Within moments or days, the Supreme Court will rule on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’
And it’s unclear how they will decide. We’ve also seen the fight for marriage equality fought in the streets, with protest signs as weapons. But this battle is as murky as the Supreme Court’s decision. It is really hard to tell which side of the debate has the better signs. Which side is cleverer?
Which side makes more spelling mistakes? To answer these questions, we will have to take a close look and engage in some deep analysis.
1. Homosexuality: the Devil’s Work Or a Great Way to Get P****
While there is some evidence of devil possession among the gays, it is anecdotal, at best. Statistically, lesbians are more attractive than homophobes, so it follows that they would be able to obtain more … success among women. Winner: The Gays!
2. The Issue: Marriage or Marridge
Technically, marriage and not marridge, is made up of one man and one woman. Of course the gentleman carrying the protest sign has a misspelled word as well, but that’s intentional and used to mock the less than stellar spelling record of bigots. And he very may well have come to the protest hoping to defecate on Shirley Phelps, the spokeswoman of Westboro Baptist Church. Once again, this round goes to the gays.
3. Marriage is About: “Sactity” or Equality
Again, the anti-marriage equality protester struggled with spelling. The protesters defending marriage equality, however, have mastered each word on their sign and the sign contains more words. The interracial couple connects the fight for marriage equality based on sexual orientation to the fight for marriage equality based on race (I know! race is a construct. I did go to Wesleyan! But you know what I mean.) They persuasively present marriage as a civil rights issue. I’m sorry homophobes, you lose again.
Miss Utah has been the subject of non-stop attacks for her statement during Sunday evening’s annual Miss USA beauty pageant.
In case you missed it, when a judge asked Marissa Powell, “A recent report shows that in 40 percent of American families with children, women are the primary earners yet they continue to earn less than men. What does this say about society?” her response was:
I think we can relate this back to education and how we are continuing to try to strive to (pause) figure out how to create jobs right now. That is the biggest problem and I think, especially the men, are um, seen as the leaders of this and so we need to try and figure out how to create education better so we can solve this problem.
People called the response “insanely idiotic,” “hard to watch,” a “fantastic flub,” “incoherent,” “the most nonsensical thing ever said in a public forum,” “contrived, faux erudite, and filled with nonsequiturs [sic].”
Was Powell inarticulate, fumbling, awkward and halting? Yes. Was she totally wrong? No. As ThinkProgress notes, “those mocking Miss Utah may be surprised to hear that there were glimmers of truth in her answer: men’s wages and education are much discussed factors in the gender wage gap.”
Ultimately, ThinkProgress points out, education isn’t the cause of the wage disparity since “women’s wages have recently started dropping even as they gain even more higher education than men. And the wage gap is stubbornly persistent despite how much education women take on. The gap appears the moment men and women graduate, with young female graduates earning 82 percent of what their male counterparts earn. It follows them at every level of education as men with the same degree earn more.”
The point is that there is a lot of stupid stuff being said about equal pay. Instead of making fun of a beauty pageant contestant’s response to the issue, shouldn’t we be angrier about the more egregious statements made by the people who actually create or defend the policies which reinforce income disparity? Shouldn’t we highlight when the very people whose job it is to know about this issue say things that are at best nonsensical and at worst dishonest? Here are the five statements that should have received more attention than Powell’s.
1. Kelly “We Have Enough Laws” Ayotte: When asked at a town meeting why she voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have required employers to demonstrate that any salary differences between men and women doing the same work are not gender-related, the New Hampshire Senator said:
“We have existing laws — Title VII, um, Lilly Ledbetter, all those existing protections in place — that, I believe, enforce and provide that people doing equal jobs are, certainly in this country, should receive equal pay. So, uh, that bill, in my view, didn’t add — in fact I think it created a lot of additional burdens that would have been hard, um, to make it more difficult for job creators to create jobs. . . . The reason that I voted against that specific bill is that, I looked at it, and there were already existing laws that need to be enforced and can be enforced and I didn’t feel like adding that layer was going to help us better get at the equal pay issue.“
Interestingly, despite the already existing burdensome laws, which are, like, so annoying, women make 77 cents for every mans’ dollar. Guess the laws aren’t so burdensome, after all.
2. Marsha “Women Don’t Want Equal Pay Laws, Thank You Very Much” Blackburn: When David Axelrod ridiculously suggested we enact “pay equity laws to ensure that women are treated fairly in the workplace” on Meet the Press, Tennessee Congresswoman had this to say:
“I think that more important than that is making certain that women are recognized by those companies. You know, I’ve always said that I didn’t want to be given a job because I was a female, I wanted it because I was the most well-qualified person for the job. And making certain that companies are going to move forward in that vein, that is what women want. They don’t want the decisions made in Washington. They want to be able to have the power and the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.”
In other words, we women would like the power to be able to be discriminated against. Amen!
As Congress debates imposing a 20 week ban on abortion, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) urges banning the procedure at 15 or 16 weeks. Why, you ask? Because, simply put, fetuses like to jerk off. And how could we deny them of that god-given right? Burgess, who was also an OB/GYN said:
“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful… They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”
Those of us concerned about the sexual assaultepidemic ravaging the military can all the chill out, thanks to some really awesome news: women who join the military are pathological freaks who make up stories about being raped out of spite, for money or for attention. This, at least, is the opinion of esteemed (by fellow homophobic-racist- misogynists) “journalist” John Derbyshire. If that name sounds familiar, you’re either a FHRM (fellow homophobic-racist-misogynist) or you remember when Derbyshire urged white parents to follow his lead and have that really important, life-saving talk with their children about the birds and the bees the blacks. He advised his own children to, among other racist tricks, “(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally,” “(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods,” “If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date.” This got him fired from The National Review.
Luckily for him, and us, Taki’s Magazine, which describes itself as “a Libertarian webzine” and calls itself by the affectionate nickname “Takimag,” welcomed Drebyshire with open arms and he joined the ranks of FHRM columnists like Pat Buchanan. In an article for his cleverly named “Derbtown” column, called “The Sexual Harassment Panic” (I love it already), “the Derb” (if you will, and I hope you will) explains that he’s just here to help: “My work here aims to be constructive: to apprise the US military of some true facts that might assist them in pushing back against the USC tsunami.” He then lays out his points with the same organization and clarity he did in his article on the blacks. I paraphrase but also include his original language to demonstrate the importance of his argument, the precision of his language, and the shocking fact that I’m not exaggerating or distorting his screed. But perhaps my greatest motivation for pasting screenshots instead of linking to the article is this plea that appears when I copy and paste the text:
“Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work.”
This week Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) garnered national attention for saying that rape only rarely resulted in pregnancy. This is no isolated incident. Who can forget when Todd Akin spoke of “legitimate rapes” and women shutting “the whole thing down”? But less known is that this argument has been said again and again by several Republicans. Though completely false — a study found that over 32,100 pregnancies result from rape each year and some studies have found that rape victims are more likely to become pregnant than women who have consensual sex — the claim that raped women don’t become pregnant is a nice way for Republicans to try to fend off arguments for including exceptions for rape and incest in abortion legislation. See, most Americans, even most Republicans and even most anti-choicerssupport exceptions in cases of rape and incest.
So, what is a Republican who wants to ban abortion in all cases, with no exceptions whatsoever, to do? Well, he or she merely claims that it’s not an issue because rape victims don’t get pregnant. See, for example, the way Bush-appointed Judge James Leon Holmes explicitly used the lie that pregnancy never results from rape to support a constitutional ban on abortion: “Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.” You hear that rape victims? You’re a red herring. The whole lot of you! Abortion-or-bust absolutist Republicans have found a way to deal with the inconvenient fact that most Americans support exceptions to save the woman’s life, too: pretend that pregnancy is never dangerous and never puts a woman’s life at risk. It’s not true, but that doesn’t stop these abortion fundamentalists! Are you seeing a pattern?
Here are some of the outrageous ways they have explained the lie that raped women can’t get pregnant, as well as reaction GIFs to what they say. Enjoy! (Thanks to Garance Franke-Ruta andAnna North for finding a bunch of these gems).
1. Trent “She’s Totes Not Gonna Get Preggers” Franks
Trent Franks was minding his own business, trying to pass his proposal to ban all abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions, when some uppity Democrat had to bring up the issue of … well … rape and incest. Franks responded by saying, “The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”
I admire your commitment to extremist anti-choice legislation. Why let facts and reality stand in your way?
2. Todd “Shut That Whole Thing Down” Akin
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who ran against Sen. Claire McCaskill gave his opponent the best gift ever when he said, “from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Despite hypocritical calls from Republicans who basically agree with Akin, at least policy-wise but know better than to say crazy things out loud, the Congressman stuck it out. And Senator McCaskill won the election. It was a “legitimate” election and she kinda “shut that whole thing down.”
Yesterday (Tuesday) was an extremely productive day for bigots around the world. Who knows what gems of ignorance we’ll see today, let alone throughout the week. For now, we can enjoy the following:
1. Jury selection in the murder trial against George Zimmerman started this week. Zimmerman is on trial for killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American teenager.
While on Fox News, Former NYPD detective Harry Houck had the following to say about the case: “Listen, Trayvon Martin would be alive today, okay, if he didn’t, alright, have a street attitude.” It’s pretty clear that “a street attitude” is code for “being black” and wearing a hoodie. As if either of those things justifies getting out of your car, ignoring a 9/11 dispatcher who tells you to remain in your car and shooting someone to death.
2. On his 700 Club show, televangelist Pat Robertson lamented the Boys Scouts of America’s decision to overturn its ban on gay members. Robertson attacked the LGBT community for being:
… willing to rip apart the framework of traditional marriage, to rip apart an organization that has done so much good for young people… All for one thing, that the way they do sex will be accepted in the mainstream of society… Two percent deciding what the rest of us does… And they are willing to destroy it, and Hollywood the so-called liberal media had jumped on board that this is the new civil rights. Well, I don’t think so. It’s been a marvelous institution, and to see that torn up in order to accommodate a few kids who want to do sex with each other, I mean, it boggles the mind.
I’m sure Robertson takes some comfort in knowing the Boy Scouts haven’t relented entirely to the equal-rightist attack on good old-fashioned-American homophobia, since they’ve maintained their ban on LGBT adult leaders. Phew!
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has been one of the most vocal and valiant critics of the way the military has responded to the epidemic of sexual assault. Gillibrand had put forth a proposal, which had 27 co-sponsors, including 4 Republicans, to remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command and place them in hands of an independent prosecutor. Gillibrand succinctlyexplained the problem inherent in leaving the decision making power within the chain of command: “When any single victim of sexual assault is forced to salute her attacker, clearly our system is broken.”
Lest you think Gillibrand is some civilian utopionist, out of touch with the gritty realities of military life, you should know that SWAN (Service Women’s Action Network) also supportstaking the handling of sexual assault crimes out of the chain of command, since,
“Apart from compromising impartiality, the current system places victims at risk of retaliation by vesting authority in a figure who often exercises control over the career advancement of both parties. By approaching criminal justice from a personnel perspective, this policy promotes widespread fear of reprisal, creating a significant barrier to reporting… SWAN proposes that the United States military move the administration of criminal justice from commanding officers to professional prosecutors and judges.”
Great news! The Obama administration announced late Monday that it would dropping its effort to limit sales of Plan B to girls and women 15 and over. This means girls of any age will be able to buy the pill, which can prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, over the counter without restrictions.
But before we celebrate, let us head the always wise words of conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, who, on the always fair and balanced Fox News channel, said the following about the development:
“It’s a good deal for pedophiles, a good deal for people who commit statutory rape against young girls… If mothers and fathers across this country hear this and they think, ‘Well, I guess my daughter or her boyfriend or her rapist can go out to a pharmacy and get a bunch of, you know, hormone pills to give a little girl.’ We don’t really know the effect of a spiking or dropping a little girl’s — in many cases a young woman’s or a little girl’s hormonal levels. It’s outrageous! These girls can’t get their ears pierced, they can’t take an Advil at school without parental permission. Yet, they can go into a pharmacy in this Brave New World of women’s equality and — quote — reproductive health and get a morning after pill.”
As an actor, Martha Plimpton has conquered the stage, screen and television. The Emmy Award-winning thespian, has been in over 30 films including, of course, The Goonies, Running on Empty, Pecker, Parenthood (“electric ear cleaner,” anyone?) and I Shot Andy Warhol. As an outspoken activist, Plimpton is taking on misogyny and the attack on our reproductive rights, freedom, choice, health and access. She is one of the founders of A is For, an organization that advocates for and supports organizations protecting abortion and reproductive rights. Recently, she was the keynote speaker at the Physicians for Reproductive Health‘s annual Rashbaum-Tiller Awards Ceremony, which honored Eve Espey, MD, MPH, and Willie Parker, MD, MPH, MSc, two doctors who provide outstanding abortion services. On Thursday Plimpton will be at a New York City fundraiser for A is For at the sex toy boutique Babeland (“electric ear cleaner” call back, anyone?) in Soho, along with A is For co-founder Lizz Winstead. You should “Come for a Cause.”
And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five with Martha Plimpton.
Martha Plimpton: A is For came about almost a year and a half ago now during the whole contraceptive mandate hearing on the hill debacle with Sandra Fluke. As I’m sure you were as well, we were all completely gobsmacked by the treatment she received. Is this the 21st century? What? And it threw into real relief something which had been lying dormant in the culture for a long time. As a kid, I was involved as much as I could be with Planned Parenthood, in the early 90s when the clinic bombings were happening. Then we entered this period of relative calm when we weren’t really paying attention to what was going on on the state level. It wasn’t really making national news. And so the fact that abortion access was becoming less and less and less available across the country wasn’t really on people’s radar. And so when Sandra Fluke was horrifyingly excoriated, and we heard this vicious, misogynist, violent language, it inspired a lot of people to take a closer look at what was going on. It just exposed this gross underbelly that we hadn’t really been paying attention to.
And so, some women friends and I got together in Los Angeles, we wanted to do something, we didn’t now really what. And we noticed on Twitter and elsewhere people were starting to say, “why don’t they just slap a scarlet letter on us and be done with it.” And I thought, hmm that’s not such a bad idea. And we decided we’d come up with a way to utilize that symbol of the Scarlet Letter and change its meaning, and appropriate it, and use it as a symbol of defiance and in recognition that we all, at some point, male and female, have worn this scarlet letter. And we wanted to use it as way to raise awareness and build some kind of unity and so in doing that we created this organization A is For and basically what we are is an advocacy organization that ‘s there to provide not just financial support but strategic support for other organizations that are working in this field. And one of the organizations we partnered with was the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). And then, I had some friends who were connected with Physicians for Reproductive Health and I was invited to go to their Tiller Awards last year. And then they invited me to be their keynote speaker this year. They’re an incredible organization, obviously.
As George Zimmerman’s trial begins, the stories of two very different shooters show the inequality behind the law
Marissa Alexander, Ralph Wald
A man in Florida shoots a man he finds having sex with his wife, killing him. A woman in Florida shoots the wall to scare off an abusive husband, harming nobody. Guess which one was acquitted? Guess which one was convicted?
On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex with his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times. Conley died. Wald claims that he thought Conley was a stranger who had broken in and was raping his wife – despite the fact that Conley lived next door, had been his wife’s roommate and lover, and had his wife’s name tattooed onto his neck and arm. During a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man he shot was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” Wald never used the word “rape” in later reports to police, opting instead for “fornicate.” And while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening. They say that Wald, who suffers from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage. Flores admits that she and Conley had sex regularly before and after her marriage to Wald. While testifying, Wald explained that his erectile dysfunction and his wife’s reluctance to have sex with him made them compatible: “In fact, she would joke a lot with me … that we were a perfect couple … She didn’t want to do it, and I couldn’t do it.” On May 30, after deliberating for two hours, a jury found Wald not guilty. After the verdict was announced, Wald continued to show no remorse: “If the same thing happened again, I would do the same thing.”
katiehalper.com 