He gets hero worship, she gets laundry

Today on feministing, Jessica Valenti blogs that PlaySkool is still pushing their Rose Petal Cottage on American girls.

The pink, pastel wonder comes complete with a washer/dryer, oven, baby cradle and stuffed chair. Now there's nothing wrong with children wanting to play house or play with domestic toys. I had a tea set when I was little and I adored princess clothes and baby dolls. But sometimes my "baby" and I would be mother and daughter taking a safari through the backyard. Sometimes I'd be wearing a tiara while climbing trees and splashing in mud puddles.

I don't understand why we haven't advanced beyond this notion that kids today play a certain way based on what's between their legs.

The Rose Petal Cottage is a classic example -- it's just one female stereotype after another. A line from the sing-songie advertisement goes, "I love when my clothes get so clean, taking care of my home is a dream dream dream."

Now Playskool has put out the Sweet Lily Castle -- for $200 your daughter can be a princess complete with frog to kiss (cause every princess needs a prince). Just once I want the princess outfit to come with a throne and palm pilot to plan all your diplomatic meetings and charity events!



Again, I see nothing wrong with selling stuff like this. But when you step back (like way back) to look at the big picture. It starts to get frustrating.

Last night, I was watching TV and a ridiculous commercial came on. Sexy boyfriend and I were laughing hysterically at it, but I immediately noticed the language



It's not just that only boys are featured in the video, from the voice over, it's clear this is a boys-only toy.

"He’s steering the action"
"Everything your little hero needs" -- hero apparently meaning MALE
"His imagination is racing"

Keep in mind this is also a PlaySkool toy, the same folks that make Rose Petal Cottage and Sweet Lily Castle.

When toys mature, it's the same problem. Take a look at this image (I lifted it from Feministing who got it from Elle phd




Via Elle:

And while the "boy's" kit promises to boost your brain... the "girl's" kit promise to relax you and let you experiment with different fragrances. The boy's box is also covered with words like "go wild" and "erupt" and "blow your mind,"while the only thing that promises to be exciting about the girl's is the foaming and frothing of bubbles.

When you stop at feministing, check out even MORE examples of sexist packaging for young girls/boys products. And it starts at Playskool and just continues... actually, it probably starts the minute the doctor says, "It's a girl."

As soon as the "Helmet Heroes" commercial was done (and we were finished giggling at the dad "behind bars") I said to Sexy Boyfriend, "Why can't HER imagination be racing?"

He sort of snorted at me, "You WOULD notice that."

Yeah I would. And I'm kinda pissed that he doesn't. I get really sick of people brushing it off as 'no big deal' when we just went through an election that had some of the worst open displays of sexism and misogyny our country has seen in YEARS. Don't tell me that all these antiquated ideas about sex and gender and the so-called limitations thereof (what girls can't do etc) doesn't have REAL ramifications.

Luckily, I saw this video on CNN today about two high school girls who play football on their school team. Yes, they wear heels and like to shop but they are assets to the team and even wish they could tackle. That representation is much more truthful. Girls can still be girls (whatever that means) even while playing football in the mud, experimenting with chemistry and running for President!

News Flash: Domestic violence is not a feminist conspiracy

There's a growing number of groups who are trying to discredit the serious problem of domestic violence. Theses groups advocate domestic violence fundraising events-- like Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues -- be banned or call for an end to the VAWA. Take a totally "unbiased" site which encourages people to fight against VAWA-- you know the act that helps end domestic violence? A key way to tell this site is chock full of stupidity and misogyny:

These girls were claiming part of the solution was in making new laws. In practice, the only effect of this legislation was to encourage divorce, and broaden the power of government in family relationships.

First of all... GIRLS-- these "girls." Not women. Nice, totally subtle.

Meanwhile, anyone who challenges the laws and the funding in multiple billions of dollars in total for these programs is immediately silenced by the label of sexist, hatemonger, or worse. It has been as if some kind of Inquisition has been established to root out all heretics, where no one dares challenge the word of the feminists, no matter how irrational that word may be.

Yes, because being a feminist is full of so much political power. We're getting our way SO much these days

At no time do you find any kind of counseling or other means of assisting a victim in discovering the cause for her uniquely personal situation. Nor do you find encouragement for working within the family unit in order to address, and perhaps even solve their relationship problems. What you do find, and find repeatedly, is placing of blame on men and the clear advancement of separation.

Indeed. Let's blame those awful feminists. How dare they give women the idea that this isn't their fault, but rather the fault of their abusive batterer who has no self-control and thinks it's ok to hit you. Really. How dare we advocate divorce? Well you know feminists, just a bunch of heartless bitches, right?

Seems like all these "men's sites" like to talk about how men are abused 50% of the time. Now, I admit. Men are abused. But if you check out actual facts. (aside: Never trust a website that refers to professional women as "girls.") you'll see there is a legit reason that Domestic violence messages are primarily targeted at women.

Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total. This stat is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003

Then I see atrocities like this and I just want to shake people and scream -- HELLO.

In case you can't link to the CNN story, a summary:

Meg Lundeen, a Minneapolis woman was brutally attacked by her husband, Randy Aaser, the night of her 30th birthday. The two got in an argument and Randy slit Meg's throat. The cut was so deep that Meg's windpipe & tongue were completely severed.

Doctors reattached her tongue, but it's not clear yet how her ability to speak or taste will be affected.

Aaser has been charged with second-degree attempted murder.

But yeah, let's stop promoting events like Vagina Monologues, let's quit funding VAWA, and above all, quit listening to feminists-- rather, let's try to get Meg and Randy to just "work stuff out".

Oh and there's this. CNN is just bursting today.

Sexism and conservatives

One reason I am so bitterly angry towards conservatives is that they are so un-ashamedly sexist. But in all fairness, we have a lot of conservative women to blame for this. Take the ladies at the Eagle Forum who have this to say about honorable women serving in our military,

"Pregnancy and sea time are incompatible. If women become pregnant, they must eventually depart the ship.... Could you imagine a monthly pregnancy screening for women assigned to submarines? Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are recruited? Shipboard romances affect good order and discipline and ruin marriages. The Navy discriminates against obesity, illness, disability, age, and yes, sex. The military's mission is to effectively fight wars, not be an equal opportunity employer pandering to every special interest group. Should we make submarines handicapped accessible?"

Wow, forced pregnancy screenings and comparing military women to whores who bust up the good, honest marriages of all the male navy officers. PLUS comparing women to people with a handicap? Gee whiz. What a fabulous article.

Or the musings of Ann Coulter:

"I think women should be armed but should not be allowed to vote. The problem with women voting is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

How silly, spending money on taking care of children and education? Good to know Miss Coulter is pro-life until your kid comes out of the womb, then that sucker is on its own. And it's so nice that she's still for that quaint little idea of women being so silly about money. We should go back to the good old days when father knows best gave the little woman some money for groceries and went out and voted for her!

Well women promoting sexism hit a new low in this piece:

Mary Grabar writes "The Girls on the View"

"After watching The View and following the inane statements made on the program, I’ve come to the conclusion that it really is true what Aristotle, Saint Paul, and John Milton said: Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner."

Yes, judge ALL women EVERYWHERE by four or five talk show hosts. Let's make assumptions on all black people based on Oprah. Or wait, let's judge all Muslims based on Osama bin Laden... oh wait, Ann Coulter already does that ("Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'Kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and answer to the name Muhammad'.")

Mary Grabar goes on to say...

"This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor."

I don't think I even need to justify this sort of stupidity. Let's make a blanket statement and back it up with no evidence. Men = smart, rational thinking. Women = silly, unreasonable and needing men to guide them. Brilliant.

Grabar goes on to make fun of women on the View for having cleavage (she compares them to prostitutes), makes fun of stay at home moms and male college English professors who teach female authors and "sit down to pee." Ahhh, such mature dialogue.

Grabar talks about how she hates hanging out with women because they just want to squeal and talk about frivolous things-- unlike men:

"Men, on the other hand, are quite capable of holding forth intelligently among themselves, as commentators have done through the years. You don’t have men squealing “Oh, I love your tie!” as they set to embark on a discussion about the future of free world."

Another statement that is based on stereotype, not fact. Grabar is merely recycling years of misogynist rhetoric "Women are silly, they can't hold real discussions or vote or do anything without a man." There's no proof for this, especially considering many studies show that men and women score equally on logic tests and women are kicking men's butts as far as furthering their education. 58% of college students in America are WOMEN.

I'm not trying to argue that women are smarter or better. I think these arguments are a waste of time. But it is important to remember these facts when you start to hear the mindless drivel conservatives are spouting.

Grabar is 100% hypocrite because halfway through the article she talks about some idiotic personality test which proves she's not the typical, stupid, squealing female.

"No I’m not a typical woman. I read philosophy. I hate to shop. I don’t care what I’m wearing. Nothing in my house is coordinated."

Yes, cause all females like to shop and only care about their home decorations and clothes --- and they NEVER read philosophy!

Gee Mary, maybe women aren't dumb, you're just an uppity bitch with a superiority complex. I too find the View impossible to watch, but I wouldn't presume to judge the value of all women based on four celebrities on a talk show, aimed at bringing in viewers not making huge, profound intellectual statements.

The most troubling thoughts come in the comment sections in these articles. All the conservative men who share these beliefs about women being silly, child-like and in need of men to guide them, finally feel comfortable expressing their views-- because, after all, a woman said it first.

The biggest irony is that both conservative men and women argue that a women's place is in the home taking care of the children. What does it say that you trust the most important job -- bringing up the future generation--to people you don't trust to make adult, intelligent decisions.

Their argument makes no freakin' sense!

Update at 3:30-- read this also for more great insight... Damn Feministe, they always say it better :)

Plan B anger

A quick thought while I sit in class today. I'm just cranky.

True, it's a major victory that Plan B is now avaliable over the counter (as it should have been years ago, before it was blocked by anti-choice zealots). But why the age limit? Women under 18 still need a prescription.

WHY? We know it's a safe drug to take over the counter!

No man ever has to flash an ID card when he wants to buy condoms. But a girl under 18 needs to go have an appointment and possibly beg to get E.C.? There's no good reason except we want to monitor these young girls and make it more difficult and possibly let them know (yet again) that we don't trust their decisions.

Lame. So very, very lame.

Pro-lifers hate women

Maybe they don't realize it, but they do. And it's funny because there are plenty of pro-life women out there. I can only assume they are kidding themselves about the reality of abortion. Perhaps they've never had to make the difficult abortion decision or they've never had a girlfriend who was courageous enough to share her story. They clearly have never had to deal with a daughter, sister or friend in a position of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

This post is about what's going on in South Dakota. I have been visiting the "letter to the editor" sections of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and the Rapid City Journal. This is how I know that pro-life = punishing women.

The letters coming in asking for support of Measure 6 (which would ban abortion in all cases, even rape, incest and health risks to the mother) never talk about women, unless condemning them.

They refuse to acknowledge that women are not built for the sole purpose of incubating a fetus. Hypocrisy practically drips from the pages. One writer, Jaye Grant said that in 1983 the man she was seeing “insisted” on her having an abortion. She now regrets the decision, calling it murder. While she may regret her decision, she still had the opportunity to make one!! Just because she has guilt over her choice does not mean she can make choices for other women. Unfortunately I know several women who have needed abortions *I say unfortunately because while I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion*. None of my girlfriends ever mentioned remorse, merely relief at being relieved of an unwanted burden.

I know my own mother would need an abortion now if she became pregnant. She is in her mid 50s, and suffers from diabetes and heart problems. Pregnancy would be extremely dangerous for her and the fetus! But under South Dakota's law, the government not her physician would make the decision, possibly condemning her to death. In fact, this S.D. law could very well be a death sentence. If a pregnant woman found she had cancer, she could not obtain lifesaving radiation because it would endanger the fetus, AND she would be denied an abortion. Sick.

Women have been getting abortions for thousands of years and for varying reasons. Making this medical procedure illegal will only drive women to dangerous situations. Pregnancy is a private matter and medical procedure between a woman and her doctor, and if she chooses, a faith tradition. Not your faith tradition—hers--- if she has one.

More to the point… A woman is more than a fetus (see above graphic, if you need help with this difficult concept). The fetus has a potential to become human. A woman IS human. What’s next, shall we not save women from ectopic pregnancies since those fertilized eggs could technically be considered life? Don't laugh. This is normal procedure in countries like El Salvador, where abortions have been criminalized. If a woman has a fertilized egg in her fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy) doctors do not remove it. Even though these eggs are not viable (as they can not grow or develop) and will only result in serious medical complications for women.

If you want further evidence that restricting abortion is really about punishing women then look no further than South Dakota’s own statistics. The child poverty rates are high, teacher salaries are low, and state-employed social workers are laid off to save money. If S.D. government cares so much about “life” perhaps they’d work harder at fixing these problems and spend less time telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body.

This is nothing new. The same people who want to repeal Roe and take back choice also want to deny women contraception, block the HPV vaccine and deny sex education for teens.

Why?

Because sluts should be punished. Women with a litter of kids will be too busy for college, education, work outside the home and therefore any progress. Barefoot and pregnant = good. Choice and options are bad.

You want furthe proof?
(click to enlarge this helpful chart. If that doesn't work, you can find it at this blog)


I think it would be great if we lived in a world without abortion. It's a stressful decision for women and I acknowledge that it can be psychologically debilitating. But choice must not be taken away. There are thousands of women's stories that illustrate this point. And I'm not just talking about victims of incest and rape. Of course, if you ask SD State senator, Bill Napoli, a "real rape victim" is pretty rare.

Napoli's infamous quote: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Access to abortions should not be contingent on a third party’s moral judgment. Especially a third party misogynist butthole like Bill Napoli.

Dear Patriarchy,

Thank you for always being there to make sure I know my place. I'm always surprised how you can be everywhere at once. Doesn't it make you tired? Seeking me out to hush me up? Why am I not entitled to my opinion? Am I not allowed to feel violated? Bull. I am allowed to look at events and take them personally. When a man enters a building and kills women at gunpoint, I look at that from a woman's perspective-- so sue me! I know I am not alone. I am not alone. Why can't you see I'm not alone? I AM NOT ALONE! Yet you try and make me alone. You try and make me wrong. Make me crazy. I'm a hippie. I make it all about women. You have facts and I just have feminism. Right?

WRONG.

Stop trying to make me small. Stop coming at me everywhere. You're on the news. You're in my classrooms. You're in my oval office making laws about my uterus and what I can do with it. You're in the words of friends, questioning, mocking. LEAVE ME ALONE. I am me. I need a space to write my feelings, my questions. My mind is so full of anger. But I don't want to be that woman that says "I hate men." I don't but I am tired of comments I can't publish, threatening me. Talking about how they'll take my life. "Make me shut my cunt mouth."

I'm tired of defending my opinions to "you" because you think you know more. Because it's never about an honest discussion-- it's about you teaching me a lesson. You don't read my thoughts assuming that you could learn something about me, about women's issues. You go in with a pre-conceived notion of what I am, what I know, how I'm WRONG. I don't want to defend myself to you, on any level.

Tonight I "took back the night." And I took back myself. I threw away the doubt you put in my mind. I let myself believe I really was blowing things out of proportion. But surrounded by all these other women and their stories, I am reminded that I am not alone in recognizing the full circle of women's issues. There is plenty in our society that is connected. Women's issues are human issues. The same violence that injures our mothers, daughters, wives... affects men, our friends, brothers, sons and fathers. I do seek a better world for all. I don't draw attention to issues to say "look at the big bad men vs. the innocent, good women" --- I say LOOK AT THIS. IT'S HURTING US ALL.

You can't try and convince me that our society has an healthy relationship with women. Not by a long shot. I worked in the shelters. I hear the same jokes at the bar that you do. I see the same behaviors. I hear my girlfriends talk. I compiled the statistics about sexual assault and D.V. myself. In my home state the numbers are climbing not falling.

I am entitled to my views and I don't want to continue explaining why you are wrong. I realize that sounds arrogant. But I don't care. Certain things are that black and white. Other things aren't. Our society is abusing women and putting them down. Our society still struggles with classism, heterosexism and racism-- this also relates to sexism against women.

This doesn't mean that if you're a straight, white, Christian male, you're my enemy (quite the contrary seeing as how I'm friends with a lot of people who fit that description) but I ask that you acknowledge that our country's current atmosphere does not marginalize you or trample your civil liberties too often-- at least not based on your religion, sex, orientation or race. Bearing that in mind, please stop trying to "teach me" how the world really works. I live in the world and I'm aware. Believe me. Painfully aware.

This letter demands no reply or apology. It simply is and must be said.

Anger on many issues

Lately I've been overwhelmed by the lack of discussion on certain obvious topics.

Imagine. A person comes into a school and orders all the white kids out of the room. Then he proceeds to torture, demean, molest all the minority children in the class. Wouldn't this spark and outcry in the public. Wouldn't news people be asking even demanding "Why is this happening?" "Why is racism still so prevalent and violent?" "What is going on?" Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine this would come up.

But when this same situation happened with young girls being separated from boys... I didn't hear much about sexism, hatred of women or "why would someone choose to be violent toward women and not men" etc --- Just now I see that another school in Pennsylvania has been attacked. It appears that boys were freed and girls held hostage and eventually shot execution style. This just days after the Colorado shooting wear the shooter molested girls and shot and killed one of them. I have been watching the news and reading newspapers closely and haven't seen any commentary asking questions about why these people are lashing out against female students exclusively. Granted this Pennsylvania case is too new to have details yet but has anyone else noticed the lack of discussion? Doesn't this seem like an important thing to address? If you know of newspaper articles, television segments or anything that has specifically addressed this issue, please let me know where I can find it.

But I just keep wondering-- why is no one talking about this?? Do we not see the pattern?

On a totally unrelated note... I recently attended a Muslim prayer service as a visitor. I am currently studying the religion of Islam and wanted to observe a religious ceremony. It was beautiful and very helpful in my understanding. However, I was disturbed that no women were there. A female Muslim friend informed me that women either pray at home or in another room. She said she preferred it that way. Which is fine for her.... but what if I wanted to be Muslim? I think I'd like to pray as part of the large group, not sequestered like an outsider. I bet a few other Muslim women agree with me.

I just don't get it.

I don't pretend to know enough about Islam yet and I certainly am not calling for reform... a Muslim should do that or someone much more informed than I... however just to share my personal opinion... I thought this was so unfair.

Muslim views would never ask an Asian Muslim to pray in a different room than an Arab Muslim or white and black Muslims to be separated. Why should women be in another space? Because there's something different between our legs?? I understand this isn't how a Muslim may see this but if I were a woman in the Islamic faith tradition, I would really question this practice of keeping the sexes spiritually separated.

And on ANOTHER note-- this story just serves as another PAINFUL example that people should never say "why doesn't a battered woman just leave her abuser?" Well because you're at grave risk. As evidence by this story that tells of a woman who was murdered WHILE HIDING IN A WOMAN'S SHELTER.

Sad sad sad. Violence against women everywhere and I feel like everyone would rather talk about Nicole Richie's weight problem. WAKE UP!

Chauvinism abounds

I was flipping channels the other night when I landed on Scarborough Country on MSNBC. I am not a fan of Joe Scarborough, but this particular show made me sit up and take notice. The title of the story read "Career Women Make Bad Wives?" (--click to watch the chauvinism ensue).

I was transfixed for the 6 minute segment. I looked around. No I had not been transported in time. It WAS 2006. But it sounded like the 1950's. This topic came up because Forbes magazine ran an article written by Michael Noer that stated,

"Recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it."

WHAT?!?!?

There is so much wrong I don't know where to begin. Host Joe Scarborough brought on relationship coach April Beyer, Rabbi Shmuley (of TLC's "Shalom in the Home") and Leslie Morgan Steiner, editor of "Mommy Wars" to discuss if career women did in fact, make bad wives.

Leslie Morgan Steiner, helpfully pointed out that the Forbes comment was completely without merit since there was no study to back it up. It was written to attack women who step outside the traditional role associated with "wife" and "mother." Notice how the quote turns women who seek a career into cheaters, and bad mothers. It's just lazy misogyny.

This flies in the face of common sense. Women today don't work because they want an opportunity to get away from the kids (who they apparently hate) and find someone to have an affair with, women work because the economy demands two-income households for most middle-class families. 70 percent of women who have children under 18, HAVE to work to help support the family. Moreover, women can desire a career, and this doesn't make them a slut or bad mother. It just means they feel they have something talent-wise to offer the world, and they want an outlet to express it.

Rabbi Shmuley's comments distressed me as well. He felt that families need to spend more time with their children, connecting, showing love and keeping the romance of marriage alive. Well yes, that's fine and true. But why does that responsibility fall entirely on women?

Why isn't there a 6 minute program on Scarborough Country about how career men are destroying the home? Do you think Forbes would ever print this:

"Career men tend to assume that their office hours exempt them from family housework and chores. They help out less and spend no time nurturing their children. Men with careers are less likely to be interested in their partner's daily activities and therefore are bad communicators."

The presumption that career women make "bad wives" is an interesting one. What makes a "good wife?" Should she always have dinner on the table at 6 pm sharp? Should she never be wearing sweatpants? Always have a patient, kind word for the children? Never "nag" anyone to do housework? And above all, be ready to give a blowjob at a minute's notice?

Cause if that's the "good wife" American men desire, then no wonder career women are failing. If women are working 8 hours a day, just like their husbands, they're bound to get a little snappy when they come home and have to cook, clean, do laundry and put all the romance into the marriage as Rabbi Schumley insinuates.

There is nothing wrong with staying at home and raising a family. For either gender. But relationship "coach," April Beyer also upset me when she said, "There's not a woman alive who'd say, 'I'd rather be at work than in the arms of the man I love or at home on the couch with my children.'"

Sure every person wants a break from work but no one seems to question that it's "natural" for men to work. Isn't it funny that you've heard people say, "men have to get out of the house or they'd go crazy." But it's assumed that women naturally want to be in the home (where they belong, of course). I love my family but I also love my time alone working on furthering my education and career. Women deserve "me time"! They deserve the right to their own goals autonomous of family and husband.

The Forbes article is inexcusable but giving it airtime and actually posing a serious discussion on "career women as bad wives" is just ridiculous.

On a funny note...Turns out there's an entire award designated to modern day chauvinism.

I was not aware of this until recently, but the "Ernie's" are given out to showcase the worst in sexist behavior. The ceremony takes place in Australia but recently made headlines here in the U.S. for awarding Tom Cruise an Ernie for his comment, "I've got Katie tucked away so no one will get to us until my child is born ... [Katie's] life from now on was going to be about being a mother. I'm not giving her the chance to turn into another Nicole."

Yikes.

This year marked the 14th anual Ernies Awards. There is even an award for a woman -- for the remark least helpful to the sisterhood. For example, Australian journalist Bettina Arndt was awarded for her comment that "well educated women don't always make the best mothers."

Other winners this year:

In the judicial category, lawyer Chrisovalantis Papadopoulos won the Ernie for saying a rape was only brief and "at the very bottom of the scale of seriousness," while the political prize went to Australia's Bill Heffernan who criticized his opponent, Labor MP Julia Gillard, for remaining unmarried and childless. "Anyone who chooses to deliberately remain barren ... they've got no idea what life's about," he said.

For more on the Ernies...

The war on sex

One reason I get so angry at the pro-life movement is that it seems more about anti-sex - geared specifically at women. The best evidence I can show you of this--- comments from one of the proponents of the abortion ban in South Dakota. According to him, it may be okay for a woman to get an abortion in the case of rape, provided she meets some "standards."

Senator Napoli of Rapid City: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

So the only real rape is when the girl is "religious" and "virginal." Lovely.

But now the issue isn't just about abortion, it's about having the right to choose our reproductive destiny as women.

I have never understood why the pro-life movement and us pro-choicers could never find common ground... I mean, if we both want to prevent abortions, let's work together. But the anti-choice people want to do more than stop abortion.

Recently I posted about my insurance company and how it would not cover contraception. I have received several comments from people who are angry at women - like myself - who expect this type of coverage. They tell me I should "stop whining.""Giving birth is a miracle. be happy you're a woman" and "it's not sexist because men don't get spermicidal birth control covered."

Most recently I got this comment:

Drugs perscibed to men for birth control (spermicides) are also not covered by most insurance companies. The idea behind this is that you're putting drugs into your body that you could live without.Your blog is very public, and your argument concerning sexism is being ridiculed by more than just me.

Okay, let me explain why this argument is insane!

There is a big difference in birth control for men and birth control for women.

First of all, nothing physically happens to a man if he impregnates a woman. If a woman gets pregnant, her entire physical condition is compromised. Not just for nine months of her life but for months following. There are also extreme health risks involved in pregnancy.

Pregnancy for a womean also means interfering with whatever plans she has. For example: If a married woman is pursuing a difficult career – let’s say - making partner at a law firm, birth control would be essential for her and her partner. Otherwise she could lose career opportunities during maternity leave and in sick time during pregnancy—not to mention doctor visits.

AGAIN: Pregnancy does not effect a man’s health or interfere with his job.

For tens of thousands of women suffering from heart or kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, as well as other illnesses, the availability of contraception is essential to protecting them and ensuring they can continue having healthy, safe sexual relationships without risking their lives.

AGAIN: A man does not have to fear death as a result of having sex and becoming pregnant.

That’s not to say I don’t think men should have their family planning medications covered. I will say it again—insurance companies would save thousands if they put money into family planning--- but as you can see, it’s quite a bit more essential for women. Not only that, birth control pills or patches are WAY more effective than spermicide.
From plannedparenthood.com

Of every 100 women who use the pill, eight will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Fewer than one will become pregnant with perfect use.

FEWER THAN ONE!

In the case of spermicidal products…
Of 100 women who use it, 29 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Fifteen will become pregnant with perfect use.

Therefore these products are not comparable in efficiency. And the price comparison is also self-explanatory…

The pill: $35–$125. The cost depends on your income at some family planning clinics. Whereas spermicidal cream kits are about $8.

So please don’t come on my blog and tell me it’s “public” – I know that. I mean for Lord’s sake, I opened a website! I’m aware. You, however are most certainly NOT aware.

Many women cannot “live without” these drugs. And if you paid attention you’d know that. People who don’t believe in contraceptive coverage – YOU are the minority. The majority of Americans, support a women’s right to affordable access to birth control.
If you watched the news, you would know this.

“Two female plaintiffs, one from Missouri and another from Idaho, won an important victory late Friday when the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled that Union Pacific’s decision to exclude prescription contraception coverage in its health plans for unionized employees is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

And that was Union Pacific, a Fortune 500 company and the largest railroad in North America!! More than 48,000 employees located throughout the nation will benefit from this new ruling.

So where does that leave your argument?

FOR MORE INFO: http://www.covermypills.org/