feminism

That's the net effect of this absurd law:

The Senate voted yesterday to make it a crime to take a pregnant minor to another state to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge, handing a long-sought victory to the Bush administration and abortion opponents.

The bill would help about three dozen states enforce laws that require minors to notify or obtain the consent of their parents before having an abortion. It would bar people -- including clergy members and grandparents -- from helping a girl cross state lines to avoid parental-involvement laws. Violations could result in a year in prison.
Their rationale? Parental rights.

Proponents of the Senate bill said it would protect girls from being pressured by their boyfriends into having an abortion. "It's an affirmation of parental rights," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). "An underage child cannot obtain an aspirin at school without parental consent," he said, adding that parents' role in their young daughter's decision about abortion is far more significant.
Nothing like claiming an absurd school rule prohibiting aspirin for students to justify such a draconian law that makes it virtually impossible for an incest victim to take care of herself without the perpetrator's permission.

Of course, the fanciful "pressure from the boyfriend" scenario is what they tell you. But just as important is to protect the progeny rights of fathers who molest their daughters. (They won't tell you that.)

And where are the Democrats?

Democrats are pushing back, accusing Republicans of trying to frighten and divide the electorate rather than tackle tough issues such as high gasoline prices and the Iraq war. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), an antiabortion Democrat who voted for the bill, will spend part of the summer stressing the need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, aides said....Give the girls hell, Harry.

Fifty-one Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for the bill, while four Republicans, 29 Democrats and one independent voted against it.Thus the "Big Tent" some would-be pundits like to blather about for the Democratic Party lets misogyny rain on women. No wonder they dropped the ERA from their platform.

Via BlogHer.

I'm sure a lot of guys would just shrug at Bush's uninvited and unwelcome attempt at massaging German Chancellor Andrea Merkel's shoulders.

On Majikthise, Lindsay notes:

Every woman will recognize the guy who sidles up and starts "casually" giving you a backrub without even looking at you, because he wants to preserve deniability in case you freak out. Like any practiced groper, Bush stares right past Merkel as she recoils from his touch. The play fails, but he just moves on, eyes averted, like it's her problem. ("Oh my God, there's a hysterical woman displaying inappropriate behavior! I'll just pretend I don't notice her egregious gaffe.")

terrance on Republic of T points out that Bush has also kissed and groped men. And of course there's the smoochy relationship he has with Joe Lieberman.

As a gay man, I’ve had my share of unwelcome gropes. (And I’ve been know to grab a groper by the wrist, turn him to face me, and ask him what he thought he was doing.) It’s not funny or flattering. At best it’s assuming a familiarity that doesn’t exist between two people. At worst it’s a way of dehumanizing someone reducing them to a body part to be groped, and it’s a way of asserting dominance; an unspoken way of saying “I can put my hands on you any time I want, and there’s not much you can do about it.”

In comments on Republic of T, "Steve" writes:

I gotta be honest…youre statements are mind-blowingly childish. Get a life…get a job…get something to do instead of sit on your ass all day and come up with stupid things to bitch about. Is Bush an idiot? Did he act a fool in doing what he did? The answer to both is clearly Yes. Did he have misogynist intent? Did he do it to degrade Merkel? The answer to both is No.

You see, this is how male privilege is defended. It's the "oh he didn't mean anything by it" argument. Women are supposed to just smile when a man decides he would like to massage her or fondle her or grope her or, well, fill in the blank, fellas. "Steve" just does not get it, because he cannot see beyond his own comfort.

"Kathy" has a great reply:

I worked in business for many years and mostly with men in the industry I was in and I recognize this readily. I am grateful for your understanding commentary. It is so insulting. It is a way for a man who is insecure about women to put a woman in her place. If you don’t think so, imagine Bush doing this to Vladimir Putin! First, he wouldn’t have the nerve and second what do think Putin would do? This is the German chancellor for goodness sake! Are you kidding me??!!!! Bush may not be drinking but he is certainly acts like a guy in a bar who has issues with women (I have never met an anti-choice person - especially men - who didn’t have mommy issues).

"Jeff" comes up with the most absurd apologia:

’ll tell you what the big deal is. It’s called phallophobia. It’s an irrational fear of male sexuality. Some man touches some woman to which she chooses to find uncomfortable and it’s time to roll out the hyperbole!

Why the German head of state should just accept Bush's "male sexuality" -- or any woman should just accept any man's sexual expression through touching her body -- is beyond me. But hey, "Jeff" is not only blinded by his privilege, he's offended that anyone should challenge it.

By the way, "Jeff": what you call "phallophobia" has a grounding in reality. It's called rape, harassment, molestation and violence towards women. Of course you wouldn't think it's a big deal. After all, you're not being manhandled in that way. --And if you were, I bet you'd do a lot more than shrug your shoulders, as Chancellor Merkel did.

To me, President Bush has always been scary -- even the idea of "President Bush" was scary to me well before November 2000 -- but now he's gotten personally offensive (to Merkel) and, well, rather embarrassing for America. Can't the guy just keep his hands (and bombs) to himself?

Via Truthdig.

The nineteenth issue of The Carnival of Feminists is out today at team-blog Figure: Demystifying the Feminist Mystique.

Posted by Alisha, the introduction reads:

"Welcome to the 19th edition of the Carnival of Feminists! It has really been a pleasure to read all of the nominations and to discover some new blogs we knew nothing about.

Our theme for this Carnival is 'Feminism and Career' and we definitely came across some exceedingly interesting posts on the subject. This happens to be a topic that we here at Figure: Demystifying the Feminist Mystique hold near and dear to our hearts. However, we also wanted to recognize that a career does not necessarily have to be an office job…"

Click through to read the issue.

Next Issue...

The next issue of The Carnival of Feminists will be hosted by Kactus at Super Babymama on August 2nd. The theme to issue 20 will be poverty and class.

You can submit nominations via the Blog Carnival submission form.

To find out more about the carnival, how frequently it appears, and to read past issues, visit the official Carnival of Feminists blog.

To volunteer to host an issue, please contact the Carnival Organizer, Natalie Bennett.

I suppose it's been pretty obvious that I've been slacking lately on my blogging duties. My posts of late have been less the result of a deliberate process and more of an impulsive, "Oh! I need to blog this!" after coming across something.

Here's one of those things: The Carnival of Science Fiction Feminism call for entries, whose deadline for entries is June 29th, with any posts from late May and all of June qualifying.

So if you're blogging about the edgy sexual and reproductive politics of Battlestar Galactica or sexism of Star Trek or attempted deconstruction of macho in Lost (ha!) or the blatant and pernicious sexism in the Dune prequels (making the original downright tame by comparison) or all the stupid sci fi trash coming out of Hollywood (where we don't really even need to mention the blatant sexism and even occasional misogyny running through those rotting fanboy fantasy blockbusters, now, do we, really?)...then send in a link. Also eligible:

* All Weblog Postings on Science Fiction and Fantasy works in all media (books, comic books, television, film, roleplaying tabletop games and video games) written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective is eligible.
* Posts about fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about conventions and fan gatherings of a Feminist nature are eligible.
* Posts about conventions and fan gatherings written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about any science fiction or fantasy fandom written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts linking to newsand announcements are eligible, so long as they pertain specifically to the Feminist Sci-Fi Fantasy community.
* Considerations about science fiction/fantasy news from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Analysis of non-Feminist works from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Rants about any of the above written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts which spell “Space” using 3 A’s and two exclamation points and are written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about Green-Skinned Amazons (from Outer Spaaace!) with more than two breasts that are not written from a Feminist Perspective will not be eligible (and if they aren’t damned funny,* will be reproduced for mockery).
* Posts about Getting Your Girlfriend into [specific type of fandom] had also better be damned funny. If written from a Feminist Perspective (even tongue-in-cheek), they will be eligible.

I found this announcement via CultureCat, whose blog I confess I've not visited in months. So I'm a week late in seeing that CultureCat is now Mrs. CultureCat -- or should I say he is now Mr. CultureCat?

Congrats to Clancy (who is keeping her name, which only makes sense since she's just finishing her Ph.D. dissertation -- not a time to become someone's rib in name)!

from Talk to Action

As GOP voters repudiate Republican legislators who failed to support South Dakota's precedent-setting ban on abortion, and as Louisiana awaits Governor Kathleen Blanco's promised signature on a ban just as harsh, Ohio's legislature is raising the ante by granting a hearing to a ban on abortion introduced by State Rep. Tom Brinkman – one that shows no mercy even when a woman's very life is at stake.

Brinkman's House Bill 228 is in line with the radical position of Ohio's Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial hopeful Ken Blackwell, and it already has picked up endorsements from 17 of Brinkman's colleagues in the Ohio House.

The Constitution Party of Ohio has crossed party lines to support this Republican bill, with an enthusiastic endorsement written by a member of both its state executive and national committees -- Patrick Johnson, D.O. -- which bestows upon Brinkman's bill the blessing of the Army of God.