Category Archives: Politics

Undead Sexist Cliches: women hate sex

As I wrote Monday, for many people sexual relations work like retail shopping: women run the store and sell sex to men, in return for money, gifts or marriage.

Of course when women give sex to men, they get sex in return but that’s not a fair exchange, it’s “giving it away.” Underpinning this is the assumption, sometimes implicit but often explicit, that women control the market because men are much hornier: “The one who is more eager to make the deal is in a weaker position than the one who is willing to walk away.”

If that were true, society wouldn’t have to slut-shame women, restrict access to birth control or employ female genital mutilation to stop them from having sex. There’s be no problem keeping women virgin until marriage. Nevertheless, many people remain convinced women only put up with sex to land a boyfriend or a husband: they can’t stand the act but they lie on their back and, as the phrase goes, think of England.

A Twitter user named Scott Gurstein, for instance, claimed a few years back that women tolerate sex “under limited circumstances and during limited time frames. That’s nature’s design.” A writer named Brad Anderson similarly says he’s “yet to meet a hetero woman who enthusiastically participates in sex.” Why yes, the jokes do write themselves. Not so funny is the argument by religious complementarian Douglas Wilson that sex is something men do to women, not with women, and it can never  “be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.” In Wilson’s worldview men conquer, women submit.

These views aren’t as far outside the mainstream as they should be. It’s a staple of relationship-advice articles that a woman would never go to bed with a man unless they were in love or thought they were headed that way. TV writer Tracy McMillan said in 2011 (I’m not linking but you can find her Why You’re Not Married article easily enough) that marriage “involves [men] sacrificing their most treasured possession — a free-agent penis” so the sacrifices women make — cooking his meals, picking up after him, doing the laundry — are trivial by comparison. Women, of course, give up their free-agent vagina, but McMillan doesn’t see that as an equal sacrifice.

One point I make repeatedly in Undead Sexist Clichesx is that proclaiming universal rules for what women (or men, etc.) want is an exercise in futility. Sex is no different.

Some women like it a lot, some not at all or not very much. Some like it in particular ways, particular positions or with particular partners. Some women see sex and love as inseparable, some separate them quite well. Women can be polyamorous, monogamous or asex. They have exclusive relationships, open marriages and relationships that are mostly monogamous with a little straying now and again. They can be sex-positive or reject sex-positive feminism (more rejection here). None of it is because women are fundamentally and universally wiredd that way; the path depends on the individual.

Some women do have low or no sex drive, but so do some men. Some women aren’t into sex because of rape or incest trauma in their past. Many women have a healthy sex drive but can’t achieve orgasm from vaginal penetration. Some women don’t enjoy sex because they’ve been taught their pleasure is unimportant. Bad sex for men, as writer Lili Loofbourow says, means unsatisfying sex; for women it means feeling like crap either emotionally or physically: “One side will endure a great deal of discomfort and pain for the other’s pleasure and delight. And we’ve all agreed to act like that’s normal, and just how the world works.”

Or consider the argument that wives are obligated to put out when their husband wants sex. As D.C. McAlister puts it, (not a direct link) even if she doesn’t want it she should go ahead instead of refusing, which is selfish and unloving. Just lie there and think of England. Religious conservative Lori Alexander says women must put their husband’s desires ahead of their own; writer Caitlin Flanagan says 1950s marriages were happier because women did indeed make love regardless of their own wants and needs. I don’t doubt the men were happy, but the women?

It’s small wonder some women aren’t into sex if their experience consists of lying there and enduring it when they don’t really want it. She learns sex is a chore, the man never learns she’s not happy, nothing ever changes or improves.

It’s the most dismal view of consensual sex I’ve ever heard.

I go into these cliches in more detail in Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers. Cover by Kemp Ward, all rights remain with current holder.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Undead Sexist Cliches: Sex is just a form of retail shopping

This is one of those cliches I was sure I’d blogged about before, but apparently not. It’s a significant one, as witness I devote a chapter to it in Undead Sexist Cliches. It’s the belief that sex is like retail shopping in stores run by women but patronized by men.

As Echidne of the Snakes detailed some years ago, some social scientists approach sex as a form of economic theory, but it’s quite common in unscientific, pop culture views of sex. Women control the store and maintain a monopoly on the sex supply, at least regarding straight men: they have it, men want it, and the only way men can obtain it is by paying the store’s price.

This can be actual cash (for prostitutes), expensive gifts, love, or the ultimate purchase price — marriage. Less scrupulous men use lies (“You know I love you, right?”), manipulation or coercion to get sex from the store without paying.

In the real world, consensual sex is a two-way street: women who give sex get sex in return. In the sex-as-retail interpretation, this isn’t an acceptable transaction: the woman is “giving it away”, a tragic mistake that devalues her sex supply and makes her “cheap,” so no man will ever pay full price again. The guy, on the other hand, gets cool points because he obtained bargain sex, like getting Netflix of Disney + using someone else’s password.

By this logic (I use the term loosely) it’s always a mistake for a woman to put out before she has a ring on their finger. As the old saying goes, if she gives away the milk the man will never buy the cow and she’ll die alone; if she keeps her chastity belt on, the man will bid higher and higher until he finally pops the price. Though of course, other women might undercut her price, but that justifies slut-shaming — make sure nobody breaks with the sex cartel and sells cheap and everyone will benefit (except the women who get slut-shamed, but nobody making this kind of argument cares about them).

As Echidne points out, this is grade-A bullshit. A sexual marketplace like Baumeister imagines would require women have control of their sex lives, with the right to choose husbands or lovers. For most of recorded history women haven’t had that freedom. Decisions about their body traditionally belonged to a woman’s parents, her husband or her pimp. Custom and law added further restrictions on women’s freedom to have the sex life (or lack of one) they prefer.

Women would also need the freedom to refuse men they weren’t interested in, but that hasn’t always been an option either. Women in arranged matches end up the sexual property of the man their parents pick for them. Rape and coercion also restrict women’s right to refuse men. So does women’s supposed obligation to provide men with “service sex” or “duty sex.” Echidne compares women to Ming vases: yes, they command a high value in the marketplace but they have no agency in who owns, buys or sells them. And if the owner decides to smash one for kicks well, that’s his call.

The concept of the sexual marketplace tangles in with multiple other cliches. That no woman can be happy if she’s not married. That men are heartless jerks incapable of marrying for love. That women don’t have to compete for men — they can just wait passively and pick whichever man makes the best bid. And that under certain circumstances, women have no right to refuse sex. Certainly not if they’re married: if a man’s paid that much, he’s entitled to your body, 24/7 (as Phyllis Schlafly put it). Even if they’re not married, the same principle applies: if he shelled out a C-note for dinner, isn’t he entitled to something more than a peck on the cheek? According to Warren Farrell, if the woman lets the guy take her out when she has no intention of sleeping with him, that’s date fraud, and just as awful as date rape.

The reality? No man (or woman, or nonbinary) ever has a right to sex with someone else. Not to their spouse, their partner, their date, nor anyone else. Even if the woman got naked and French kissed him for an hour. Even if he has a hard-on. And sex is not a matter of economics.

I’ll return to this topic in a week or two. Until then you can read more about the sexual marketplace in Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers. Cover by Kemp Ward, all rights remain with current holder.


Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Matt Walsh’s vision: compulsory arranged marriages, no divorce

Matt Walsh is one of those right-wingers who thinks rape trauma is really shame because the woman doesn’t want to admit she’s become a slut. Siding with rapists is a good way to ensure women can’t refuse sex, even if the right-wing outlaws birth control along with abortion.

Apparently that’s not good enough for Mr. Walsh. Along with crushing the right not to get pregnant, he’s not fond of the right not to get married or even to choose your spouse: arranged marriage, that’s the way to go! “We would be happier — every person in the dating scene right now would be happier if they were just matched up with someone against their will.” He also advocates for the end of no-fault divorce, making it a lot harder for those matched-up c0uples to end the relationship. As noted at the link, it’s a common right-wing position; LGM points out just how hard divorce was before no-fault, even if your marriage was a train wreck.

This is the dream of many right-wingers who think wives are male property. As long as a wife has the power to walk out, their authority depends, to some extent, on her voluntarily accepting it. If she doesn’t accept it, she’s free to leave. Some men can’t stomach that — even if the spouse is abusing her, she shouldn’t be able to escape her lord and master.

Of course, arranged marriages and no-divorce bind the man as well as the woman (I guarantee you, Walsh is not looking for arranged gay marriages to become a thing). Given that misogyny is the root of their faith I take it as a given right-wingers are more concerned with binding the woman than the man. It’s the same way, as Christian feminist Samantha Field puts it, that chastity in purity culture is an obligation on both genders, but men aren’t going to be slut-shamed if they don’t bring their pure virginity as a gift to their bride on the wedding night. Boys gotta be boys, amiright?

To put it another way, even though adultery is a sin in Christianity, I doubt they’re going to object if the husband gets his sexual pleasure outside the marital bed, just as they’re fine treating adulterous womanizers Trump and Newt Gingrich as respected Christian leaders. That may be why, as EJ Dionne says, they’re outraged over gay marriage but not adultery, unless it’s by some liberal.

Being able to get ahead in this world without marrying is one of the things that distinguishes the era of modern feminism from the 1950s. Forcing women into marriage puts men back in the driver’s seat. Patriarchal blogger Lori Alexander, for example, recommends women go straight from their parents’ home to their husband’s. And the younger, the better. Even if that means marrying her rapist.

After all, if women can successfully stay single, the future of The Handmaid’s Tale will remain just a dystopian fantasy, instead of a reality.

I get into this bullshit more in Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

No, bigotry is not a survival mechanism

Right-winger Candace Owens claims it is: “obviously discrimination is built into us for a reason. It’s a survival mechanism, right? We want to survive.” So if you’re a man in a dress, it’s naturally to want you “a hundred feet away from a playground and all of the feet away from my children and me.” That’s not bigotry, it’s a survival mechanism.

What is the term for this — oh yes, bullshit. While it’s true that getting a sense of danger about someone can be our gut warning us about something, when it’s applied to an entire group — drag queens, black men — it’s just as likely to be bigotry not based on anything. Or in Owens’ case, that she’s selling her services as a talking head to a market that wants to be told lies about how gays are groomers.

It’s no different from arguments that if white people find black men scary, that proves racial profiling is justified. After Pearl Harbor, lots of people believed Japanese-Americans were a terrifying threat, which supposedly justified  the US locking up innocent people for the duration of the war. After 9/11 there were pious assurances that “yes, I want Muslims treated like potential threats but if white people like me/my ethnic group had done it, treating us with suspicion would be justified too.”

Easy to say when white people will never be treated like that. If the Georgia KKK had blown up an airliner, the government would be looking for KKK affiliated Americans rather than, say, locking up all Southerners. It’s easy to endorse discrimination when you know you won’t suffer from it.

If bigots thought they might be on the receiving end, they’d freak out. But if it’s logical to treat all drag queens as groomer or all black men as thugs — it isn’t — it would be just as logical to treat all men as potential rapists or harassers. Or take DNA samples from every man seen near a sexual assault, just to see if the DNA matches the rape kits. I guarantee you, pundits such as Walter Williams and Richard Cohen (pro-racial profiling, as noted at the link) would scream with outrage at the idea.

The right-wing would be equally outraged if people demanded all Catholic priests stay away from kids despite the church’s long history of molestation and molestation cover-ups.  Ditto Protestant priests. And since that blog post back in June, the Protestant groomers just keep turning up.

It says a lot about what the right-wing Republican base wants that relatively high-profile figures like Owens are willing to hold up discrimination as a good thing. It says a lot about her, too, and not that her fear of gay men is about survival.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Mark Halperin: Sexual harassers suffer worse than convicted murderers!

Mother Jones reminds us that “Fourteen women alleged that Halperin had groped them or made unwanted sexual advances during and after his tenure as the political director of ABC News from 1997 to 2007. (Halperin has made vague apologies but disputed several of the allegations, such as slamming a woman into a wall, masturbating in front of another, and pressing an erection through his clothes onto three others.)”

Halperin’s defense when he attempted a comeback in 2019: “I wasn’t a perfect person when I made these mistakes. I’m not a perfect person now. I’m happy to be judged by perfect people.” Mr. Halperin, I freely admit none of us are perfect, but most of us are not sexual harassers. You need a better excuse than not being perfect. Just as “he was a teenager!” does not excuse Brett Kavanaugh’s history of sexual assault.

And like people who scream “we are all sinners” when they or someone they care about is caught doing something wrong, I doubt Halperin thinks that as he’s not perfect, he shouldn’t judge other people.

Now his latest take, quoted in MoJo is that “murderers in our society who get out of prison are afforded an opportunity to go on with some aspect of their life. The challenge to a lot of people who are canceled is there’s no mechanism for that, regardless of what they’ve done, regardless of whether they’ve tried to make amends.”

In point of fact, getting out of prison with a felony on your rap sheet can screw up the rest of your life; it can be damn hard to go on with your life if you’re an ex-con.  Halperin hasn’t paid any penalty beyond losing his job; not that this isn’t painful (I’ve lost much crappier jobs than his old gig and it still stung) but getting fired for assaulting women and not immediately landing another gig is not cancellation.

Plus he did land another gig, working at the No Labels organization for well above $200,000. That would suggest he’s not canceled at all — or that what he calls cancellation is “people won’t completely forget that I’m a sexual harasser.”

I agree with Halperin there does have to be a path to redemption. But how exactly is he walking such a path? How has he tried to make amends? Losing his job is not making amends. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has suggested a three-part test in cases like this: was what the person did wrong by the standards of the time? Have they apologized? Have their views changed? The answers in Halperin’s  case is that yes, what he did was obviously wrong; no, he hasn’t given a real apology; and there’s no evidence his views have changed. So he’s not off the hook, even though like so many other shitty men, he’s not paying a price.

I discuss more bullshit harassment defenses in Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers. Cover by Kemp Ward, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Hate is now their brand

As you’ve doubtless heard by now, Ye, AKA Kanye West, has declared his love for Nazis and thinks we should get over that whole WW II/Final Solution thing. Enough already! He and white supremacist Nick Fuentes recently had dinner with Donald Trump.

This is not at all shocking. It’s been obvious since Charlotteville that Trump’s fine with anti-Semites and Nazis as long as they kiss his ass. But it’s telling nobody in his party wants to object either. Rising anti-Semitism, increasing risk of violence against Jews? Still not going to take a stance that might alienate neo-Nazi Republicans or Jew-hating Republicans, any more than they’ll take a stance against anti-gay violence (see here too). Not even when the Jew-hating gets to synagogue of Satan levels.

Plus, of course, some of the Republican leaders hate Jews and gays themselves. And they don’t want to defy Trump.

Which means more violence and threats of violence. The white supremacists become more part of the mainstream, just another viewpoint. They say Jews deserve to die, Jews disagree, can’t we be civil about it?

As for the courts, the Supreme Court looks poised to strike its umpteenth blow against nondiscrimination … based on bullshit. And Tucker Carlson embraces bullshit with the great replacement theory yet again.

And that’s the 21st century Republican Party: those who are filled with hate and those who will happily cater to hatemongers. And they’re also down with petty spitefulness: if Ted Cruz were a Democrat, I’m sure they’d treat his daughter’s apparent suicide attempt with the same mockery they gave the assault on Paul Pelosi. After all, Rush Limbaugh once called Chelsea Clinton, at 12 years old, a dog. Cruz asking people not to mock or tear into his daughter or his family is legit in this situation, even if he’d never do the same.

They’re also the party whose leader demanded we terminate the constitution because he lost in 2020. And once again, Republicans aren’t condemning his remarks. It’s odd for someone who’s not in power to demand we end constitutional rule because let’s face it, he doesn’t want Biden to be the one who proclaims martial law. He knows that flawed as Democrats are — we’re human, we’re flawed — our side is still committed to the rule of law. And as discussed in the comments here on Raphael Warnock’s win, our national candidates aren’t as crappy, either.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The most merciful thing

In the introduction to Undead Sexist Cliches I discuss some of the reasons people push back against gender equality. Along with misogyny and patriarchy, I think for many people it’s simply easier not to think about how shitty things are for many women.

As HP Lovecraft said in the opening of Call of Cthulhu, “The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.” His narrator correlates too much and comes to grasp the terrible truth about the existence of the Old Ones and how small and puny our world and our race are. I think something similar takes place when confronting the reality of sexism and misogyny too.

I’m not naive about how bad misogyny gets, but I was still shell-shocked when #metoo hit big and so fricking many of my female friends responded to “Have you been sexually harassed?” with “me too.” It’s hard to grasp how many women (and a few men) have to deal with that, and how little some people care.

Or the number of women who are raped and don’t even try to report it for fear they’ll be slut-shamed, told it’s buyer’s remorse or even arrested for lying.

Plus routine, petty sexism, like a professional woman being told it’s her job to make lunch for the team or to clean the restrooms. Or being denied promotions, or watching the system protect sexist asshats.

When it sinks in, it’s both infuriating and terrifying to contemplate, particularly as it’s been going on so long, and will undoubtedly continue into the future. The pushback against the progress women have made is constant and ongoing. The attitude some men have that women are primarily either a source of sex or a source of sexual frustration won’t go away any time soon.

I think for some people, that makes it easier to believe it’s all overblown. It can’t be that bad, right? Teenage girls don’t routinely get cat-called  by older men, surely not. The truth is always in the middle, so obviously there’s a middle ground between the misogynists who defend sexual harassers and rapists and the feminists who say any level of sexual harassment and rape is unacceptable. The middle ground being, maybe, that rape is bad but not always. And maybe women are just unreasonable about guys flirting with them at work. Can’t we compromise?

Compromise is appealing because, as Martin Luther King said (and as I’ve quoted multiple times) lots of otherwise decent people hate tension. Challenging the system, pushing for reform, that creates tension and conflict; can’t the oppressed go a little slower, demand a little less, settle for half a loaf or no loaf until society is ready?

Hell, no. As Frederick Douglass said, power never concedes anything without a demand. As Dr. King said, what the people who hate tension imagine is peace is oppression, but with the victims staying quiet so nobody gets riled up, nobody has to hear about it on the news, nobody has to think about how bad it is or how fricking angry women (obviously this applies to any other minority group) are.

Like it or not, we have to correlate. And then we have to act.

#SFWApro. Cover by Kemp Ward. You can find my book as an Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Money makes the world go round. This is not necessarily a good thing

Hospice is now dominated by for-profit corporations. Unsurprisingly some of what they do to generate increasing amounts of profit is unscrupulous, illegal and harmful to patients.

Companies that buy up cheap housing make it harder for people to afford housing.

“As crypto’s self-appointed ambassador to Washington, Bankman-Fried was pressing for federal regulation even as he dodged U.S. oversight from his corporate headquarters in the Bahamas.” — a look at the now toppling crypto-kingdom of Sam Bankman-Fried. Who insists that when his FTX gambled with depositors’ money he didn’t realize that’s what he was doing. Reuters reports the company also bought Bankman-Fried a vacation home. LGM weighs in.

“Time and time again, Americans fall prey to the myth of the billionaire genius, the man (because it is almost always a man) who is better than us mere mortals, able to solve any business or political or philanthropic problem that comes his way — till, suddenly, he is not.” — Helaine Olen. See also Elon Musk running Twitter into the ground and (though she’s not a man) Elizabeth Holmes.

While this Forbes article on Trump’s secret debts to a Korean company is good, but I don’t buy the assertion that most people of Trump’s wealth could be corrupted by a mere $20 million debt. Trump has, after all, allegedly cheated contractors of much less money. I’ve seen this argument before — billionaires have too much money to be tempted — but the billionaire mind doesn’t seem to see it that way.

Alex Jones loves money and he has a lot of it. He’s doing his best to make sure the Sandy Hook parents who won their lawsuit against him don’t get any.

“A nudge is ultimately a highly conservative approach to the question of how a society should think about the public good.”

“The shooter who terrorized a Colorado movie theater in 2012 charged more than $9,000 worth of guns, ammunition and tactical gear in the two months leading up to his attack that killed 12 and injured 70. The man who shot up the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 people, put more than $26,000 on credit cards.” Nevertheless, crediit-card companies refused a proposal to create a unique code for firearm sellers which would help flag suspicious purchases.

Amazon’s policy of letting readers buy an ebook, then return it after a week, means some authors end up with negative royalty balances.


Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Politics

Not unsafe enough

“This is not the sort of life Rebecca Grossman was supposed to be living. The 58-year-old former flight attendant turned socialite was meant to be spending her middle years enjoying the bounties of upper-class privilege [but instead] the  Hidden Hills socialite became a pariah after her speeding Mercedes struck and killed two school-aged kids.” And your objection would be?

According to the LA Magazine profile at the link, just that, in Grossman’s husband’s words, “she is in an emotional prison that she may never be able to get out of.”  As LGM says, the article reads like a cancel-culture — how can people turn their back on her just because she zigzagged eighty miles through a residential neighborhood street? Sure, she’s out on $2 million bail but life is so hard! It’s hard to imagine someone who’s black and poor in the same vote getting such a sympathetic portrait, even if they were stuck in jail because they couldn’t raise bail.

The resistance to punishing rich, prominent people runs deep. It’s equivalent to himpathy for male misogynists: men are more important than women so they get cut slack. The more important they are, the more slack: writer Heather MacDonald has argued Placido Domingo’s history of harassment doesn’t matter because he’s a great opera star — how can we derail his career because he felt up a few nonentities?

Or consider that New York Magazine profile from earlier this year: a popular, good-looking boy showed off naked photos of his girlfriend and his classmates stopped speaking to him (good for them!). The article takes a sympathetic view of the poor guy — just because he did something shitty to his girlfriend, he’s now an outcast, waaah! As LGM pointed out at the time, if teenage cancel culture is an issue, lots of teens get canceled for considerably less valid reasons; some kids spend their whole high school lives as outcasts. But nobody’s going to profile them — it’s the guys who are popular and goodlooking and cool enough to supposedly deserve being in the in-crowd whose cancellation raises eyebrows.

We’ve seen the same thing regarding the Trump administration. The Washington Post profiles Trump’s surgeon general who’s not having the usual smooth transition from White House position to lucrative private or academic gigs: “he would receive polite rejections from university officials who worried that someone who served in the administration of the former president would be badly received by their left-leaning student bodies. They felt it when corporations decided he was too tainted to employ.”

As Roy Edroso says, nobody’s entitled to a good-paying post-government position, and there’s no reason working for a corrupt, incompetent, fascist and parroting his talking points shouldn’t cost you: “Eichmann, Mengele – you know they’re bitching in hell that no one gave them this kind of treatment.”

Donald Trump once bragged that if he shot someone in public, he’d get away with it. I’m not sure he’s the only one. Rather than making “wickedness unsafe in any station” we’re making it perfectly safe, as long as the station can be described as white, male, and/or rich.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Links about women and the damage done to them

“If the vulva as a whole is an underappreciated city, the clitoris is a local roadside bar: little known, seldom considered, probably best avoided. “It’s completely ignored by pretty much everyone,” said Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual health specialist outside Washington, D.C. “There is no medical community that has taken ownership in the research, in the management, in the diagnosis of vulva-related conditions.” — NYT article on the lack of medical interest in the clitoris.

“At an amateur contest in 2009, she placed fourth and was surprised that it was taking so long for her to earn her pro card. When she asked why, she said, a prominent judge told her: ‘Because you didn’t come to my room last night.'” — female bodybuilders speaking out about harassment in their sport.

“And considerable gaps in death exist based on geography, too, with women who live in rural communities about 60 percent more likely to die from pregnancy complications than their urban counterparts.” — from a WaPo piece about how Dobbs is making the availability of rural ob/gyn care worse.

“An Indiana doctor who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim has asked a judge to stop the Indiana attorney general from accessing patient medical records as part of an investigation into consumer complaints her lawyers have called a “sham.”

Kentucky voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have eliminated any right to abortion found in the state constitution. The state’s forced-birther AG insists there’s still no such right. Over in Tennessee, the law doesn’t offer a life of the mother exemption — doctors can cite it as a defense though — and forced birthers like it that way: “The burden of proof, the onus, is on the doctor to prove that he or she was in the right.”

“All of this comes as right-wing commentators scrabble through the detritus of last week’s elections, and have concluded that the real problem was … cat-owning single women.” Because the days when that might encourage Republicans to modify their polices are dead and gone — it has to be the women’s fault for defying them!

Even by the standards of crackpot anti-PP conspiracy theories “Planned Parenthood gives out contraception so they can make that money back with the higher number of abortions that ensue” is some seriously deranged stuff. And no point does this thread begin to approach a more coherent or empirically grounded thought.” — LGM on National Review‘s latest right-wing bullshit recruit, Alexandra DeSanctis Marr. And no, they’re not distorting her positions.

“Policies that center women do not exist in this world. They are inconceivable in the sense that minds in this world cannot contain or consider them. It’s an inability to imagine that women contribute particular ways of looking at policy, due to their history and circumstances. Women are allowed to be in the conversation but not of it.”

”I don’t think you’re having children any time soon,” — Marjorie Taylor Greene on why older women’s pro-choice views don’t matter. In contrast to all the men writing these laws who are going to pop out a baby, I take it?

“The FDA’s approval of chemical abortion drugs has always stood on shaky legal and moral ground, and after years of evading responsibility, it’s time for the government to do what it’s legally required to do: protect the health and safety of vulnerable girls and women,” — the rationale forced-birth groups are offering for suing in a right-wing district court to ban the morning after pill. Never mind that abortion is safer than giving birth.

I discuss more misogynistic bullshit in Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers. Cover by Kemp Ward, all rights remain with current holder.


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches