moral of the story: Don’t dismiss an opinion just because it’s angry. Chances are, it’s supposed to be.

What an outrage!

Madrid now has a ban on super skinny models. As of September, no woman with a BMI under 18.5 will be seen on the runway. This discriminates against 30% of the applicants who are naturaly thin.

Officials say they want to project an image of beauty and health, but many people speculate that they are simply “lowering the bar” to appease many overweight consumers.

Like it or not, the models you see in catalogues are there to present a “fantasy”, not a reality. Many women actually prefer the classically svelte look rather then a more healthy version.

Ewww, no.

Yes.

no.

yes.

People don’t want “real” women, they see enough of that in daily life. They want a fantasy world filled with glamor, and that’s what the modeling industry is all about.

~LittleNoName, Gaia forums.

Unfortunately for you, dear, this “fantasy world” you like so much is affecting real women and girls. You want fantasy women? Learn to draw. Don’t put in in a medium that affects every insecure female on the planet.

Think your little fantasy world doesn’t hurt people? Think again.
That article, by the way, is no fantasy.

I think it’s a good thing these underweight models won’t be modeling in Spain. And no, it isn’t because of issues with my own weight. I don’t care if you’re naturally thin, you shouldn’t be allowed to parade your ass around the catwalk telling impressionable young girls that this is what they should look like. I’d say the same thing if morbidly obese was the standard in beauty nowadays. If you’re going to project a standard of beauty for females everywhere, make that beauty standard one the women and girls can live with, thank you.

If these people want a fantasy world where women are killing themselves to please them so much, they can buy a sketchbook, not an industry.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I don’t support forcing women back into the kitchen (or into the workforce), but if you’re going to run around the country preaching the ideal lifestyle that every woman must follow you’d better follow it, too. And that is why anti-feminist women on soapboxes are hypocrites.

Phyllis Schlafly is a perfect example. I’m going to rip on her for a while, just because I can.

She claims that the feminist movement is “teaching women to be victims.” Of what, my dear Phyllis, my own mind? I suppose I should stay under the watchful eye of my husband, for my sake. but of course, he has to stay stupid too, as intellectual men are “liberal slobs.” I suppose these “slobs” would be worse than the hillbillies I saw daily at the trailer park in which my grandmother unfortunately resides.

And of course, because I have the gall to stand up and declare myself a human being, my lifestyle is incompatible with marriage and motherhood. Because apparently being a person would interfere with my ability to be a wife and mother if I wanted to be. I wonder if Schlafly’s long-running campaign(s) interfered with her abilities to be a submissive wife and doting mother.

And of course, the comment that has had blogs going mad for the past few days: That married women cannot be raped by their husbands.

“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,”

Funny, I’ve never heard that in a wedding vow.

I wonder, has he already consented to sex? Can the wife rape him – er, I mean, force him to have sex with her? Ohh, submissive. Nevermind.

She also mentioned something about physical inferiority and the inability to hold certain jobs. Luckily for her, it doesn’t take a lot of physical force to speak and be a hypocrite. I want to see her tell a female in one of these jobs she condemns that she’s too weak for it. Schlafly dear, I hate to tell you, but women can build muscle too. We only start at different strengths because that’s how the past conditioned us. And you just can’t pull that card today. You’re three centuries behind.

Back to the general smashing. In conclusion, ladies, if you feel you MUST run around preaching that women should remain docile, in the kitchen, and submissive, don’t. Not because I disagree with you, but I like my opposition to be of the non-hypocritical variety. Long-running campaigns and bitching at women who don’t fit your mold doesn’t tell me “traditional woman.” It tells me you’re the same as I am. The only difference is that I don’t try to force people to fit my mold.

I feel for the first woman. She made a serious decision and now regrets it. However, I’m going to say in the most non-degrading terms I can that she should have gathered information about the abortion before she went in for one. She never did that and she still doesn’t have the necessary information. A fully formed baby at 10 weeks? Bullshit. That looks nothing like a fully formed baby. There’s a reason pregnancy’s supposed to last for nine months, not 10 weeks.

I don’t feel the same respect for Phil, the guy who pressured his girlfriend into an abortion and is now blubbering over it. I’ll save my pity for he girl who was pressured to make a choice she didn’t want by a guy who supposedly loved her.

I won’t say anything on the other girls because they made a choice and are happy with it.

This whole video gives the vibe of “God wants you to have that baby.” Methinks God should sue for misrepresentation.

Eric Keroack is finally gone!

Anti-birth control advocate Eric Keroack will no longer oversee Title X, the nation’s family planning program! The day he took office, Planned Parenthood launched a massive grassroots campaign against Keroack, rallying a nationwide groundswell of opposition to his appointment.

PPFA President Cecile Richards issued the following statement on the resignation:

“It’s a good day for women’s health. Keroack was unqualified to run the nation’s family planning program. The Bush administration must replace Keroack with a legitimate, mainstream public health expert who supports family planning and access to birth control. More than 17 million women in our country need access to affordable birth control. The nation’s family planning program should be run by a champion for women’s health and safety.”

If you are on the PP mailing list, you should have received the same email. If you aren’t, you can see the press release for yourself here.

Another article here, but this Feministing entry provides more detail. A NOW email I just received also summarizes Keroack’s actions as “Medicaid fraud.”

Though I regret I never did get around to sending that letter. I doubt it would have have even been read anyway.

Sure, they claim it’s a fad, but is it true? Apparently not. USA today reports that more teens are coming out, yes, but the cause is not “it’s a fad,” it’s a growing number of accepting people leading to a more comfortable environment to “come out.”

Gay teenagers are “coming out” earlier than ever, and many feel better about themselves than earlier generations of gays, youth leaders and researchers say. The change is happening in the wake of opinion polls that show growing acceptance of gays, more supportive adults and positive gay role models in popular media.

“In my generation, you definitely didn’t come out in high school. You had to move away from home to be gay,” says Kevin Jennings, 43, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a national group that promotes a positive school climate for gay children. “Now so many are out while they’re still at home. They’re more vocal than we were.”
~USA Today article

How drastic was this change? Looking at these charts, it seems graduate.

The article also mentions changes in our culture, which has become “more pro-gay than ever.” This is only mentioned in passing, and the only examples cited are TV shows.
Now of course, this isn’t to say that GLBTQ individuals of any age experience no problems. If that were the case half this blog, as well as other blogs I have and haven’t seen, wouldn’t exist. Antis still see this as an attack on their families and on society.

“Homosexuality is harmful to society, and young people have no business committing to a sexual identity until they’re adults,” says Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy group.

This quote is for example’s sake. Any response to this quote would be heard far too often take this entry off-topic, so I’ll leave it for now.

For a further explanation, the article cites studies that say GLBTQ individuals have a lower state of mental health. They are also more likely to think about or attempt suicide. Antis call this the makings of a mental disease (something the APA disagrees with, mind you), I call it the effects of problems given to them from the anti camp. You can’t bully someone into depression and call it a mental disorder, folks.

According to the article, there’s also another problem that GLBTQ individuals, especially youth, face: The increased difficulty of finding a long-term relationship. Teens of any orientation often have groups of friends of the same sex. Those who aren’t straight would worry about trying to take a friendship to the next level, the risk of losing out on a great relationship or losing a friend, or perhaps nothing at all.

Oh yes, this is totally the next big thing.

Corey Andrew posted his resume up at careerbuilder.com. Army recruiter Marcia Ramode was interested and emailed him saying so. Andrew politely* declines, saying his sexuality would conflict with the bullshit Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that the military has yet to scrap.

What floods Andrew’s inbox later is something you’d expect to see from an angsty 12 year old, not an army recruiter who’s supposed to be professional.

Email 1
Email 2
All this in addition to the love letter you saw first.

This woman should be fired. An employee from any other company would be fired on the spot for sending such uncalled offensive material on the clock using their business email address. This is also against proper procedure, if that wasn’t obvious already:

Having been through and knowing the regulations concerning the military recruitment process, I know that sending out that sort of tirade to anyone, anywhere from a “.mil” account should get any servicemember fired, especially a recruiter. When you are corresponding within your professional military capacity, you represent your unit, your service and the military as a whole. It wouldn’t matter what the other guy said; a recruiter cannot go off on a tirade like those emails. Period.
–Cpl B. Porter, USMC discharged under DADT 21Oct2006

I always cite my sources, don’t I?

*Regardless of how polite or rude Andrew was, his actions pale in comparison to the actions of Miss Ramode. A full account of the email exchange between the two can be found here. It wouldn’t matter how rude he was to Ramode in the first place (hell, if it was bad enough I would be bitching at him right now), She was the one in a higher position and expected to act professionally.