when the status quo frustrates.

On Foreskins, From A Person Who Does Not Now And Indeed Never Has Had One

Monday, May 26th, 2008

It makes me wary of espousing any opinion on the subject that appears to be laying down the law! in any way, shape or form. I imagine that some men feel the same way about espousing an opinion about the morality and/or legality of abortion, especially basing any such opinion on the way an abortion would personally impact the life of someone who was having one–

“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound, when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.”

–Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban

Hey, I did say SOME men!

But anyway…

(more…)

The Medicalization of Childbirth

Sunday, April 27th, 2008

Last week, I finished watching “The Business of Being Born“. Ricki Lake did this documentary to highlight the differences in treatment she had with her two children. One was done at the hospital, and ended up as a Cesarean. One was at home, with a midwife, and it was videotaped.

Interspaced between this was some history of childbirth, particularly in the United States. Starting at around the turn of the century, births shifted from something that was at home, to something that was done at a hospital. This shift was not because medical science was particularly good at childbearing (or really, because it was even as midwifery) but because an interesting intersection that we all know and love: capitalism, sexism, and racism. Doctors at the time went on a massive advertising campaign, aimed at telling women that other women were not as good at delivering babies as they were. That these Russian, German, and other immigrant women just wanted your money, and you were a bad mother if you didn’t go to the hospital to get a delivery done there. Interestingly enough; it was not actually safer to go to the hospital, if you were in labor. Midwifery had been around for awhile, women knew how to deliver babies. They, at the very least, knew that you washed your hands before you went to the next birth, something that doctors at the time considered immaterial. Midwifes also knew to listen to a pregnant women when she was in labor, as opposed to putting up a sheet and ignoring her. They also knew that squatting, or in water, was an easier and safer way to give birth then lying on one’s back, where you have to not only have to work against your body, but gravity (but hey, with your legs like that, it was easier for the doctor).

It then went on to talk about “twilight sleep” or “zombie sleep”. For those of you who are unfamiliar (and I certainly was before I saw this) twilight sleep was when a women came to the hospital, and then was injected with morphine and scopolamine. Now, supposedly this was to kill pain; but what it really did was put pregnant women into an alternate state of mind, so that they forgot the labor pains. They also forgot the labor. And how to control their own body. Women had to be tied down to the bed, (with sheepskin, so that they wouldn’t leave big bruises or scratches). Watching the videos were again horrific: a women, tied to a bed, thrashing about, with a curtain at her midsection, and four white guys staring intently at her uterus. For something that is normally held as one of the most feminine of experiences, it was eerily impersonal.*

The movie then continued to show the difference between medical birth and midwifery. For one thing, the births done with a midwife seemed a whole lot less painful. The midwife was there the whole time, as opposed to a doctor who showed up at the last second. The position seemed more comfortable as well; if the woman wanted to get up and walk around, she was allowed to. If she wanted to squat, she squatted. With a midwife, they listened to what the women said she wanted. With the doctors, it seemed as if the doctor told her what she wanted.

Not to say that the movie was Luddite, at all. Every midwife there said that she was grateful that there was the knowledge of obstetricians out there, for the complicated births. But they all made mention that, 9 times out of 10, women did not need to go to the doctor. That first and foremost, those doctors are surgeons, and sometimes do unnecessary cesareans out of misplaced concern, or because of time constraints, that is not actually healthy for the mother or the new baby. They compared infant mortality in the United States with other countries in Europe where it was far more common to have a midwife, and lo and behold, the US has more infant deaths then Europe. However, they never proved a causal relationship; there are a variety of reasons why that might be.

Among the problems of medicalization they talked about, one was talking about how the introduction of medicine was playing weird problems with women’s hormones. First, a women is given an epidural, for the pain. But an epidural numbs more than just pain, it also makes it more difficult to have contractions. So then, a women is given pitocin, which is a synthetic form of oxytocin (the birthing hormone). Pitocin has some major problems though: first, the contractions it causes are longer, and stronger (and therefore more painful). Also, it can constrict bloodflow to the uterus, so that the fetus has less oxygen flowing to it. So, to numb the pain, they give the women another epidural. And this starts the cycle again, until the fetus goes into distress (and the mother is also pretty distressed at this point as well). At this point, they rush the women to get a Cesarean, leaving a scar in the women, an increased risk of infection, and a now-distressed baby.

A few things struck me watching this film, in no particular order:

1) Why does any women ever (well, with Tom Beatty make that any person) ever get and stay pregnant long enough to give birth? Seriously, even with the midwife, water births, were it just seemed like a grunt and slip, and “ooo, baby” it still seemed painful, long, and full of viscera. This movie made me hug my orthotricyclin like no one’s business.

2) This movie was far too crunchy for my tastes. I can see why childbirth is a unique experience for women, because it is generally just women that can do it. But seriously, I prefer the ideas they mention at the end a lot better: where hospitals have birthing centers, where midwifes work. You can have your birth in a water way, or at the very least squatting, but you are still at the hospital if you are that 1 in 10 case that needs emergency help.

3) What is it with some guys and their seemingly uncontrollable urges to take women’s experiences and define them/ control them? First you have medical doctors saying that women don’t actually know what’s going on for pregnancy, and then you have guys making laws about when it’s okay for us to have an abortion, and guys who think that birth control is emasculating, and guys who seem to think they know what happens during PMS better than women. It’s really annoying; I don’t assume to know what it’s like to have blue balls, why should they assume they have any IDEA what it’s like to go around in a feminine fleshy meatbag?

This movie is one that I think people should definitely watch** (if you have a netflix account, it’s instantly downloadable, by the way). It shows a very interesting perception of childbirth, from women’s point of view.

*Interestingly enough, the feminists at the time held up scopolamine as a liberation. The movie made mention that at the time, childbirth was still thought as something that should be as painful as possible, for the “curse of eve”. The feminist at the time, saw this as an opportunity to not have to suffer through childbirth, and jumped on the opportunity to show that no, childbirth was painful because there wasn’t the medicine to fix it, not because of any Biblical curse. Next time an anti-choicer shows up saying that early feminists were against abortion (which they should have been, because at the time an abortion had more of a chance of killing you than childbirth), point out that they also supported drugging women during childbirth. We are all a part of the time we grew up in, bound by some of those mindsets and technologies.

**If you’re like me, you’ll watch most of this movie through slits in your fingers. Seriously, think horror movie viscera, and then imagine in that in your most sensitive parts.

No, you cannot touch my boobs

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

Mary Jane, again
Hey, I wonder why more women aren’t into sci-fi and fantasy.

In LiveJournal Land, an interesting hoopla has erupted around The Open-Source Boob Project. The story starts at ConFusion in Ann Arbor, an annual sci-fi, fantasy, anime, gaming, comics, etc., convention. If you’ve ever shown up at a con wearing a set of boobs, you know that the gender and personal space dynamics can get a bit—well, touchy. It’s not that there aren’t female geeks (and if you don’t read her already, check out Karen Healey for awesome feminist analysis of comics and geekdom), but the majority of cons are still sausagefests and not always female-friendly.

This year’s ConFusion took the creepy vibe that women often feel at cons to a whole new level, however.

“This should be a better world,” a friend of mine said. “A more honest one, where sex isn’t shameful or degrading. I wish this was the kind of world where say, ‘Wow, I’d like to touch your breasts,’ and people would understand that it’s not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful.”

Obviously, the solution to our sexually repressed, sexually confused culture where women are objectified and reduced to a collection of body parts is to instigate a con-wide gropefest. Being geeks, the guys in charge of this project decided that the gropefest needed to be perfected and streamlined, so by Penguicon, they had two sets of buttons that could be issued to women, advertising the availability status of their ta-tas.

I can only assume from reading the post that an empowered, post-patriarchal utopia ensued.

Oh, it didn’t? I wonder why. Springheel_jack has an excellent smackdown:

The ferrett wonders why a man’s asking, out of the blue, if he can feel up a woman’s boobs shouldn’t be understood as “a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful.” But this is simply to ask why he shouldn’t be able to continue to treat women as they have always been treated. Body first, sexual delectation to men first, as object first, “mind” – i.e. as a human subject – very firmly second. It’s simply to intensify the condition of patriarchal gender relations that already existed – or, to put it more simply, it’s a frustrated man’s fantasy of putting women back in their place.

And here we have the usual libertarian solution to everything – in the name of a false individuality, itself the product of an illegitimate reification and universalization of the social conditions of propertied white men – we have a retreat into the worst of the dark days of gender relations before feminism, offered as a so-called “advance” into a “more honest” and “freer” world. This is pernicious masculine ideology at its most pure and most insufferable. In the name of “empowering” women, we have…more of the same poison that women have been trying to free themselves of for all this time.

Go read the whole thing—I can’t add much to his analysis beyond to say that it’s spot-on. Obviously, this is not just about geekdom. Certain problems are more pronounced in geekdom because a lot of the standard modes of interpersonal relations and social niceties go out the window (and rightly so). But the patriarchy doesn’t. You can tell, because no one was proposing an open-source nutsack-grabbing project.

Look, I have a nice set of boobs. Really nice, according to some. Ever since I got them, I’ve been fending off assholes who think they have the right to grab them, whether I want it or not. I don’t need a button to advertise whether my boobs are touchable or not—if they are, gentlemen, you’ll know about it.

Update: Misia has a response. You should read it.

Colorado for Inaccuracy and Irrelevance

Friday, July 6th, 2007

An alarming amendment to the state constitution is gaining a tiny bit of traction in Colorado. This is the language proposed by the group Colorado for Equal Rights:

As used in Article 2, Section 3, 6, and 25 of the Colorado Constitution, the words “person” and “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

They’ve already had a meeting with the Legislative Council and have a meeting with Colorado’s Secretary of State scheduled for July 18th. That meeting will determine what the amendment will be called on the November 2008 ballot.

Just thought you should know.

MSN spoon feeds discussion on reproductive choice to a hopefully ready mainstream audience

Monday, June 25th, 2007

I was a little suprised to find an “Abortion vs Adoption” story set on MSN in the same place they usually reserve for the hard-hitting “How to tell if he (she)’s into you” investigative reports. With MSN being what it is, I was suprised by how much they failed to disappoint me. While the selected stories are careful to use women who ‘deserve’ their choices (a woman violently raped by a stranger and a married woman whose fetus is diagnoised with a crippling spinal disorder) they actually show hints of balance.

I was especially impressed by the abortion story. In it, the author spends half the time describing her abortion in graphic detail and the other half discussing the ramifications of the Supreme Court partial birth abortion ruling and its impact on women like her. She also describes the story of the harsh judgement faced by another woman who had chosen to induce labor and let her doomed fetus die of natural causes when circumstances turned it into a de facto abortion. The message: like it or not, this could happen to you.

It’s no feminist evaluation of bodily autonomy by a long shot, but it was shockingly not horrible and certainly unexpected. I hope that it’s recieved well and we can start a real dialouge about reproductive rights with the teeming masses of people who find abortion squicky but would want the option if they needed it.

Ladies, please have your womb reports to me by 5pm.

Thursday, June 7th, 2007

Our country’s obsession with fetal privilege is supposedly all about loving those darling clumps of cells. Punishing dirty girlz is theoretically just one of its side effects.

Ladies and gentlepeeps of the jury, I present to you people’s #1488760985770 in the case against this ridiculous claim: the story of Christine Hutchinson. Christine is being charged with concealing the death of a child. She had also been charged with “abuse of a corpse,” but that gem’s been dropped.

What did Ms. Hutchinson do do deserve these charges? She had a miscarriage 15-20 weeks into her pregnancy and didn’t tell doctors or the authorites. She then stored the fetus in her freezer in some bags and a beer carton.

Now, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not squicked out by someone keeping a miscarried fetus next to the frozen peas, but has this woman done anything criminal?

I suppose she could have caused the miscarriage, except she didn’t:

The county medical examiner determined the fetus died in utero, apparently from natural causes.

So what we’re left with is a woman who accidentally lost her child being brought up on charges because she didn’t tell Poppa Police or Daddy Doctor that her baby box broke. Apparently, all dudes, including those who didn’t have anything to do with getting the woman pregnant, have a right to full status reports on her ladyparts once any sperm’s gotten up in there.

Maybe the responsible thing to do would be to report the accident, but the only reason you’d try to criminalize the failure to do so would be to remind women that their rights are subordinate to their fetus (even if it’s dead) and the Male Right to Know.

Meanwhile, I’m sure at least some of you stopped and thought, “hey, wait a minute, since when is a 15-20 weeek old fetus legally considered a child? Isn’t the concealment of the death of a child intended to prevent people from covering up the death of kids who’ve actually been born?” Uh, yeah, I thought so, too. Maybe some of the lawyers in the audience will correct me, but this seems like a scary slippery slope.

Sigh.

What else is new.

Not all European nations are as tasteless as the Dutch

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Kyso has a point about the Dutch sinking to new lows on the reality TV front, but at least the French stepped up to the plate — the Cannes Film Festival rewarded a political film with the Palme d’Or:

A harrowing film about illegal abortion in Communist-era Romania beat 21 movies by well-known directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Ethan and Joel Coen, and Wong Kar-wai to win the Cannes Film Festival’s top prize Sunday.

Romanian director Cristian Mungiu’s low-budget film, “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” depicts the horrors a student goes through to ensure her friend can have a secret abortion.

I was too busy coating myself in Axe Body Spray and watching UFC to hop across the pond and catch this year’s festival, so I can’t tell you if the film is deeply feminist or even any good, but I’m happy to see the international film community rewarding works of art that address the issues of the body.

Hopefully, members of the blogosphere can encourage as many “regular” Americans as possible to see the film when it arrives on our shores. Harrowing secret abortions may not only be a thing of the past over here; they may also be a thing of the near future.

Dutch TV producers kick off season by opening dialouge about the banality of evil

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Just when you thought reality tv couldn’t get any more tasteless, the Dutch, of all people, set a new bar:

A Dutch TV station says it will go ahead with a programme in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys.

The donor, a dying woman, will chose the winner with help from YOU! the viewer. Doctors are, of course, appalled:

“The scenario portrayed in this programme is ethically totally unacceptable,” said Professor John Feehally, who has just ended his term as president of the UK’s Renal Association.

“The show will not further understanding of transplants,” he added. “Instead it will cause confusion and anxiety.”

But the producers have managed to convince themselves that they are doing a public service…

“We think that is disastrous, so we are acting in a shocking way to bring attention to this problem.”

…which is understandable, seeing as you’d pretty much have to convince yourself that the world needs you to be as shameless and unethical as humanly possible in order to get through the show development meetings without killing yourself. And if you’re not spending all of your time defending your latest season of ethically suspect bile then you might have to really deal with your role in last year’s mistakes:

The outcry comes at a difficult time for production company Endemol, who were censured by Ofcom last week for their handling of the Celebrity Big Brother racism row.

The Australian version of Big Brother has also drawn criticism for not telling a contestant that her father had died.

And you can already just barely look at yourself in the mirror as it is.

Given the choice between being filthy and being unnatural, can we trust women to make the right decision?

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

Via Amanda, ABC wins some sort of record for cramming the greatest amount of anxiety over menstruation possible into a single article. I was honestly shocked to go back up to the byline and discover that the damn thing had been written by a woman.

The curse. Aunt Flo. Riding the Crimson Wave. And, in British-bashing Australia, the red coats are coming! Women across the centuries have had names for their monthly “friend” — some laced with humor and many whispered in tones of taboo.


onion_imagearticle602
Quite frankly, The Onion’s euphemisms were better.

I prefer “Falling to the communists”, but that’s just crazy little me, with my having been educated to a high-school level of biology and not projecting some kind of gender blood-magic to my monthly Mudslide in Crotch Canyon. But upon learning that women now have the option of not “Ordering l’Omelette Rouge” (oh man, this is fun!) some people’s minds immediately jumped to the obvious problem:

“There may be important health consequences that we don’t know about,” said Christine L. Hitchcock, an endocrinology researcher at the University of British Columbia. “I don’t think we understand everything that the menstrual cycle does well enough to say with confidence that you can abolish it and not have any consequences.”

I’m just kidding, Susan Donaldson James didn’t have that anywhere in her article. That was already covered by sane publications. Susan has more profound concerns:

It’s unclear whether women will embrace this new pill, which contains the same formulations of estrogen and progestin used for birth control pills for decades, but its arrival marks yet another step toward the blurring of the genders.

As 21st century women dominate the universities and continue to climb the executive ladder, and metro-sexual men explore their feminine side, it’s harder to define what it means to be a woman.

Shit, maybe if we hadn’t encouraged men to exfoliate or use mousse, we’d have enough wiggle room to play around with our “red dollar days.” But we did! We did get that degree and we did take the promotion and our husbands did get their backs waxed, and now woe! Woe befalls those who tamper with the last remaining distinction between men and women!

Look, I know that for some women, this is actually an issue, but it is clearly an individual woman issue, not a social issue. Put two extreme women side by side, one of whom thinks that “serving up the womb steak medium rare” puts her in some sort of life-affirming granola-fuck moon cycle woman thing*, and another that finds “trolling for vampires” to be an absolutely reprehensible experience. Can you tell, just by looking, the difference? Nope, they both look like women to me. Whew! That settles that. Or does it?

Most of us are in the middle, and will choose yay or nay based on how squicky the idea of not “rebooting the Ovarian Operating System” makes us feel. It would help, however, if certain *cough* journalists would refrain from doing this:

Lybrel, manufactured by Wyeth, stops the growth of the uterus, sending it into hibernation.

Or this:

But other women worry that taking Lybrel is tantamount to tampering with nature, and some doctors have warned that the pill is not 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, particularly for overweight women. Total bleeding stopped in only 80 percent of women in the trials, according to gynecologists. Iron retention can also be a side effect.

“I personally would not opt to take the pill,” said Erin Stahl, 28, an educational administrator in New Jersey. “I think it does seem a wee bit unnatural and physically frightening.

The first is just so inaccurate as to be mind-boggling. Unless it’s not, and my uterus is growing right now, in which case, holy crap! It’s about time someone made something to stop it before it eats my stomach or something. The second is a scare tactic disguised as legit medical information.

And someone please explain to me this complete non-sequitor:

Today, both men and women have different attitudes toward menstruation. Indie rock vocalist Ani DiFranco sings with 21st century attitude about her monthly cycle: “I woke up one morning covered in blood, like a war — like a warning that I live in a breakable takeable body.”

What in the fuck does that first sentence have to do with the rest of the paragraph? Ani DiFranco, as much as I love her, is only one woman. No other women or men are quoted at all, but hey, Ani provides a shocking quote, so maybe no one will notice, right?

So what stereotypes have we had so far? Let’s see, the ball-buster, the young idealist, the nervous woman…what’s left? Oh yeah, the really messed up:

“Someone else might choose to do this because she doesn’t want to menstruate because it makes her feel unfeminine,” (emphasis mine)

I don’t enjoy “playing banjo in Sgt. Zygote’s Ragtime Band” all that much, but it sure as hell ain’t because it makes me feel ‘unfeminine.’ Although it was kind of neat that Susan began this article tsk-tsking over how failing to “fly the red flag” might make us less of women, and ends with a quote about a hypothetical woman who would chose to stop that filthy, shameful cunt bleeding in order to feel more feminine. It’s a circle of misogyny so perfect it makes a grown woman weep.

*This is going to get me flamed with a vengance, I can just tell.

Appeasing anti-abortion activists won’t reduce abortion; it won’t even shut them up: Poland edition

Thursday, March 29th, 2007

In between the two extremes of “No abortions, ever!” and “Abortion on demand without apology” are the great masses of people who find the idea of abortion icky but aren’t quite comfortable with an outright ban. These people usually find a rung of the “exceptions for rape and/or incest and/or fetal deformities and/or the life and/or health of the mother” ladder to hang out on, where whenever the uncomfortable topic comes up, they can list all of their generous exceptions and feel progressive.

There are many reasons why this isn’t really good enough. The major historical reason, however, is that when you grant a group of uninterested people power over if a woman “deserves” an abortion, they are most assuredly going to abuse this power. You can not have a right to something contingent on whether or not your doctor is going to be an asshole that day.

For those who may think that I am being needlessly strident or shrill, may I direct your gaze towards Poland, where, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ve heard that the European Court of Human Rights recently heard the case of Alicja Tysiac. Tysiac won a purely symbolic amount of non-money ($33,000) in damages against Poland, where she was denied an abortion by several doctors even though they all agreed that if she came to term, she’d likely go blind. So she came to term, and it wasn’t as bad as she feared. She can see things that are almost 5ft away, and may not go blind until later!

So Poland has one more precious baby, whose two siblings will probably never let it forget that it is the reason Mommy is blind. It’s not really the baby’s fault – eggs don’t check with the rest of the body before they get fertilized to make sure everything is up to the stress of gestating and delivery. But try telling that to a child who used to have a healthy mom and now has a newly disabled mom.

It’d be a different story if Tysiac had chosen the risk of blindess on her own. But she very clearly felt that the conseqences of being blind would be too great for her and her family, and she was specifically denied the right to make that decision.

So what do we have here? A great hypothetical abortion candidate. A woman who is by all reasonable measure “worthy” of an abortion: A mother in grave, clearly defined danger stemming directly from the pregnancy. Who gets denied by all the doctors who know better than she or want to cover their ass or just don’t like her, and now she’s basically blind.

And is this good enough? NoooooOOOO! Because she was theoretically entitled to an abortion and denied, she was able to make a big screaming deal of it on an international stage. Clearly, something must be done about that!

The 3,000 people joining the rally said it should not even be offered when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life.
[...]
The protest was organised by the extreme-right wing League of Polish Families in the wake of the decision to award Alicja Tysiac 25,000 euros ($33,000; £16,000).

The League and Catholic groups in the predominantly Roman Catholic country are calling for the government to fight the court’s decision.

That’s right: one of the most conservative, Catholic countries in the world has an “extreme-right wing” family values organization which came out swinging when they heard that someone, somewhere, had not taken their punishment from God quietly enough.

About 200 legal abortions are perfomed every year in Poland. An older story about a Dutch abortion boat that hangs out in Poland estimates that illegal abortions clock in at 200,000 each year.

There are two lessons to be learned from these stories:

1. The anti-abortion crowed will never be satisfied. Never, never, never. Don’t give them a fucking inch, because if you do, it might be you or your wife, sister, or daughter that pays for it. Look at Tysiac’s glasses. She may have won in court, but it hardly matters; the real damage is already done.

2. No amount of making abortion illegal makes abortion go away. People who are really interested in saving women and zygotes alike have to start with that assumption if they’re going to achieve anything other than punishing women for being women.

The Oklahoma uterus rush of Aught-Seven

Monday, March 12th, 2007

Oh, man, Kyso wrote the funniest post for you guys today. I’m still wiping the tears from my eyes.

Everyone really would’ve liked it (especially the part about the alleged molestation ring over at Townhall.com), but I’m afraid it couldn’t be posted. Turns out we have a little-known rule requiring all PAB posts to be reviewed by a board of semi-intelligent geese before release. Her failure to follow this rule compels me to scrap the offending material. After all, if it isn’t properly evaluated by water fowl, how can we be sure it won’t fry your brain with Satanic idolatry?

I’d like to thank the Oklahoma House of Representatives for encouraging me to invent rules on the fly to arbitrarily restrict the flow of information. They set the bar for this sort of censorship pretty high today:

Literature which criticizes anti-abortion bills pending in the state House of Representatives was barred from the chamber today. House officials are also trying to stop the literature from being distributed to state lawmakers’ offices.

Turns out the literature lacked the Cliff Clavin seal of approval:

House spokesman Damon Gardenire says the chamber requires that literature distributed to lawmakers first be filed with the chamber’s post office to verify it is not obscene, pornographic or a solicitation.

Anyone wanna bet this little tidbit would be news to just about anyone who ever distributed material amongst the decision-making adults of Oklahoma? It sure seemed to be news to the pro-choice activist:

The head of an anti-abortion group says he didn’t know about the post office rule even though his group regularly distributes material at the Capitol. And he says he used to clear materials through the majority leaders office but was later told that isn’t necessary if the material is clearly identified with the name, address and phone number of the person distributing it.

When it comes to combatting women’s rights, Oklahoma doesn’t just stop at blocking material distribution. Unlike backwards-ass Mississippi, who technically has to wait until Roe’s repealed before abortion’s illegal even in the case of incest, the O-K state’s going after the uterus right here, right now. The House’s pending legislation would restrict abortion performance in state facilities, require extra premiums to be paid for abortion to be covered by insurance, and “change the definition of abortion to include a method in which a drug is injected into the heart of a fetus to cause death.”

At last, the Holy Grail of Concern Trolls

Thursday, February 22nd, 2007

Joseph A. D’Agostino certainly gets no pleasure from pointing out the delicious irony that because of 40 years of Western feminism, Chinese girls are on the verge of extinction.

Suck it up, ladies, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The sex imbalance continues to worsen, not improve, thanks to the ever-increasing spread of cheap abortion and ultrasound technology into more and more areas of China, India, and other countries.

…Feminists like to blame this rapidly-worsening situation on “patriarchy,” but that has been around for thousands of years and is less powerful today than ever before. What is new, is the access to abortion in so many places. And this has long been a paramount goal of feminists: To grant the “right to control her own body” to each woman on Earth via unrestricted abortion. That, combined with falling prices for the ultrasound machines that can reveal an unborn child’s sex, has produced the disastrous situation that the Asian world is in now.

I honestly almost didn’t blog this because I simply didn’t know where to start. His assertion that patriarchy is flaccid and weak in China and India, and while it may have been a factor in yesterday’s sex-selective infanticide it certianly has nothing to do with today’s sex-selective abortion or massive girls-abandoned-in-orphanage-by-able-bodied-parents problems? His weak attempt to vaguely connect sex-selective abortions in China and India with America’s sexual revolution? His wierd impression that feminism is only 40 years old? Or the fact that everything after the patriarchy-is-weak paragraph spells HI, I’M THE PATRIARCHY AND THIS IS HOW BAD I CAN GET until he finally non-sequitors over to a final paragraph about how we need to ban all* abortions in America before resident foriegners abort all their girls and then the practice will catch on and whooo willlll marrrryyyy hissss ssoooonnnnnnnssssssss?????!!!!11!

Should we wait for this problem to develop into a substantial one here before taking action? As Americans, we should ensure that this immoral and socially destructive habit does not become entrenched here as our Chinese and other immigrant communities continue their rapid growth. China and India outlawed sex-selective abortion years ago, to no effect, and their societies are headed over a cliff. Here in the United States, with our more effective regulatory structure, we should outlaw this practice and seek to eliminate it elsewhere around the world before this crisis gets any worse.

The worsening sex ratio of the world in general, and Asia in particular, is proof that abortion-on-demand isn’t practical.

But maybe we should listen to him, girls. I mean, he’s clearly concerned about the ladies.

Anyway, there is too much here for one blogger to blog alone. Please, join me in the comments. There’s enough here for everyone. And a special request for links to any good blogs on this subject – all I ask is that at least some posts are in English so I have some idea what I’m blogrolling.

*Well, not all, just the sex-selective ones. But unfortunately the reason the sex-selective abortion bans in China aren’t working are because those son-greedy she-whores can easily lie, so well, you understand…