Via the loveliness that is Twitter, I came across this article, entitled "The Truth About Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin". And I think my head exploded. I'm by no means a political genius, and I'm still rather new when it comes to the language of feminism, bias, etc. One of the women at SP could probably write a killer article about this, but I'm just going to stick my oar in anyway.

The author starts out with a valid premise: why is the appearance of a woman so important? Why are so many comments made about Palin's "slutty flight attendant" outfit (or Michelle Obama daring to wear shorts in summer while on vacation in the freaking desert)? It's a serious issue, but this women just goes about it all wrong from the second paragraph:

"We’ve all heard the phrase glass ceiling, but I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t exist. The proverbial glass ceiling is nothing but a myth. It is an excuse for the behaviors that women exhibit that set our entire sex up for failure. We, and we alone, are responsible for this notion that a beautiful woman cannot be politically successful and effective."

Really? Men are completely innocent in this, huh? Nothing's holding women back but the rest of us catty, catty bitches? I'll remember that the next time a man thinks I'm incompetent and boy, will I be glad you were "here to tell me" the glass ceiling doesn't exist.

"If we want to be taken seriously, we feel that we must emasculate ourselves."

(You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.)

Next, we're treated to a recap of the Katie-Couric-cut-her-hair crap, which I personally had enough of when it was happening. But where I really decided this woman is off her rocker was when she compared women to crabs. Yes, crabs:

"The truth is that women, as a sex, are akin to crabs. You can catch one crab, place it in a bucket, and soon it will claw its way out to freedom. But if you catch two crabs and place them in the bucket together, you are golden. Crabs, like women, do not allow one another to advance in life."

What was that? I was busy grabbing another woman's skirt with my pincers--can't let the bitch get ahead, you know. Oh, now we're talking about women's hair again? Okay. Let's hear about how Hilary Clinton was "allowed to champion the feminist cause because she had short hair." Not, you know, because she's a smart, headstrong, accomplished woman. And being married to a president had nothing to do with her success, because it's not a man's world and men aren't holding us catty, catty bitches back.

The author goes on to reiterate that women are the ones who "allow" this to be a man's world, and that attacking other women over matters of appearance is counter-productive. The second is certainly true. I was almost starting to think maybe this article had some redeeming features, when suddenly I was bitch-slapped back to reality:

"Let’s not lie any longer to ourselves. We do not empower one another by aborting our children, or fighting for the rights of others to do so. Most of us don’t know anything about Planned Parenthood other than what we’ve been told to think. Someone tells us they are empowering women, so we think that they must be."

You know, you are so right! I've never once had a single thought in my jealous, shallow little brain about this. I've never gone to Planned Parenthood for birth control; I've never had to pass anti-abortion picketers to get there. I've never wondered what I'd do if I got pregnant, and pondered what that situation would mean. I've never thought about it and been glad I wouldn't be helpless if I ended up pregnant. All I know is that they're! empowering!! women!1!! (/end non-sequitor) What were we talking about?

This whole article just blows me away. In defending the idea that an attractive woman can be successful and intelligent, Nichols ends up reverse-shaming women who chose to appear less "feminine". She blames women for the state of the world--while stating that women blaming women is why the world is as it is. And she then wraps up her entire argument by telling us to remember that Ronald Regan looked like a doofus.

I think we're done here.

Via Fatfu I read this article tonight, detailing someone's struggle with medical bills and health insurance after she was diagnosed with leukemia .... and had insurance. This is why there's a need for healthcare reform.

Peace out, W. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. :)

Arizona, Florida, California, and Alabama: I'm looking at you. Get over your problem with teh gayz already! I'm most shocked about California, I thought there was no way Prop 8 would get passed.

On a happier note, South Dakota's abortion ban failed, as did Colorado's asinine amendment to declare a fertilized egg a person (70 to 30%, bitches!).


In decidedly non-national news, I'm still slightly sick. Definitely better, though. If I'd been scheduled to work today I could've made it through my shift. Which is good since I actually am scheduled tomorrow. Hopefully by tomorrow I'll sound better too, right now my voice sounds like a gravel pit.

I actually feel hungry for the first time in about a week, too. When I get sick, I stop being hungry, although I generally force myself to eat because I know I need the energy to get better. And I'm seriously craving a big, juicy burger. It's 12:15 at night, and I'm about to put on jeans and go to Wendy's. I guess I need protein? :)

When I first heard about Barack Obama, I honestly didn't think about him much for one simple reason: I didn't think there was a hope in hell of a black man, with a "foreign-sounding" name, even getting the nomination. When he did, I thought that meant McCain was a lock for all the same reasons. Despite all the talk about us being "free" and "equal", blah blah blah, I was sure there were way too many "good old boys", closet racists, and idiots who'd believe Obama was a terrorist, for him to win. I was wrong, and I am just so goddamn proud of my country!

Sitting in a Red Robin with my cousin and my best friend when, hours earlier than we expected, we saw "OBAMA ELECTED" on the restaurant's televisions. We thought it couldn't be certain yet, and we rushed across the restaurant to read the closed-captioning on the television. A few minutes later, we walked back to our table bumping fists and giggling with glee, and I've been grinning ear-to-ear since.

This means that the majority of people in my country were able to be blind to skin color.
They were able to accept that having a "Muslim" name didn't mean someone was a terrorist.
They were able to think critically and not just buy the GOP's accusations about terrorism, demolishing the coal industry, etc. etc.
This means the majority of my country didn't fall of the "aww shucks" schtick of Sarah Palin.
This means that the majority of people in my country chose the new, chose someone genuinely different, chose not to elect a familiar face out of fear.

I haven't felt this patriotic since I was five years old.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that Powell is endorsing Obama because of racial issues; I think assuming that is racist in and of itself. But more to the point, in this interview on msnbc.com he cites problems with the Republic Party in general, as well as giving a glowing recommendation of Obama. I think it's awesome--it's definitely time for someone to speak up on a national stage about how nasty the Republicans' campaigning has been.



When I first learned that Obama was the Democratic candidate, I thought that meant McCain was a lock. Actually, I thought that when the Dem candidates were down to Clinton and McCain. I figured there were just too many "good old boys" like my grandfather who would never vote for a woman or a black man. Or a Democrat, in the instance of my grandfather, actually. Now however, it looks like Obama's chances are pretty good. This makes me happy.

Essentially, a bill in OK would require a woman to have an ultrasound an hour before having an abortion--and specifies the screen has to be facing her. Also, it prevents a woman from suing a doctor who withholds information about developmental issues--Down syndrome, etc.--that might reinforce her decision. Here's a quick clip about it:

When a friend first mentioned that Palin supports aerial hunting, it didn't incense me all that much. It's idiotic, and unsporting, and just a ridiculous concept in general. Tonight, however, I read that it's not hunting of game animals for food. Nope. It's wolves.

As governor of Alaska, Palin wanted to offer a $150 bounty per wolf killed from planes. Are you fucking kidding me? Has nobody told this ignorant bitch that wolves are an endangered species? Actually, they were apparently taken off the list six months ago--but at the time Palin was supporting the slaughter of them, they were still endangered. Her reasoning is that wolves were killing the moose that hunters should be able to kill. Excuse me? Go to the grocery store and buy a fucking beef steak! Or shoot a deer instead!

I suppose this shouldn't surprise me. She wants to destroy the Arctic Wildlife Preserve in the name of oil, too. Obviously, she has zero respect for nature, and doesn't give a damn about the balance of the ecology. If them hunters want them a moose, we'd better slaughter all those innocent, beautiful natural predators. It's not enough that humans already have the advantages they do--motorized vehicles, high-powered weapons, the larger brain that allows humans to think of ways to more efficiently lure and slaughter wildlife. Nope, humans need to have near unchallenged access to those moose.

This really, really upsets me. Of course, I've had a soft spot for wolves since I was young. I don't remember how it started; I just remember being very excited when I learned wolves were being reintroduced to the west. I think they're beautiful, amazing creatures, and the idea of them being slaughtered--by plane or otherwise--just breaks my heart. It's not like wolves are a food source--these people are shooting them just for the hell of it. And our country's potential VP is all for it.

I really, really dislike Sarah Palin.

I'm by no means the most politically savvy person around; but the more I think about Sarah Palin the more pissed off I get. Choosing her for VP is just so blatantly manipulative! I can just picture a bunch of old Republican men sitting around saying, "Well, that there Hillary Clinton has a vaginer! Let's get us someone with a vaginer and then all those little ladies will vote for us!"

Well, maybe it's not that simple. See, her ridiculous "I'm just a regular person, hyuck!" routine makes me think they're assuming that not only women are stupid, but the population in general. ("I'm a-gonna vote for that ladee that talks lahk me!") I realize that politicians always try to bring in the undecided or less politically inclined voters with these sort of appeals--but campaign ads and slogans are a far cry from selecting a VP based on these reasons.

I'd be surprised to hear anyone state that Palin was chosen for her experience or political acumen. She is in no way qualified to be president should McCain die in office. She's in no way qualified to be that close to the seat of power. I say this not because of her number of years of political experience (Obama has about the same number of years), but because she has no experience with foreign policy or the government outside of Alaska. So if she wasn't chosen based on her qualifications, what was she chosen for? Obviously, this is a completely transparent attempt by the Republican party to take advantage of the feminist excitement following Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I'm not saying Barack Obama is perfect; but I think that Obama and Biden are a more sound, secure option. I also personally worry about a number of things if the Republicans stay in the White House. This post on Salon.com details the potential for disaster in the Supreme Court (such as the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned).

Like everyone, I'm concerned about the Iraq situation. This is one reason I find a certain McCain/Palin ad running now to be hilarious. The ad describes Obama's goals as "wasteful pork" and shows an adorable sleeping baby being eclipsed by the shadow of BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!11!1 First, babies as a campaign prop are so cliched. Second, I'd rather pay taxes for social programs (aka "wasteful pork") than continue paying taxes to bring "democracy" to a country that didn't want our "help" in the first place. Wasteful indeed.

It also makes me absolutely furious that rape victims in Wasilla were charged for the processing of medical rape kits. While Palin didn't instigate this law, it appears she was aware of it, and for her to fail to address it is fucking disgusting. If she wasn't willing to protect women in her own small home town, why would we think she gives a damn about the rights of a country full of women? Oh wait, we already know she doesn't. She doesn't even give a damn about what her own daughter wants, or about taking care of her four month old baby.

Basically, to me, this election boils down to a couple of things: Iraq/the economy, and protecting civil rights of everyone (although I realize I've only mentioned women here). Republicans suck at dealing with both those issues, IMHO.

(To be clear, I do not have a problem with pro-life people in general. It's this specific display that raises my hackles.)

To get to my second class, I have to walk through my university's student center plaza. There's always something going on there--credit card companies trolling for debt victims, Greeks recruiting, local newspapers selling student subscriptions, blah blah blah. Every semester, though, one particular group sets up what I think is a really disturbing display. So I knew when I saw the sign saying "Graphic Photos Ahead" exactly what the photos were: the anti-abortion people were at it again. A few steps more, and I could see smears of blood-red through the trees.

These people set up billboard sized props, literally taller than the student center, with extremely graphic, gruesome photos. These are the people who compare abortion to the Holocaust, and try to drive that point home with bloody pictures of fetuses and fetal body parts. It's disgusting. I'm really not sure why it's allowed--freedom of speech is awesome, but there's a difference, in my mind, between freedom of speech and the sorts of images used here. I don't feel like this group is aiming for discussion or debate--they're going for shock value and disgust.

Around their construct, they have a series of metal crowd control barriers, and behind those are people participating. These people try to engage people passing by, sometimes by yelling into the crowd, sometimes by arguing at the top of their lungs with people in the crowd. I've seen them with bullhorns. I thought about giving them a piece of my mind one year, until I heard the most obnoxious person spouting bible verses in response to reasoned discussion. Another time, I heard something literally SCREAMING over the top of the person they were "debating". Basically, these people completely dominate the plaza with their huge, highly-visible structure; then they assault the ears in a variety of ways.

Every year I see this, it just pisses me off. If they had a booth, or were waving posters, or passing out literature, okay. But the graphic, screaming-for-attention nature of the photos seems beyond the bounds of good taste, and every year I question why my university allows this. If someone were protesting the war and wanted to use pictures of slaughtered soldiers, would that be allowed? Probably not. I've never seen PETA or any other group with building-sized slaughterhouse placards on campus. So why is this okay?

One year, this group also paid to put an insert in the school's daily paper. The insert, actually, was bigger than the paper. It contained all the typical propaganda--like the fact that Margaret Sanger was a follower of eugenics, as if that matters in the current context. There were a bunch of them, but I think my absolute favorite was the assertion that birth control pills are a form of abortion. Oh, apparently IUDs are too.

So what caused me to label them douchebags rather just jerks I disagree with? Well, those signs warning people of what's ahead had an advertisement on the back ... for "Choices Medical Center". Seriously? "We're here trying to disgust you into giving up your right to control your body! Come talk to us about your 'choices'!"

I read about foot binding when forced to read the book "The Good Earth" in ninth grade, but I never really understood how drastic the results can be. These photographs are pretty disturbing.

Guess it goes to show that our society is certainly not the only one to embrace damaging ideals. If the Chinese could "grow out of it", so to speak, maybe our culture can eventually grow out of anorexic, fake-boobed ideals.