My astrological sign is *facepalm*
Original content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, unless otherwise noted.
Writing: The Good Stuff, Collated | Tag Cloud | Ask me anything | Archive | RSS
[If you just want to be a bothersome jackass, send them a 30 or 40 page fax of nothing but ███▓▓▓☻▓▓▓███ for pages, copy and pasted over and over. You will kill an ink cartridge with just a few faxes.](via cognitivedissonance)
…that’s really not cool. This organization is run by ignorant people who need to be schooled, but we should do that with WORDS, not by jamming their fax machine. What are we, five?
(Source: addictinginfo.org, via brashblacknonbeliever)
Today I (and I guess everyone else in Texas?) got a letter from the Texas Secretary of State with the list of proposed constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot next month. There are 10 of them. 10! Some of them seem like worthy causes, but why are we putting this stuff in our constitution? I mean, parks in El Paso? Can’t the lege take care of that?
*sigh* I’m either going to have to do some serious research to understand what these are about, or just go by whatever the Chronicle endorses. #2’s more likely. Again.
The one that interests me the most is #10:
I’m a bit confused, but will the outcome of this vote one way or the other have any impact on Perry’s ability to be governor and run for president? Because I would really like him to GTFO.
Anyway, go vote! All 2 of my followers from Texas. And everyone else, vote in your local elections! Voting is for sexy, sexy people.
I have to begin this with a disclaimer already, because parts of this may seem to conflict. I am absolutely, 100% in favor of women being politicians. I believe that we have a disgustingly low percentage of female politicians right now, so this has nothing to do with women in politics specifically. Just certain women.
When Hillary Clinton (who I do and have always had mixed feelings about) stepped down from the 2008 presidential race, the Republican Party almost managed to have a really great idea: Put forward a woman as the vice presidential candidate. Maybe all the women who would have voted for Clinton, in all their hormonal feminist rage, would still want to vote for a woman. ANY woman. Doesn’t even matter who it is. As long as she has a vagina and doesn’t look like a lesbian.
So they picked Sarah Palin. This is where the plan broke down, backfired, and contributed to (if not directly caused) Barrack Obama’s election. Whoever picked this woman to be the person that Democratic women would run to as plan B for their man-hating feminist agenda was out of their mind, or did virtually no research. Probably the later, because we all know how well the great Republican political thinkers do research. Insert picture of a four-year-old playing peekaboo.
Sarah Palin is one of the most woman-hating individuals on this planet. ANY woman who runs on a platform of taking away a woman’s freedom is automatically the less desirable candidate for women to vote for. Now I have no doubt that women are not too keen on male politicians who attempt to strip women of their basis human rights, but mustn’t it feel worst coming from a woman? I would feel betrayed. That’s not the entire reason that Palin was a terrible choice, but that would have been enough, right there. The assumption of the person who came up with this plan to replace Clinton with a-woman-any-woman forgot one very important fact about women.
Women are not fucking stupid. Most of them actually have the capacity to recognize the difference between someone who is working in their interest, and somebody who is not. Women are not magically blinded to what a politician stands for simply because they happen to share genitalia.
And now Michele Bachmann, or as I like to call her, the attempt to retest the hypothesis that women will blindly vote for another woman no matter how many stances she takes against against her own gender. Though this is the part where I should point out that a lot of Republicans ARE still just a little bit upset that women are now allowed to vote. I’m afraid their ideas might still be slightly biased.
Ok. Now back there where I said that I would love to see more women in politics, that part was true. But not these women, for the above reasons and for one more. I would never, ever, for a second even consider voting for a conservative Christian woman. To rephrase slightly: I would never vote for a married woman who believes that women should submit to their husbands. If a Michele Bachmann were to be elected president (don’t worry, it won’t happen, because women are actually NOT a gender full of idiots) and her husband commanded her to do something, she would have to do it, wouldn’t she? A conservative Christian woman believes in submission to her husband, so my vote for Michele Bachmann would actually be a vote for Marcus Bachmann, as he is the head of her household. They are so quick to throw around God’s doctrine for the family, but somehow this has escaped them?
This is not a party or a religion that supports the rights of women. And this is where I have to throw this little tidbit in, to remind everyone American of where we live, and how depressing of a place it is sometimes.
Women in the United States of America have had their right to vote recognized for 91 years. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed. So lets do some math. 1776 was two-hundred and thirty-five years ago. Women have been edging toward first class citizenship for 39% of our nations history. And they’re not there yet, because I can tell you one thing right now. If men were the ones that got pregnant, abortion would never have been an issue. Not for a single second.
And also, if our gender roles were reversed and men required a substantially higher amount of healthcare than women do, than free and quality healthcare would not be an issue either.
So, to wrap this up, it’s the feminist in me that detests the idea of these women being put forward as candidates to be the leaders of my country, women who follow a religion that tells them that they are not even allowed to be an equal in their own household, and women who are part of a political party which is telling them that they should still be considering themselves second class citizens. It’s a terrible combination of a religion and a party that are still debating fundamental issues of human rights, suggesting that human rights are a thing to be debated.
They are not. That’s why they’re called rights.
THIS!
Seriously, you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why feminism needs to go hand-in-hand with atheist activism. One of the major social purposes that religion serves is to tell us who is “supposed” to be in charge, and in almost every case, the answer is “men.” We’re never going to achieve equality until we’ve gotten people to at least question these doctrines. Sarah Palin can call herself a feminist until she’s blue in the face, but the fact is that she’s not doing anything for women’s rights, that she can’t do anything for women’s rights, and that without doing anything for women’s rights she can’t be considered any kind of role model.
How can anyone applaud the idea of the death penalty, let alone the possibility of the death penalty enacted on someone who might be innocent? And Perry is just…awful.
