Oh, great...

I see that demented old harridan Phyllis Schlafly is back with more of her insufferable anti-feminist gibberish:

"The nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president is a big step forward for women, but a long backward step for the movement we have been taught to call feminism. That is obvious from the anguish, indeed the fury, of feminist commentators. They are so intemperate in their criticism that they are incoherent. Men who are clueless about feminism naively think all women should be cheering. Sarah Palin is a woman who has done it all; she has a successful and even more promising career, five children and a supportive husband.

She crashed through the ultimate layer of the feminist fiction -the "glass ceiling" - and she joined those very few women destined to be known only by their first names. What more could any woman want?"

Phyllis, you braindead old bag. SaWah didn't crash through any ceiling, glass or otherwise. Her nomination was like the dark side of affirmative action run wild -- she was chosen because of her gender, not in spite of it, to get those disgruntled Hillary votes. Not because she had the skills and qualifications for the job, but because her lack thereof meant she'd never challenge Presidaddy McCain. She adds nothing to the ticket but an extra "X" chromosome and an extremist ideology that will deliver a few million votes from the cataclysmically stupid religious right, who while Wall Street burns and war metastasizes into nuclear-armed Pakistan, fret about other peoples' sex lives. But onward. Schlafly can't resist a dig at Gloria Steinem:

"When Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get the Democratic nomination for president or vice president, she and her allies rained a torrent of tears all over the media about the injustice of it all, ranting that rampant sexism denied her the nomination she was due. The aging Gloria Steinem opined on CNN that it is "clear that there is profound sexism." She whined that Hillary couldn't crack the "glass ceiling" because there are "still barriers and biases out there." (emphasis mine)

The "aging Gloria Steinem"? I'll gladly respond to that vacuous little jab in kind. Steinem (pictured above left) and Schlafly (top of post) are both mature women, not too far apart in age, but wow, look at them -- I know which one I'd rather be! Okay, onward:

"The feminists resent Sarah because she's the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton.... Sarah didn't need any Equal Rights Amendment, which Hillary is still promoting even though it was declared dead by the Supreme Court 26 years ago."

That's right. When you're appointed without credentials by God, the Oil Industry and the War Pimps, who needs Equal Rights? And though I can't speak for everyone, I know that's one of the main reasons I resent Palin -- because she got the nomination handed to her like a free pass, just for being a fundie and a woman, and in spite of her own virulently anti-woman policies. It's reverse sexism at its worst -- but I wouldn't expect a misogynist crackpot like Schlafly to understand that.

UPDATE: Antonia Z weighs in... money quote:

"No, Palin did not ''crash'' through the glass ceiling. She got a leg up by a bunch of Republican backroom boys who knew that they needed an extremist on the ticket to placate the right-wing Republicans who had their doubts about McCain's conservative credentials. She also was a cynical attempt to win over white Democrat women who were disaffected by Hillary Clinton's being left off the ticket.

A ''crash'' through the ceiling leaves a hole through which other women may follow, and chip away some more.

But Palin believes in nothing that will improve women's chances of making it."

Tru dat!

Wimmin's Lib hits Al Qaeda

I'm surprised none of the misogynist, anti-feminist Islamophobes picked up on this little item:

"Muslim extremist women are challenging al Qaeda's refusal to include -- or at least acknowledge -- women in its ranks, in an emotional debate that gives rare insight into the gender conflicts lurking beneath one of the strictest strains of Islam.

In response to a female questioner, al Qaeda No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahiri said in April that the terrorist group does not have women. A woman's role, he said on the Internet audio recording, is limited to caring for the homes and children of al Qaeda fighters.

His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists..."

Those uppity Al Qaeda chicks!

Chomp!

Testify, Sister Cheryl!

"I have fought the anti-abortionists. I have fought for equal pay. I have fought for the right to make decisions about my life and dreams. I have fought and fought hard.

So why do I get the feeling that I am not only being dismissed by society in general, but dismissed by my own feminist sisters?"

Cheryl makes an interesting distinction between "second" and subsequent "waves" of feminism. Like me, she's what's referred to (sometimes derogatorily) as a "second-wave" (late 60s) feminist. We're the ones who fought for the most basic of womens' rights. Not just for abortion, but for the right to have sex for any other reason than being a baby-cannon, and the right to enjoy it. Not just for equal pay but for the right to even make the choice of career over homemaking. And not just for the right to choose a career, but the right to walk down the hallway of the office without getting our asses slapped by some passing senior executive (yeah, that happened -- a lot).

Having waded through that kind of shitty misogynist cesspool, it's hard to get outraged about the c-word or some guy calling me "dear". I've reclaimed the c-word -- it's the one curse I use judiciously enough so that when I do, it actually has some punch. And I don't mind being called "dear" -- it's not always meant to be patronizing, sometimes it's sweet, and I think I can tell the difference. At any rate, that's The Small Stuff, not worthy of my sweat. Especially considering there's other fuckery afoot that's very much worthy of outrage and sweat: like 2 bills before Parliament that are (1) a first step in rolling back reproductive rights to the 50s and (2) tantamount to censorship of the arts by Christofascist ideologues. Those are things I can get excited about.

I used to consider it a good thing that younger women took their rights for granted and considered first-wave feminism irrelevant. That's why we fought, so womens' rights would be so integral to society that feminism really would be irrelevant. And yet, old battleaxes like myself prepare to re-enter the fray... and over the same issues we fought years ago. If first-wave feminism is so irrelevant, on whose watch did things go sideways?

Never mind, we might have mellowed but we haven't ripened and rotted yet. Bring on the chains and padlocks, all I ask is to be chained somewhere close to a bench.

EDIT: "First Wave" edited to "Second Wave". The actual "first wave" of feminism took place in the late 1800s/early 1900s, thought it wasn't known as "feminism" until the second wave in the 60s. (Thank you, Mattt :p)

Feminists don't get men

Shorter SUZANNE: "Feminists are hairy-legged man-hating vagina warriors" (beware of link: potential fetus porn hazard):

In SUZANNE's latest anti-feminist screed, she shrieks that "feminists don't get men" -- I'll assume "get" means "understand" (this feminist has *gotten* more than her fair share, in both senses of the word).

First things first: "Get/understand" doesn't mean "acquiese to" or "always agree with" or "live vicariously through", or (especially not) "obey". Women in general and feminists in particular have minds of their own, we don't have to run our thoughts by daddy first to ensure they make the cut. And I don't think it's going out on a limb to say men like it that way. Lookee here:

"...But the third deadly sin is harder to spot in one's self, because it often looks and feels just like love. I'm talking about clinginess. Men are hard to decipher on this point, because they value in women both vulnerability (they want to be your hero) and independence (they want to be left alone once in a while). He wants you close; he doesn't want you on him like a freshly dried sock."

Needy is bad. Clingy is bad. Independence is good. Needy and clingy are not feminist traits, but independence most definitely is... and men like it, like it, yes they do.

My own anecdotal evidence with men of various political flavours confirms this. In the inevitable goofy "Why Are We Together?" interrogation sessions that happen sooner or later in most relationships, conservatives, liberals and anarchists alike agreed that independence was one of my most attractive (if sometimes bedeviling) traits. It's telling that the only one who later changed his mind about it was a conservative Catholic boy who, unable to make me bend to his will (so to speak) and start cranking out babies at age 45(!!!) began constantly complaining that I was "too independent". My returning "What you saw is what you got" quickly escalated to "There's the door, don't let it hit you".

The bottom line is, feminists "get" the men who are worth "getting", and the rest? Uh, no thanks, we'll leave them for the socon ladies with their calendars, thermometers and vaginal mucous measurement systems (could anything be hawter?).

Tee-hee-hee

Why we still need feminism (reason #4,763):Yes, that's a kiddies' T-shirt. A toddler-size kiddies' T-shirt. With shit like this around, anyone who doubts that there's still an urgent need for feminism needs to crowbar their head out of their ass. Use a jackhammer, if necessary.

(from feministing)

New blog for AZ

Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias has a new blog, "Broadsides", where she'll be blogging about feminism, fitness, and probably a lot of other F's. Check it out. And welcome back to Blogistan, AZ!

Death to the Nuclear Family! - Synopsis

Every time I thought I was out... they pulled me back in. But anyway...

After some of us spent a little time debunking various points in Raphael's hyperbolically-titled post, "The Rise of Feminism and the Fall of the Family", some conclusions:

1. RA's assertion that women in the work force is a cause of lower birthrates is correct (although it's far from the only cause). And so what? Lower birth rate, despite what the scare-mongers would have us believe, doesn't equal the imminent collapse of the nuclear family, and with it, civilization. It only means the family construct is adapting and evolving, as is society in general.

2. As anyone possessing a uterus (past or present) can attest to, RA's assumption that there's some kind of biological imperative for women to "do their duty" and contribute to "population replacement" is a stenchy, steaming load. Just because we can doesn't mean we have to, or even want to. Certainly we have no patriotic obligation to breed. Anyway, feminism didn't convince women to take a pass on breeding -- it only showed us we had other options, which many of us were only too happy to choose.

3. RA is way off in his tangent that supposes the social conservatism of the middle east means less of the societal ailments that plague the feminist-infested west. Dave explains.

4. RA's assertion that the nuclear family is somehow superior to other family constructs is mistaken. Family structure evolves according to the demands made on it by the ambient economy. The nuclear family evolved out of modern-day luxury and will continue to evolve in response to economic demand.

5. RA has a valid point in that parenthood isn't as highly valued as career. Who wants to line up with the kids for an allowance every Friday? Who wants to be financially beholden to anyone? (Hint: not me.) But does he realize that paying stay-at-home parents for their work was an early feminist proposal? The notion was rejected primarily because it ran counter to corporate interest -- which is having a huge pool of available labour to drive down labour costs and break unions. (For the same reason, Xenophobes should assign blame for what they see as an "immigration problem" squarely on major corporations, not on feminists refusing to breed.)

6. Wise up RA, it's a new day (and didn't I say this 30 years ago?) Women long ago discovered that they too can follow their bliss and be the best they can be -- whether it's as a homemaker or a hematologist, mother or mechanic. Or all. If it means less kids in the scenario, tough. If men want more kids than women are willing to deliver, they should lobby medical research to find a way for men to get pregnant, 'cause we ain't goin' back, baby.

Now stop bothering me, I've got a top-end engine rebuild to finish.

Barfapalooza

Twisted, bad and wrong in every possible way:

"Whatever happened to little girls playing with dolls and dreaming of becoming wives and mothers? Whatever happened to young men looking for a good Christian wife and finding a young woman still clinging to her doll?"

Clinging to her doll?! How about clinging to the handlegrips of her Harley?

Dispatches from the Cave.

(via pharyngula)

Hear me roar, baby

You Are 98% Feminist

You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action.

Are You a Feminist?

Waahhh! I lost points on the question about women being able to do every job a man can do -- I agreed, but not strongly. There are a few jobs that I can see men being more physically suited to than women -- jobs that, in fact, most men couldn't do. But Pandagon points out some inherent flaws in the quiz that indicate it should be taken with several grains of salt:

"Chris Clarke and I took it honestly and found it felt we were 100% feminist. We took it dishonestly, pretending to have the official anti-birth control and anti-gay marriage beliefs that wingnuts will cop to, and found that we were 80% feminist. If you read the comments below, you’ll find that many people scored “below crazed wingnut” on the feminist scale."