The Anxious Masculinity of Conservatives

Media Girl has an interesting post on the current presidential administration’s and conservatives’ obsession with appearing to be macho, while scorning liberals and Democrats for being feminine–and therefore “weak as women.” Our society’s contemptuous sentiments for anything in the least bit “feminine” and “womanly” in the characteristics or actions of a politician, thrown in of course for emphasis.

Conservative macho chic is in. We’ve seen it in Bush, how he tries to swagger when he walks. (We try to ignore how his manner of walking looks like he has something rammed up his backside.) We saw it in the debates, where his smirking Beavis-and-Butthead-like nervous chuckles tried to mask his belligerence, and where he shook Kerry’s hand in a way that said, “I can take you!” (Wingnuts, if physical prowess is what people want in a President, then why not nominate Mike Tyson?)

We saw it in Russia, when Bush made Putin the “bitch” by making him sit in the passenger seat of his own car. Message: Bush is the daddy.

We heard it in Karl Rove’s pean to ignorance:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Never mind the stupidity of his worldview — praise of ignorant reaction is hardly a path to victory — let’s look at the macho sexist message the conservatives are sending.

Michelle Malkin (you know, “somewhere between meshugga and mendacious”) says:

The Dems are having a hissyfit over the comments, as if stating the obvious is on par with slandering American troops and invoking hysterical analogies.

You know the word: U-n-h-i-n-g-e-d.

Yes, hissyfit and unhinged. They try to position the Democrats as uppity women. How ironic, such language used by a woman. How telling of her own self-image. Poor girl.

Then we have the White House getting all upset that Democrats are “in a huff”:

On the morning talk shows, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett found the Democrats’ demands “puzzling,” and notes Rove apparently struck a chord. He says Rove was “very specific, very accurate” in who he was pointing out for criticism, specifically the liberal group MoveOn.org.

Bartlett says he doesn’t understand why Democrats “are throwing up such a huff.”

What these hacks are doing is appealing to their base where “moral values” means “macho values.” They want their supporters all stirred up and upset over how they’re oppressed by liberals. If Rove can keep people reacting emotionally, then they won’t actually think about what they’re doing, what we as a nation are doing. They want everyone to be hot and bothered and stupid, because then the conservative gang can remain in control. They don’t want anyone asking questions. They don’t want anyone sniffing around. No, better to keep everyone worked up over irrelevance. They advocate stupidity even when it costs American lives. Even when it diminishes American security.

They also love violence — especially against fellow Americans. For example, we have our lovely fellow citizens who want to go shooting Americans for having the audacity to have their own opinions, for daring to believe they are free, for not marching to the jack-boot drum cadence of these conservatives. They seem to have taken a page or two from the Communists: they want a country with only one party, where dissenters are shot and imprisoned, where having the wrong thoughts can be a crime. They also seem to take a page or two from the Fascists: private property is only for the in-crowd; torture means strength; capitalism means corporate and political rulers are the same people.

And they claim to hold American values? These wingnuts are all hot and bothered because of American values! These paranoid conservatives are out to destroy American values!

On the command deck of HMSS Wingnuttia, Captain Ed bellows his complaint:

That the party of Harry Truman has descended to this jaw-dropping level of political cowardice and sheer crybaby status boggles the mind.

–as if the Republicans haven’t been running the government on a platform of cowardice and crying victim. To listen to them, you’d think the Democrats were running the show. It’s especially ironic that the good captain cites Harry Truman, the man who made is name in the Senate by going after the very kind of war profiteering currently being perpetrated by Cheney’s Halliburton. Maybe the esteemed officer should harken back to the president who held office when Republicans at least stood for virtue:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” –Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

How ironic that these paranoid radicals see liberal boogie men everywhere and start yapping like Pomeranians, yet demonstrate time and again their skill at preventing reality from penetrating their skulls. Could it be that they fear what we say because there’s truth to it? Could it be that deep down they know they’re wrong? That would be an affront to their machismo! Perhaps that’s why they keep returning to thumping on their chests, stroking their decisiveness and demanding that the rest of us bend over.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 94 Comments

The Supreme Court Ruling Yesterday on the Ten Commandments

…Which I’m sure will have the far Rightwing Christian wingnuts and neocon Republican politicians chanting their all time favorite stanza; “woe and blessed be the Christians of this country who are being persecuted and oppressed by man’s law and activist judges.”

Via the A.C.L.U.

Historic Ruling in Ten Commandments Case Affirms Religious Liberty Principles in Strongest Terms, ACLU Says
June 27, 2005

Congress Should Resist “Unwise and Unnecessary” Constitutional Amendment on the Ten Commandments

WASHINGTON — Today’s historic Supreme Court ruling that display of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses violates the Constitution contains some of the Court’s most powerful language in years on the question of the government’s role in religion and society, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

“As the Justices today affirmed, religious liberty is best strengthened by following the Constitution’s command against government entanglement with religion, not by government involvement in religious decision-making,” said ACLU Legal Director Steven R Shapiro.

Some of the strongest language came from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence with the 5-4 majority, in which she said: “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders,” Justice O’Connor wrote, “it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship…Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.”

Justice O’Connor’s words echo her opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she observed that state endorsement of religion “sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

“The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs,” said David A. Friedman, General Counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky, who argued the case last March.

In a second decision today, the Court upheld a stone monument display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas statehouse grounds. However, no opinion commanded a majority of the Court. The critical fifth vote was provided by Justice Breyer, who acknowledged that “‘the separation of church and state’ has long been critical to the peaceful dominion that religion exercises in [this] country,” but nevertheless concluded that the particular circumstances of the Ten Commandments display in Texas permitted it to stay.

“While we disagree with that conclusion,” Shapiro said, “a majority of the Supreme Court in both cases has now clearly reaffirmed the principle that government may not promote a religious message through its display of the Ten Commandments.”

However, the ACLU expressed concern about reports that some in Congress are intent on pushing for a constitutional amendment to permit religious displays on government property. Such an extreme assault on the First Amendment is both unwise and unnecessary, the ACLU said.

“The Justices affirmed that the government can honor the historical importance of religious displays without having the state endorse one faith over another,” said Terri Ann Schroeder, a Senior Lobbyist with the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. “Congress should respect that distinction, and respect the First Amendment’s protections against the government funding or promoting religion. We can honor our roots while honoring the Constitution.”

One of my favorite bumper stickers; ‘The last time they combined religion and government, they called it the Dark Ages.’

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 2 Comments

New Rape Culture and Gender Thread

Okay here’s the “sequel” to my other Rape Culture post. For a lead-in I bring you the very brutally honest and true comment by Q Grrl from the ‘Amanda presents some real Anti-Rape Advice’ thread.

Q Grrl Writes:
June 28th, 2005 at 11:35 am

You know, I honestly tried to come into this thread on rape with an open mind, hoping that, well, we wouldn’t get the same tired bullshit about prevention, the false equivalency between men in high crime districts and the rape of women, and the otherwise general unwillingness to address rape as rape. But I can’t do it. At least not the open mind part.

Having said that, I fully believe that the ONLY way a woman can control/plan for/avoid/restrict rape is to NOT BE BORN A WOMAN.

Enough said about that. Now my mind is no longer open and you all can deal with my anger at your (general) unwillingness to address rape per se and to make excuses for the men that rape.

Virginia writes:

“Actually, as a health psychology student, I can appreciate your analogy to safety-related behaviors such as looking both ways before crossing the street. “?

And not to pick on Virginia, but I’m using her very succinct summary of the posts above hers as a launching pad.

This “analogy”? of safety-related behavior assumes that all parties involved wish to avoid the same risks. No two drivers at any given time want to hit each other. The risk is fairly equivalent between both parties. No particular driver wants to hit any particular pedestrian, both believing that the risks outweigh the benefit in any particular situation.

Rape is none of the above. Rape carries benefits; for those of you unwilling to look at those benefits, the are:

Male orgasm
Male access to sex performed on women’s bodies
Male restriction of women’s access to public space; to include parks, neighborhoods, public facilities (banks, grocery stores, schools, court houses, etc.), government facilities.
Male restriction of women’s political voices (just go to dKos if you wonder what I mean)
Male restriction on women in combat
Male restriction on responsibility for other men
etc.

Furthermore, the sidetracking of rape discussions into issues of how men are also socially hurt is complete horseshit. You cannot place rape in a vacuum. Rape co-exists with prohibitions on women’s access to birth control and abortion. Rape co-exists with the institution of marriage. Rape co-exists with socially condoned dating norms.

Rape is MOST unlike a man getting high off of recreational drugs and walking around in a high crime district.

In fact, rape has nothing to do with that.

But, by all means, we should be socializing girls and women differently. We should socialize them to fight back, to look men straight in the eye, to go for the balls everytime.

WHAT WE SHOULDN’T BE SOCIALIZING THEM FOR IS THAT IF THEY FAIL TO DO THIS, THEY DESERVE THE OUTCOME OF AN ACTION FREELY CHOSEN BY A MALE PERPETRATOR.

How is it that ya’ll are capapble of missing this distinction?

What year is it anyway? 2005?

Lovely and I agree with this :-) So,…. rape culture, gender, women, victim-blaming, men’s responsibility or lack thereof, dating, prevention, marital rape, “boys will be boys,” why do men rape?, patriarchy’s role, acquaintance rape, stranger rape, excusing rape and sexual assault because “guys just can’t help themselves so put all of the burden of prevention on women,” how and why men benefit from rape, how does pornography play into this, shaming of the female victim, men as potential rapists, men and women’s sex drives, relationships, socialization,etc. Have at it!

One more note, Aegis and the disrespectful and rude troll Nephandus are NOT permitted–hence banned–from commenting on this thread, due to their piss-poor and outright disrespectful behavior towards me and others. Any comments of yours’ on this thread will be automatically deleted and seen as further proof of your refusal to show any respect or consideration of others–especially to the moderator.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 408 Comments

'There is nothing Christian about discrimination.' … Rev. Steven Baines

That statement is becoming harder and harder to believe, due anti-LGBT civil rights politicians such as the neoconservative Republicans who have hijacked Christianity in order to justify discrimination against the Queer Community. One minute we are told that Christianity is a religion that’s peaceful, tolerant, loving–as was Christ, but the next minute we see “Christians” such as neocon Republicans spouting homophobic bigotry and pro-discrimination against LGBT people sentiments. Thankfully, not all Christians are this way and some are getting tired of seeing their religion hijacked and twisted in order to condone hate.

Minister Denounces President Bush’s ‘Compassionate Homophobia’

‘There is nothing Christian about discrimination.’ … Rev. Steven Baines

On June 21, President Bush addressed the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn. Praising the convention’s support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, the president said: “Southern Baptists are practicing compassion by defending the family and the sacred institution of marriage.”

Reverend Steven Baines, an elder in the Disciples of Christ and member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Religious Leadership Roundtable responds with the following statement:

“As an elder in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and a former Southern Baptist minister, I am disappointed that the president and leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention continue to present their discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in the guise of compassion.

“The president’s speech failed to explain how a Federal Marriage Amendment that would block thousands of American families from the protections they need for their stability and security can be seen as an act of compassion; just as the Southern Baptist Convention has failed to explain how supporting this discrimination contributes to its Christian witness. There is nothing Christian about discrimination.

“Instead of dressing up their bigotry as ‘compassionate homophobia’ the president and the Southern Baptist Convention can show real compassion by guaranteeing full equality for same-sex couples and their families. This would be more in line with the ethic of compassion for the marginalized and oppressed that is the foundation of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures the president claims to revere so strongly.”

Well at least it’s compassionate bigotry, because remember they’re “compassionate conservatives.” Also, according to the religious wingnut rhetoric of the passed few years, Christians are the only ones being “oppressed,” due to the big “secular-humanist, pro-abortion, feminazi, pinko-commie, extremist, and militant Queer-lifestyle conspiracy” that controls everything in this country. Riiiight….. Practically owning Congress and the White House, and being the majority religion apparently don’t count as having any power and influence.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 2 Comments

Politicians on the Hill propose an "Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act"

Ardent and vocal pro-choice and pro-contraception politicians seem to be few and far in between these days, what with the Democrats cowering away from their original party platform, and Republicans moving even further to the right in order to appease the conservative religious Rightwing. Some have become completely silent out of fear that they’ll appear “too pro-choice and too pro-contraception.” However a couple of senators and representatives remain steadfast in their beliefs and have proposed a bill that would allow women to access their contraception without being turned away by an entire pharmacy.

NOW Supports Legislation Protecting Women’s Right to Legal, Safe Birth Control

NOW joined Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Representatives Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, D-Fla., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn., at a recent press conference where they introduced the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, or ALPhA (S.809/ H.R. 1652). This legislative proposal, supported by NOW and women’s health groups across the nation, does not require individual pharmacists to dispense any medications for which they have a religious or moral objection. However, it would require there be another pharmacist on the premises who will immediately fill the prescription and that the pharmacy must order the prescribed drug if it is not already in stock. In addition, the pharmacist cannot harass, humiliate, or intentionally breach the confidentiality of the individual attempting to fill the prescription.

Access to birth control is a women’s health issue and a private matter, not to be tampered with by a pharmacist with an agenda,” said Maloney. The legislation is a sweeping response to recent reports from women in over a dozen states who have publicly stated that pharmacists refused to fill their birth control or emergency contraception prescriptions due to a “moral conflict of interest.” Across the nation, pharmacists are turning away patients with a legal medical prescription for some form of birth control, citing their own personal beliefs to determine what is in the best “interest” of their customers. When a pharmacist denies medical treatment based solely on their personal religious beliefs, it is both cruel and unacceptable.

The American Pharmacists Association established a “conscience clause” in 1998, allowing pharmacists to dispense medication based on personal beliefs — although it specifically states pharmacies have an obligation to ensure the patient’s access to their prescribed medication. “Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills, tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient,” Lautenberg announced. “Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease . . . If a pharmacist is allowed to pick and choose what prescriptions to fill, everyone’s health is put at risk.”

Regrettably, some pharmacists are taking it upon themselves to stretch the boundaries of this clause. Not only are they refusing to fill prescriptions for legal and safe hormones or refer the customer to another pharmacist or pharmacy, some pharmacists are refusing to even return a written prescription so the woman can have it filled elsewhere. Consequently, women who live in small towns or rural areas often have no alternative pharmacy available, and rape victims may suffer twofold if they have to continue searching for another pharmacy.

NOW is urging all women’s rights supporters to tell their Congress members to support this important legislation protecting a woman’s constitutional right to obtain safe and legal birth control. Pharmacists may have a license to dispense drugs but they are not authorized to discriminate against women nor dictate anyone’s access to healthcare. As Wasserman-Schultz said, “. . . if men were denied condoms by pharmacies, this issue would have been taken care of already.”

That’s for damn sure. If it was an issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, or Enzyte, Congress would have another one of those ’emergency Midnight sessions,’ and it would have media attention galore, unlike the current situation. Imagine the name of the bill for such a thing….the ‘Give Me My Viagra Now, But Don’t Give My Wife Birth Control’ Bill. I’m sure it would be passed unanimously, probably only two seconds after the session is called to order.

(More commentary on this at my other co-blogging site–blogwhoring!–Women’s Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements.)

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Elections and politics | 2 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging – "So Cute You Wanna Womit" edition

You see that expression in the above photo – that expression that makes you want to drop absolutely everything and give this baby whatever she wants? That expression does not come naturally. Sydney spends hours practicing with a mirror.

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 14 Comments

The AFI's 100 Greatest Movie Quotes List

I’m sure I’m not the only one who was not terribly impressed with the AFI’s “100 Greatest Movie Quotes” list. I don’t think I agreed with their view of what makes a quote “great”; too many of their quotes are on the list only because they evoke a great scene (“Is it safe?”), or because they’ve become iconic (“Hasta la vista, baby”), not because they’re especially great lines.

“My precious” is not the best line from Lord of the Rings, for example. Not even close. And “Bond. James Bond” has certainly become iconic, but who the hell thinks it’s a great line?

To me, a great movie quote should either be great in and of itself (“One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don’t know.” –Groucho Marx, Animal Crackers), or (better yet) it should be a brilliant quote that also says an enourmous amount about the character speaking the quote and the situation they’re in. (“I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” from Apocalypse Now is, by this standard, the best line of the 100 – it’s a brilliant line in and of itself, and it says so much about that character and his situation).

Casablana makes it on the list six times – which is fair enough, that movie has tons of great lines. Surprisingly, “I’m shocked, shocked” doesn’t make the list.

Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: [aloud] Everybody out at once!

Ann Althouse points out that a quarter of the quotes are said by women. That doesn’t strike me as unfair – or, rather, it does strike me as unfair, but what’s unfair isn’t so much in the quotes chosen, but in the fact that men are disproportionately given the best parts in movies. (Even more striking: A List of Things Known points out that only three (!) of the 100 quotes are said by people of color. And one of the quotes is “show me the money,” which is a lame line anyhow.)

Just for fun, let’s use this thread to tell each other some of our favorite movie lines said by women, or by people of color, or both. Kim wants me to go outside and help with the garage sale, but before I do that I’ll start us off with some of Eleanor’s great lines from The Lion in Winter:

Henry II: The day those stout hearts band together is the day that pigs get wings.
Eleanor: There’ll be pork in the treetops come morning.

Eleanor: You look fit. War agrees with you. I keep informed; I follow all your slaughters from a distance. Do sit down.

Eleanor: I could peel you like a pear and God himself would call it justice!

Prince John: A knife! He’s got a knife!
Eleanor: Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It’s 1183 and we’re barbarians! How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we are the origins of war: not history’s forces, nor the times, nor justice, nor the lack of it, nor causes, nor religions, nor ideas, nor kinds of government, nor any other thing. We are the killers. We breed wars. We carry it like syphilis inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten.

Eleanor: Mother’s tired. Come stick pins tomorrow morning; I’ll be more responsive.

(By the way, the internet movie database is a great resource for finding quotes from particular movies.)

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 62 Comments

Michael Kimmel on Men's Rights Radio tomorrow

Michael Kimmel, who might be my favorite male feminist writer, will be appearing on the men’s rights radio show His Side With Glenn Sacks tomorrow. (Glenn’s getting some good guests this year). From the “His Side” promo:

Author and sociologist Michael Kimmel, National Spokesperson for the pro-feminist men’s group the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), disagrees, to put it mildly. In his book Manhood in America Kimmel, America’s leading male feminist, calls the men’s movement “whiners.” According to Kimmel:

“Fathers’ rights groups use a language of equality to take their revenge against women to court, to demand mandatory joint custody without demonstration of father’s prior involvement. Most advocates of men’s and fathers’ rights are disgruntled and divorced dads who blame their wives and their wives’ lawyers…”

Kimmel says the men’s movement analysis of gender issues is “so misguided, its inversions so transparent, its anger is displaced onto those who have traditionally been excluded, that it can hardly offer any man of reason a convincing picture of men’s situation.” To Kimmel, those who assert that the tables have been turned against men in the gender wars are looking at the world “through a funhouse mirror.”

You can listen to the program live tomorrow, at 5pm PST, 8pm EST, at this website. Considering what Glenn’s listeners are like, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if some pro-feminist listeners called in, too.

Posted in Whatever | 5 Comments

Amanda presents some Real Anti-Rape Advice

Inspired by threads here on “Alas” and on her own blog, Amanda has written an excellent post about victim-blaming and rape, including some well-researched advice:

*Austin is a relatively peaceful city, crime-wise, but we have an abnormally high rate of sexual assault due to being such a young city. (Last time I checked, our average age is 28.) As such, my friend who works in forensics spends a great deal of her time collecting evidence on sexual assault cases. I asked her once what she finds rapists look for most in victims and she said vulnerability–crossing your arms, looking away, hunching the shoulders and other body language that says that you are unsure of yourself. Her advice to women to avoid rape is to walk down the street, into rooms, everywhere like you own the place. Meet people’s eyes and let them know you know what they look like. She didn’t mention any specific places or situations to avoid.

*So, hard as it may be to believe, the best way to empower women to defend ourselves against rape is to teach girls not to be afraid of men and to be self-assured. If we keep telling girls that certain places or situations are off-limits, when they enter those situations they will immediately adopt the posture of a shrinking violet and attract rapists.

*But the #1 thing the books I read on the subject and my friend emphasized is that there is only one stance that should be taken when regarding victims–unwavering support and sympathy. BSU members who questioned victims go out of their way to support the choices made by the victim at the time of the crime–there were no lectures on being naive, and in fact choices that are generally characterized after the fact as somehow inviting rape are praised for what they are–being kind, being friendly, and being free. Rape is so prevalent that it leads to what hate crime expert Donald characterizes as a “massive dead-weight loss of freedom“. Telling a woman to curtail her freedom of movement and association due to rape is and will be taken as assisting the rapist in his job of terrorizing us.

That’s just a small sample – you should read the whole thing.

Posted in Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 78 Comments

Doctor Resigns From Hospital Because She Won't Do Unneeded C-Sections

Apparently her patients are happy and the births she works on have good health outcomes. Nonetheless, the hospital pressured her to more than double her rate of c-sections. LAmom has the story.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Whatever | 182 Comments