feminist blogs

Everyone knows that Jews got rich by controlling the world’s banks and media, not just by pinching pennies. This is anti-Semitism 101, people. Can’t the GOP hire some Birthers or 9/11 Truthers to help write their op/eds? Who knows, they could come up with some brand new bigoted stereotypes. “I’m going to pinch my pennies like a Jew” is just so played out.

And it is glorious:

Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, announced that she shares the goal of passing health care reform — not super shocking, considering that the majority of Americans want some sort of reform, and I’m guessing that Snowe’s constituents are among them. Right-wing radio dudes, though, are flipping out, and launching predictably sexist attacks on Snowe. At least they’re somewhat entertaining. From Media Matters:

Jim Quinn: “Stupid Girl” by Garbage “probably fits pretty well.” Quinn stated on his radio show, “Actually, this is a music bed from the song by Garbage called ‘Stupid Girl.’ I didn’t plan it this way, but I’m thinking after Olympia Snowe’s vote yesterday, it probably fits pretty well. Well, don’t give up quite yet on Olympia, because there’s a long, long way to go here, folks, and you need to be very, very vocal. We are doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.” [Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn and Rose, 10/14/09]

Savage dubs Snowe “Jezebel.” After airing a clip of Snowe discussing her vote, Savage played a portion of the song “Jezebel” by Frankie Laine that included the lyrics, “If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you.” Savage added, “Jezebel is Olympia Snowe. Of course she has thrown over with the turncoats who have stabbed America in the back, dragging us into a socialized medical system against the will of the majority of the American people.” [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 10/13/09]

Limbaugh: The “voice of the new castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage” applaud Snowe for health care reform support. Anticipating that Snowe was “going to vote yes” on the Finance Committee’s health care reform bill, Limbaugh attacked Snowe by praising the “bipartisanship” of the bill using “the voice of the new castrati.” Limbaugh described the “new castrati” as “those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage throughout our culture and our political system.” Limbaugh has previously described the “new castrati” as supporters of Hillary Clinton. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/13/09]

Limbaugh on Snowe and Collins: “Women, damn it.” Limbaugh stated on his radio program of Collins: “The second Republican senator signaled yesterday — actually today — that she is open to voting for a sweeping health care bill this year, putting Obama closer to an historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democrat leaders. It is none other than — wait for it — Susan Collins of Maine. Who would have thought this? Dare I say, ‘Women, damn it.’ We have 35 seconds to bleep that comment. I’m going to poll the staff” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/14/09]. Limbaugh’s website also highlights his statement with the headline, “Women! Collins Likely to Joine Snowe in Support of Obamacare,” posted above a transcript of his comments.

Or so says perpetually off-kilter Jill Stanek — except she uses the term “quiche-eaters.” Basically, a study says that women who use birth control tend to be attracted to men with more boyish features with caring personalities, versus “rugged” men with controlling personalities. The study itself is questionable, and the article detailing it comes from the less-than-reliable Daily Mail. But Stanek jumps on it nonetheless, saying, “Also don’t forget estrogen from the Pill is water has been found by several studies to feminize male fish. So women on the Pill may be getting what they’re helping create, wimps.”

Her post is pretty revealing. Pro-choicers often make the argument that at the heart of the anti-choice, anti-gay, right-wing philosophy is misogyny and, in turn, a vise-like grip on traditional gender roles. Men are lionized and women are at best marginalized and at worst despised. When women act “like men” and take their lives into their own hands — by having sex for pleasure instead of just procreation, by working outside of the home, or by otherwise subverting traditional gender roles — those who adhere to “traditional morality” get awfully upset. The same holds true when men turn gender roles on their head. For people like Stanek, the problem with abortion isn’t that it’s ending a life; if that were the case, she would support efforts to actually decrease the abortion rate, like comprehensive sexual education, gender egalitarianism and contraception. The problem isn’t life versus choice; the problem is choice itself, and what that choice means for women’s empowerment, safety and access to traditionally male spheres.

That the Pill would make women more attractive to “feminized” men confirms Stanek’s worldview; even putting aside the fact that a little poking reveals the study to be ridiculous, Stanek and her readers operate under the very basic assumption that to be “feminized” is a very bad thing. Calling someone a “quiche-eater,” as she does in her headline, is insulting because quiche is a woman’s food.

And the Pill is bad for women because it gives women control and a tiny bit of power over their own lives, which they surely don’t deserve.

This article in the New York Times is… interesting. First: I love that the Times has labeled anti-choicers as “abortion foes.” If you look through their archives, that’s the headline in far too many abortion stories. Considering that the antonym to foe is “friend,” I always find their word choice a bit… odd.

But my feelings about “abortion foes” aside, the article is worth a read. It’s not perfect from a pro-choice perspective, and I have some basic journalistic qualms with it — like the fact that the author says that abortion protester James Poullion was killed for his activism, without mentioning that his killer was an unstable individual with no ties to the pro-choice movement, and was going on a murder spree and simply disliked Poullion’s sign. But it’s nonetheless an interesting take, and I’m mostly curious to hear all of your responses. Thoughts?

Nice work, O!

There are, of course, some skeptics on the right and on the left (and guess who I think has a bit more of a point). Yglesias rightly points out that Obama has a lot left to accomplish when it comes to promoting peace — brokering an Israel/Palestine peace deal, normalizing relations with Cuba and promoting international climate agreement. And PZ Meyers adds that Obama hasn’t done away with some of the worst leftovers from the Bush years.

On the right, they’re crying “affirmative action” — because, you know, all the qualified people on the entire planet are white. They’re also “stunned,” and suspect this may be the Nobel committee’s way of criticizing George W. Bush. But hey, at least they’re on the same page as the Taliban – how’s that for international diplomacy?

I’m not sure it’s a criticism of the Bush years as much as a reaction to the fact that George W. Bush destroyed our international reputation and earned us more than a few enemies. Obama has a lot to repair, and has made responsible statesmanship central to his presidency. That’s a good thing.

We absolutely should push Obama to do better — and he has a lot to improve — but the attacks on him for being awarded such a prestigious prize are disturbing. We have a sitting president who won a Nobel Peace Prize. That was unthinkable a year ago. I realize that a lot of people on the right are sore losers, but this is getting ridiculous. The Nobel conversations are already sounding like the flipside of the conservative reaction when Chicago didn’t get the Olympics — there, conservatives were giddy that America had lost something just because Obama wanted it; here, conservatives are devastated that an American leader won something, just because Obama is that leader.

I was in the Chicago area (in the suburbs, not the city) when the news of the Olympic rejection broke, and it was disconcerting to see that right so celebratory when most Chicago residents looked like this:

Admittedly hilarious photos aside, right-wingers were just bad sports about the whole thing. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see them being jerks about Obama’s Nobel prize win.

To be clear, there are lots of reasons to criticize Obama winning the Nobel while Guantanamo is still open and the U.S. still tortures people. But “OMG he’s black and liberal and therefore obvs not qualified!!!” is not one of them.

Certainly not the most surprising news you’ll hear today.

Oh Michelle Bachman, what would we do without you and your, uh, creative interpretations of the facts?

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) took to the House floor last night to warn against a provision of the House health care bill, which would authorize non-profit entities to operate health clinics in schools — which she said would lead to Planned Parenthood “sex clinics” giving abortions to 13-year old girls without the parents knowing about it.

Bachmann said that the bill required the protection of privacy for patient and student records, and asked: “Does that mean that someone’s 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser, they don’t know any different.”

I think it’s safe to say the bill does not mean that, but points for effort.

He’s careful to say he’s not advocating a military coup, he’s just saying…

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the Obama problem. Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

Thanks to Mind for the link.

Wish I were kidding.

via Adam.