• entries
    8
  • comments
    8
  • views
    9,785

About this blog

Everyone should be a feminist

Entries in this blog

Ladywriter

Sent this to the anchor woman ...


  • I'm writing to address the comments you made on air while discussing the 15 and 16 year old boys who videotaped their female classmates changing their clothes. You said something along the lines of they're curious and wanted a peek. Please research about what age sexual curiosity begins because it is not 15. Please research at what age boys begin looking at pornography because again, it is not 15. It is important for you to know as a citizen, as a reporter and as a mother. We need to deal in truths so we can deal with the problem in the most effective ways. Maybe you should do a story about teens and porn? It is on parents to let their children know that porn is every bit fantasy as The Hobbit. It is everywhere and children are exposed to it younger and younger. It can have negative consequences on a developing mind to dehumanize and devalue an entire gender. It's how we end up with videos like Stubenville.
    You also speculated that maybe they didn't know they were committing a crime. Maybe they didn't, but I highly doubt it. With all the press about assaults being filmed lately if they didn't know they at least suspected. It's always a bad move to excuse the the perp for one reason or another even more so when it comes it comes to cases like this. When we excuse we are perpetuating rape culture and that is not okay. It is not good for our children.
    You are in such a great position to be a voice for survivors and families. Parents need to look at the complexities of the social world our children are growing up in. They need to know how to handle it. They need information and who better to give that to them then you? Drugged, raped and left in the front yard needs to stop. We need to come together to make that happen.
    Thank you for your time

Ladywriter

I :heart: boobies

Save the tatas

Save second base

Are you fucking kidding me? No, unfortunately the above garbage is making its shitty rounds.

Cancer is, at worst, a fucking death sentence; at best a long, sickening, painful, expensive, time consuming fight to live. People fighting breast cancer may have to have their breasts removed. There goes boobies, tatas and second base so I guess you no longer give a shit because we couldn't save them titties.

The ignorant trinity sends the message that a woman's breasts, a part of her body, is there for the happiness of someone else. It says screw the patient those breasts just made for groping are attached to. Breasts full of cancer are so sexy.

How utterly fucking disgusting.

Take a minute to imagine an external part of your body turning traitor trying to kill you and you end up having to have it surgically removed. That's what breast cancer is.

Ladywriter

Give that woman a gun

I consider myself Progressive in my politics, sometimes my views are liberal views, sometimes they're more conservative. When it comes to guns I lean to the right, seemingly out of character for me as most of my friends and fam would consider me a liberal. Sorry, but neither side has me brainwashed, I think for myself. Gun ownership is a right. Gun collectors, just like action figure collectors, can choose what they want to have in their collection. Background checks are necessary to keep guns from violent felons. A safety course should be part of the purchasing process for all guns including range time. I think 10 round clips is a satisfactory compromise. I can't get down with either side because I'm in the middle where shit actually makes sense.....

Anyway

Today I saw this

A woman raises a knife and shouts slogans against Egyptian Islamist

President Mohamed Mursi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood during a

march against sexual harassment and violence against women in Cairo

February 6, 2013.

The rally come...

549218_601858343172930_477751814_n.jpg

and the first thing that popped into my head was give that woman a gun.

Terrible? Women are more often on the receiving end of gun violence, I know. Our culture ties guns to masculinity. Our culture ties guns to killing animals and people. It's unfortunate because it turns women off to gun ownership. Not every gun owner hunts, they shoot at targets only. Not every gun owner hunts for sport, what they kill feeds their family. Nor is every gun owner a man.

It gets me to wondering what if it were just as likely that the woman next to you in line had a gun as the guy next to her? What if there was a 50% chance the old lady in the park had a gun under her coat? What if it was equally likely she/he was packing heat? Not only that, but what if it were equally likely the woman with the gun would use it to defend herself? What if we lived in a reality where she was just as potentially deadly as he?

I'm not saying the gun is the almighty equalizer, not at all. Any weapon you have can be taken and used against you if the fight goes south on you. I am saying female gun owners should stop being portrayed as sexy oddities or heartless bitches and start being normalized. We need to stop scaring women away from guns with caveman chest thumping and grunting.

Ladywriter

We're not friends

So, I unfriended you on facebook and now your ass hurts. Oh well, too bad so sad. You'll delude yourself(you're very good at it) into believing that you got the kick to the curb because of a conversation about religion, that is just not the case. You got the steel toe because I see what kind of person you are and I am not friends with people like you. You are an ignorant asshole so deep into your cult that you live in a created bubble of delusion and refuse to step outside of it.

Any "friend" of mine has seen that I use fb as a platform for my causes and to raise awareness about the things I care about. Aside from anti theistic memes I post a lot about women, LGBT, children, animals,the environment,politics, advances in science and medicine. A great deal of what I post points out wtf is wrong and what we can do to change it. You choose to ignore EVERYTHING else for months and months and then comment on something that points out that the Bible never mentions abortion.

You showed me that you don't give a shit about anything real, but someone not agreeing with your personal interpretation of the Bible is grounds for speaking up. Fuck rape, child abuse, the Keystone Pipeline, animals being skinned alive for their fur. You care about you and your feeling offended and your desire to feel superior over a fucking internet meme (which was correct).

You presented the same tired ass anti choice argument I've heard a trillion times without even realizing it because of that bubble you live in. You were even surprised atheists use religious texts to point out how stupid the shit is because of that bubble you live in. You ignore where I point out pregnant women are ripped open by command in the OT and that penalties for killing a person and an unborn are different in the OT. You tried to say I said things I did not, another tactic I shot down. You resorted to circular logic to "prove" your point; what you "proved" to me is how ignorant you are about how the real world and that brain in your fucking head works. Bubble you live in maybe? I don't know, I no longer care.

At the end of it all (and probably the reason you engaged to begin with) you interpret the Bible to say that abortion is murder therefore abortion is murder. Puketastick finale, bravo. Not only do you not give a fuck about my causes, you think women I know and love are murderesses. That's a pretty sick opinion you have about women and one I obviously do not agree with. It makes me suspicious that you suddenly decide to comment when your patriarchal biblical interpretation of wtf goes on in a woman's uterus decides if she is a murderer comes into question. News flash! a murder is an act of violence, an abortion is a medical procedure. They are two very fucking different things.

You showed me what kind of person you are.

You were un-friended because I am not friends with people like you.

Ladywriter

Published on Jan 24, 2013

"A New Mexico lawmaker has drawn fire for proposing legislation to classify an abortion after a sexual assault as "tampering with evidence."

Critics pounced on House Bill 206, introduced Wednesday by Republican state Rep. Cathrynn N. Brown, of Carlsbad, saying victims of sexual assault could be charged with a felony if they sought an abortion after rape or incest. But Brown said Thursday that the legislation was aimed at attackers, not victims."*

Republican state Rep. Cathrynn N. Brown of New Mexico introduced a bill that would criminalize abortions following instances of rape on the grounds that it would be tampering with evidence. How does she say this protects women? John Iadarola (TYT University), Desi Doyen (Green News Report), and Lissette Padilla (The Lip TV) discuss

http://youtu.be/cyO33vu5vXE

I hear shit like this and it makes me throw up in my mouth a little

Ladywriter

How Some Men Harass Women Online and What Other Men Can Do to Stop It

Yet, most men care deeply about the women and girls in our lives. It pains us to hear that you stop yourselves from writing online, walking outside or wearing certain clothing because of the harassment and violence our gender heaps upon you. We’d rather it never happened to you, so we often pretend it doesn’t. We move from denial to anger at you for bringing it up, then from anger to bargaining–we question the statistics you cite, or distract with anecdotes of women who abuse men. We sometimes go through the whole Kubler-Ross cycle of death and dying before we’re ready to move to “acceptance.”

But some men do not seem to care about anyone but themselves. These men seem to take glee in making anonymous online threats, sometimes as part of a political movement that refuses to acknowledge men’s violence against women as an epidemic. Instead, they see men as the real victims–of feminism. Their self-appointed victim status gives them the right to call women names, threaten and intimidate at will.

For me as a man, the “acceptance” stage involves really listening to what women’s lives are actually like. It means getting sick to my stomach when I hear my friend Cristy Cardinal has been threatened, or admitting that I benefit from male privilege even if I don’t harass women online myself. It means that when I laughed at Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin stupid or a bitch, I made writing and life that much harder for Soraya Chemaly.

The “acceptance” stage also means I’m ready to do something positive. It’s not enough for me to simply not harass women myself–if I don’t raise my voice when I see this, I’m letting the Limbaughs be the lone voices of my gender. So I’m proud to be part of a growing movement of men who are listening to women, learning from women, becoming active bystanders and “aspiring allies.”

interesting comments on the article too

I've hit backspace or just not bothered to post in a conversation many times myself because of annoying losers

Ladywriter

Abortion: I'm a civilian, not a ship's captain

No matter how trifling the inconvenience of having your blood taken, no government has yet dared to declare that all citizens should be forced to donate their blood for the common good. And if one did, it would set off a massive debate about how far the state and medical profession has a right to intrude upon the bodily integrity of its citizens, even in a good cause. So far, all but the most repressive of states have always come down on the side of allowing individual citizens bodily integrity even at the cost of the lives of the vulnerable.

The idea that human beings should be forced to put the health and welfare of another human being before their own, is absolutely counter to any idea of individual liberty. The only instances that I can think of where human beings are supposed to prioritise other people's safety and welfare before their own and can be subject to criminal charges if they don't, are the captains of ships and the pilots of aeroplanes.**

And of course women who are pregnant with potential human beings they don't want to carry in their bodies and give birth to.

Forget all the arguments about when life begins. They're all irrelevant. It doesn't matter if life begins at birth or at 12 weeks or at quickening, as the Catholic church used to say before women frightened the Vatican horses by getting a few voting and property rights. It doesn't matter if the baby can survive outside the mother's body at 28 weeks, 24 weeks or 2 weeks. I don't care about whether you think what's in the womb is a clump of cells, a zygote, an embryo, a foetus or a baby. It is utterly irrelevant. The main issue, is not whether that's a real human being in there: it may well be, I don't bother to argue against that. My argument is that if you believe in women's essential humanity and if you believe that we have have the same rights to bodily integrity as men, then you have got to believe that we have the right to put our lives and long term welfare first, even before those of a cute little baby, if those are the terms you want to argue on.

If you don't believe in safe, legal abortion, then in effect you believe that women have a responsibility that no man ever has, unless he signs up for it, to put someone else's right to life, before her own. What clearer signal can there be, that you simply don't believe that a woman's life, is worth as much as that of a man?

The difference between captains of ships and pilots of planes and ordinary civilian women, is that the men with the uniforms get paid fortunes and have mountains of kudos and social status as part of the deal of being responsible for the lives they carry in their vessels AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN IT. Not even firefighters, police officers or soldiers in armed combat are expected to actually risk or give their own lives and safety for their comrades, though some do. And when they do, men give them medals for doing it (no-one gives a woman a medal for putting her long term health on the line by going through a pregnancy and birth she chooses, much less one she didn't choose). But no-one ever says to men in a combat or emergency situation, that they are not actually allowed to put their own lives, welfare and long-term health first and it will be a criminal offence for them to do so, because the law says that another human being has first dibbs on any safety, health and welfare available.

But that is exactly what anti-abortionists are saying to women.

this sums it up nicely