Thursday, June 30, 2011

Less than 10 years until I should no longer wear a mini-skirt.

This is some bullshit. A recent survey – not an article, a survey – of 2,000 women ages 18-65 revealed widely-held beliefs regarding the ages women should retire certain articles of clothing, as to not look “inappropriate”:

Mini-skirts: 35
Two-piece swimsuits: 47
Tube tops: 33
Leather pants: 34
Belly-button piercings: 35
Sheer chiffon blouses: 40
Sneakers and tight tanks: 44
Leggings and UGGs: 45
Knee-high boots: 47
Stilettos: 51
Ponytails: 51
Long hair: 53
Swimsuits (in general): 61

So…….I shouldn’t be wearing sneakers after age 44…or just sneakers paired with “tight” tanks? Apparently, I have no business swimming in my 60s.

And here’s the kicker: half the women surveyed said women who are slim, healthy, and attractive in their 50s and 60s can "get away with anything." Translation: Cindy Crawford and Jerry Hall can wear what they want – YOU cannot, you old bat. (“Bat” can be interchanged with “crone,” “hag” or “fattie”)

In addition:

* 44% of women regularly worry they are too old to wear certain items of clothing.
* 1 in 10 women have bought something only to take it back to the shop, amid fears it was “too young” for them.
* 5% of those polled said a shop assistant had warned them an item wasn't right for their age.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that appearance snobbery is not limited to the halls of high school. Why all these self-imposed “rules” on women by women? Really, would the world turn into that much of a cesspool if women wear – gasp – what they want without fear of being judged? Aren't we all a little happier when we wear things that make us feel good?

Interestingly enough, the survey was commissioned by Diet Chef, a mail order frozen food service out of the UK…much like Nutrisystem. So I guess if you utilize Diet Chef’s services, you can be well on your way to wearing whatever the fuck you want.

In a lackluster attempt at making this survey seem less disturbing, Diet Chef nutritionist Caron Leckie says, "It's up to individuals to choose when they should stop wearing certain items. Some women may be comfortable in a bikini at the age of 65, whereas the more self-conscious may want to stop much earlier—it's very much personal choice."

Yes, that’s right – it is a personal choice, Ms. Leckie. Which is why I don’t particularly care for UGGs and tube tops. Now, what I want to know is why this ridiculous and semi-fucked up “survey” was even commissioned? How about we survey women about the federal debt crisis or the states’ war on family planning services? You know, shit that matters.

Saturday, June 18, 2011


My friend and I were talking last night about Ones. You know, do you only get one One and that's it? If doesn't work out, are you destined to forever be without another One? Or, if it didn't work out, were they in fact the One? Cliche, perhaps, but an issue that has been mulled over in some great shows like Flight of the Conchords and Sex and the City.

I got to thinking about this question in the wee hours of the morning, and I came to an interesting conclusion: we all have Ones. For instance, let me pull from a bit of my history:

The One who turned me into an absolute crazy person.

See? There's one. How about another:

The One who was so freakish and weird, I nearly contemplated suicide in an attempt to avoid him.

That's a long title, and seemingly difficult to live up to. I assure you, he had no trouble.

I should also point out that Ones can be several Ones. I will demonstrate:

The One with the very, very small penis was also the One who cheated. (makes sense)

See? Ones do not have to be mutally exclusive.

In all fairness, there are good Ones as well as bad Ones. Like the One who took care of me when I was sick. Maybe you have a One who inspired you to be a better person, or One you could talk to for hours.

You see, we all have Ones. Perhaps they're not all "great loves" but I'm sure we all thought them to be at one point.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

H.R. 3 is baaaack.

Back in January – a day after the Republican-led House of Reps (symbolically) voted in favor of repealing Health Care Reform – Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), introduced H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” Smith is chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus.

The House is scheduled to vote on this bill tomorrow.

What the bill would essentially do is make existing abortion restrictions permanent law; currently, those restrictions need to be renewed each year (via the Hyde Amendment). Smith said the bill is “designed to permanently end any U.S. government financial support for abortion, whether it be direct funding or by tax credits or any other subsidy."

H.R. 3 would also ban coverage of abortion in the new health-care exchange system and impose tax penalties on Americans with private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. Currently, 87% of private plans currently include abortion coverage.

Several amendments to the bill were introduced…and subsequently rejected by the House majority, such as an exemption for women with cancer who need life saving treatment incompatible with continuing the pregnancy.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Representative!

H.R. 3 takes away health care access from the uninsured and moves our country backward, not forward. Low-income women and women of color will be disproportionately affected if this bill becomes law.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Feminist Flashback: She-Ra

Thinking along the lines of previous posts such as Designing Me and Might Last A Day; Mine Is Forever, I was inspired to write about another piece of pop culture that shaped my childhood.

I fucking loved She-Ra. In kindergarten, I had the bright yellow lunchbox with her posse on front, several action figures, that pink-ass castle and even a talking toothbrush. For Christmas one year, my parents got me this “She-Ra set,” consisting of her bronzey plastic headdress (which left awful indentations on the sides of my face) and her sword. As a cape, I’d tie my Rainbow Brite beach towel around my neck, and proceed to repeatedly leap off the coffee table (oh, my poor mother).

At face value, She-Ra is a strong chick who kicks ass (He-Man’s sister, if you’re not familiar). Yay 80s for giving us such a cartoon heroine, especially for us girls who weren’t all that into My Little Pony.

A few years ago, I actually found (and bought) Season 1 of the series – but, when my friend and I sat down to watch it, we couldn’t get past the first episode. It was….kinda boring, with a lot of sci-fi mumbo jumbo. How did we ever follow this as children?? I kept telling myself that maybe the first season wasn’t the one I remember…it must get better…I have yet to seek out the second (and final) season. Maybe it’s because I’m not a big fan of all that is sci-fi. Seriously, read the Wikipedia page with She-Ra’s full bio. Leeetle crazy. Maybe some childhood loves should be left in childhood; to relive them is to destroy their magic.

Anyway, thinking about the series now – as an adult with a little more life experience than when I was, uh, 5 – I can see how maybe it wasn’t quite the feminist utopia I fondly remember.

One could argue that She-Ra was just a glorified Barbie. She was blonde, white, slender and wore one of those getups you couldn’t possibly fight in (how does her ample bosom stay in there?!). And riding a horse in a skirt? Please.

The Crystal Castle I had was a bright pink jewel resting atop some clouds – but it was really nothing more than a “dream house” without the modern efficiencies.

And come to think of it, everyone on that show was white. Contrary to popular belief: women with red, blue and purple hair do not count as “diversity.”

Shortcomings aside, at least She-Ra did shit other than drive a 57 Chevy, eat ice cream and hang out with Skipper and Midge. I’m no guru of present-day kids’ shows, but in terms of kick-ass female heroine shows in the likeness of She-Ra, no names come easily to mind. She-Ra was a heroine I was (and still am) happy to have had in my formative years. I can only hope we will see a new heroine – one even more kick-ass, who knows the meaning of “justice,” who has a diverse posse, fighting issues that are the underlying cause of our world’s decline – inspire current and future generations of young girls everywhere. Maybe two heroines? Yes, two or three would be cool. Too much to ask?

Oh my holy crap, this brings back memories:

Friday, April 29, 2011

Being in control of your sexual health? Tacky!!

In a recent interview with Elle, Black-Eyed Pea threw out this gem:

ELLE: If you walked into a woman’s house, what one item would convince you that you weren’t compatible?
W: If she had condoms in her house, that would just fuckin’ throw me off. That’s just tacky.

ELLE: Well, okay, I could see if she had a candy bowl full of them on the coffee table. But if she’s got a few in a drawer, wouldn’t that simply suggest she’s health-conscious?
W: I just think, like, if you’re into someone and you guys get to that level, then that’s something you should converse about together and say, “Hey, maybe we should get some.” Another pet peeve is wet sinks.

Oh, that’s RIGHT, will – totally forgot that it’s unbecoming for a chick to protect herself. We should all just leave the prophylactic purchasing up to you dudes – or else we’ll look like the sluts that we are! After all, you don't bring condom-carrying gals home to meet mama.

So ladies, Mr. says we must rid our living spaces of unused condoms before having male visitors. I'm wondering: if women shouldn’t buy condoms unless they’re with (chaperoned by) their SigOt – what to do with leftover condoms after a breakup? Perhaps will’s next venture will be condom exchange programs…

Thursday, April 28, 2011

...and what of the boys?

I’m morbidly curious about feminism backlash. The F word is still not considered very “cool” by mainstream standards – and if you should share your beliefs with others, more than likely they will tell you how “far women have come,” that women have just as many opportunities as men, and stop whining you dirty man-hating hippie.

While these are pretty apathetic and ignorant comments at best, there are far worse still floating around. Something that so many people claim to be “irrelevant” still conjures up a decent amount of defamatory statements.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve recently seen a rebirth of this classic anti-feminist argument: feminism hurts our men.

This is far from a new tactic, but puzzling how an idea so antiquated would rear its ugly head in 2011. Guess the right wing is out of new ideas....either that, or they’re too busy solving the problems of the economy – oh!

To summarize this school of thought: feminism is bad for [heterosexual] men because without traditional gender roles, men…..gosh darn it…..just….don’t know what to do! While women are advancing their education, in their professions, putting off marriage (or rejecting it altogether), and realizing they don’t need a man to ride in on his white horse and fix the toilet – this has somehow turned our men into immature, lost little boys. The Little Boy Syndrome then reinforces the desire for heterosexual women to not seek out a mate, since prospects swimming in the dating pool aren’t very appealing.

And, there goes the neighborhood. The traditional family is lost! Our morality is declining! The sanctity of marriage flushed down that toilet fixed by a female! Zomg.

The most recent and nauseating display of this anti-feminist backlash comes from Tea Party nutjob Allen West (R-FL). Here is what he told the attendees of a Women Impacting Nation (WIN) meeting last week:

Hmmm. Interesting. So, basically the proper role for women is seeing to it that we produce great men – whether it be through birthing them or sacrificing our Selves to make sure they have all they need to be great. If we women demand any type of self-respect or independence, we are in effect “castrating” our men.

And they wonder why we’re such angry types.

Seriously though, for the 6,746th time, feminism is not about “castrating” men, literally or figuratively (nice job at hijacking the message). It’s about mutual respect and having agency. In the words of bell hooks, “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.”

Feminism is not detrimental to men – in fact, it’s just the opposite. Feminism supports dismantling repressive gender roles, putting an end to required “machismo” and the like. Both sexes are free to pursue interests that are not traditionally in line with their gender. Women and men share the responsibilities of providing for the household. Feminism intersects with issues like race and class and seeks to eradicate their respective -isms.

The fact that Rep. West’s argument paints a picture of men as so god damn incompetent should be just as insulting to them as it is to women. Feminism does not preach that men are inherently incompetent – however, if a man does feel incompetent due to the presence of strong women, that problem lies within the individual (coughAllenWestcough).

No, we liberal "Planned Parenthood Code Pink women" are not the problem – we are the solution.

And please read more bell hooks.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Today is Denim Day in L.A.

For the majority of us, jeans are a staple of our daily uniform (or, for the rest of us, something to look forward to on Casual Fridays). Today, April 27, jeans have a deeper meaning...

via Peace Over Violence:

Italy, 1990s: An 18-year old girl is picked up by her married 45-year old driving instructor for her very first lesson. He takes her to an isolated road, pulls her out of the car, wrestles her out of one leg of her jeans and forcefully rapes her. Threatened with death if she tells anyone, he makes her drive the car home. Later that night she tells her parents, and they help and support her to press charges. The perpetrator gets arrested and is prosecuted. He is convicted of rape and sentenced to jail.

He appeals the sentence. The case makes it all the way to the Italian Supreme Court. Within a matter of days the case against the driving instructor is overturned, dismissed, and the perpetrator released. In a statement by the Chief Judge, he argued, “because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them, and by removing the jeans, it was no longer rape but consensual sex.”

Enraged by the verdict, within a matter of hours the women in the Italian Parliament launched into immediate action and protested by wearing jeans to work. This call to action motivated and emboldened the California Senate and Assembly to do the same, which in turn spread to Patricia Giggans, Executive Director of Peace Over Violence, and Denim Day in LA was born. The first Denim Day in LA was in April 1999, and has continued every year since.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Louisiana Loonies, a Weakened Roe, and the Case for Reproductive Justice

A while back, I had asked readers how much time (in prison) a woman should do if she decides to end her pregnancy. Four years later, reproductive justice advocates are asking the same question – only, today’s societal climate feels much more threatening, ominous and just plain evil.

“[Louisiana] State Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, has introduced a bill that would ban all abortions in his state—with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother—and charge women who seek abortions and the doctors who perform those abortions with ‘feticide.’" (Please refer to #7 of The Unsexy 17 in my previous post, “States Gone Wild”).

The Louisiana Code for feticide reads, “The killing of an unborn child when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm” and carries a prison sentence of 15 years plus hard labor. LaBruzzo claims the verbiage of prosecuting women on "feticide" charges for having abortions was a "mis-draft," and would make the bill too hard to pass. He says that provision will be removed from the bill before it goes to a committee vote.

Call me a skeptic, but I wouldn’t bank on the removal of the language – or that language making the bill “too difficult” to pass the state legislature. After all, this is Louisiana we’re talking about; the state is already fertile ground for the most extreme anti-abortion laws in the country. Yes, LA is also one of those states with “trigger laws,” criminalizing abortion immediately should Roe ever be overturned. Removing the provision would only shift the onus from the woman to the providers.

So, we shouldn’t at all be surprised that LaBruzzo is apparently working in cahoots with an “unnamed conservative religious group,” whose main goal is to invalidate Roe v. Wade.

Roe has overcome some serious opposition in the past – but times they are a-changin’. The last Supreme Court case to challenge Roe was Carhart v. Gonzalez in 2007, and ultimately restricted abortion access by upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

With Justice Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote in the abortion debate, increasing numbers of anti-choice governors, and the influx of socially conservative Tea Party nutjobs in Congress – the fight for Roe seems to be a train we’re not so quick to board this time around.

I am a woman who is fortunate to not know a world before Roe, and I sure as hell don’t want it any different. But look around today, and it’s almost as if the landmark Supreme Court case never existed. Take the recent story of J.M.S., the young woman in Utah who became pregnant at 17 by a convicted felon. J.M.S. paid a stranger $150 to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. Not only does this show us what lengths women will go to end an unwanted pregnancy, but it shows why we don’t only need reproductive rights, but reproductive justice. You’ll see what I mean:

The convicted felon is “facing charges of using J.M.S. and another underage girl to make pornography. J.M.S. lived in a house without electricity or running water in a remote part of Utah. Even if she could have obtained the required parental consent and scraped together money for an abortion and a couple of nights in a hotel to comply with Utah’s twenty-four-hour waiting period, simply getting to the nearest clinic posed an enormous challenge. Salt Lake City is more than a three-hour drive from her town, twice that in bad weather, when snow makes the mountain passes treacherous. There is no public transportation, and she didn’t have a driver’s license.”

Reproductive justice is about access. We can have all the laws in our favor and more rights than we can shake a stick at – it doesn’t mean shit if there is no access. And by “access,” I mean access for ALL, not just those who are privileged enough to afford it. Waiting periods leave women in the dark who cannot afford travel/room and board. What about women who do not have their own source of transportation? And what if there is no public transportation? Childcare? Parental consent laws forget about young women who might not have living/present parents – or those who are pregnant because of a parent or relative. Repro justice shows how repro health intersects with many other issues such as poverty, education and the environment.

That being said, I wish this turned out to be a more positive post. Sadly, the majority of what we’re seeing on a daily basis is state legislators introducing bills that capitalize off our lack of justice – regardless of the contended law of the land.

Friday, April 22, 2011

States Gone Wild!

No, this is not a new DVD. Instead of being titillating, I would say it’s pretty damn infuriating. Riding the coattails of their GOP/Tea leaders in Congress, many state lawmakers have been spending their time pushing through anti-women’s health legislation. Because, really, that’s the answer to unemployment, poverty and rising healthcare costs. Duh!

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, last November’s election gave us 8 more anti-choice governors, taking the final count from 21 to 29. The number of states with straight-up anti-choice governments (meaning both legislative houses and the governor are unfriendly) increased from 10 to 15.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans support family planning services – including a woman’s right to choose – our state leadership is not reflecting this. Trying to find an organized, updated list or map of the nonsense cropping up across the nation is rather difficult; probably because things are happening Ludicrous Speed.

So, here are the fruits of my research (many thanks to National Women’s Partnership for their Daily Women’s Health Policy Reports). And, just like Apple products, by the time y’all read this, it will probably be outdated. After perusing this laundry list of legislation, I’m sure most of us would prefer to see a full-length feature of state legislators participating in inebriated spring break behavior…

The Unsexy 17:

1. Arizona: Passed HB 2442, making it a felony for health professionals to provide abortion care if they suspect a woman is seeking the procedure because of the race or gender of the fetus. It would not penalize the woman; only the physician. This is the first law of its kind in the U.S., and opponents maintain that there is no such evidence of racial/gendered abortions occurring in Arizona.

Gov. Jan Brewer also signed HB 2416/SB 1246, requiring every woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat, if audible.

2. Florida: Eighteen (yes, 18) anti-choice bills have been filed in the state legislature. Measures range from providing funds for crisis pregnancy centers to a complete abortion ban in the state – even in cases of rape and incest.

3. Idaho: Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter (yes, “Butch”) signed into law SB 1148, making it a felony for a physician to provide abortion care after 20 weeks of pregnancy (except when the woman's life is in danger) based on the theory of fetal pain.

4. Indiana: Senate Health Committee approved SB 328 based on the supporters' claim that a fetus might feel pain at or before 20 weeks.

5. Iowa: House approved HF 657, banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based again on fetal pain. The bill now moves to the Senate.

6. Kansas: Not one, not two, but three bills surfaced in the Sunflower State. First, Gov. Sam Brownbeck (R) signed two bills into law: HB 2218, prohibiting abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy with the exception of life endangerment. It also removes the current law’s exception for mental and emotional reasons. The second bill is HB 2035, requiring minors to obtain consent from both parents before receiving abortion services.

The third anti-abortion bill on deck is the House substitute for SB 36, which would require abortion clinics to comply with a series of medical standards and practices. In addition, the bill states that a “female observer” must be present during any abortion services or pelvic exams provided by a male doctor at an abortion facility; doctors providing abortion services must obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics; hospitals or surgical centers must register as abortion clinics if they provide more than five first-trimester abortions in a month; and any deaths linked to abortion complications must be reported to the state within one business day; reports of any injuries must be filed within 10 days. Democratic Rep. Judith Loganbill, questioned why these standards are being mandated for abortion clinics, but not for other surgical outpatient facilities. Another highly disputed provision of the bill requires a woman be in the presence of a physician when taking mifepristone, the medication used to induce abortion.

7. Louisiana: State Rep. John LaBruzzo (R) recently filed HB 587 that would prohibit "all abortions at any and all stages of the unborn child's development" and allow charges of "feticide" against abortion providers as well as women. LaBruzzo said he introduced the legislation at the urging of a conservative religious group (which he left unnamed) and the aim of the bill is to prompt a court case to challenge Roe v. Wade.

8. Minnesota: Senate Health and Human Services Committee approved SF 711, which prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation with no exceptions for rape, incest or mental health. The bill would allow abortion beyond 20 weeks to save a woman's life or to prevent irreversible physical harm to the woman.

The second measure approved is SF 264, barring state-funded health programs from funding abortion services.

A third Senate bill SF 1017, would require parental consent before minors can obtain care related to contraceptives, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and drug or alcohol abuse, unless the health condition is life-threatening. Fortunately, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton (D) supports abortion rights, is not likely to sign any of these.

9. Mississippi: On June 6, the Mississippi Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a pre-emptive court challenge against Measure 26, a ballot question that would define a person as a “human being from the moment of fertilization.”

10. Missouri: House approved HB 213, a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy with an exception for the life of the mother. It would require providers to determine if the fetus could survive outside the womb before performing a termination. The bill now moves to the Senate.

11. Ohio: House Health and Aging Committee approved HB 125, a bill that would require physicians to deny women abortion procedures if a heartbeat can be detected from an ultrasound. Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder (R) has said he wants to consult with experts before moving the bill to the full House.

12. Oklahoma: Gov. Mary Fallin signed HB 1888, making it a felony for doctors to perform abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the theory of fetal pain. The bill includes an exception for life/“major bodily function” endangerment, but does not include any exceptions for fetal abnormalities.

She also signed SB 547, a bill that prohibits health insurance plans sold in state exchanges from covering abortion services

13. Pennsylvania: The state House Health Committee voted 19-4 to pass a bill that would require clinics providing abortion services to meet the same safety standards as outpatient surgery centers. The American Civil Liberties Union said PA law already contains guidelines for abortion clinics regarding equipment, staff, emergency transfers to hospitals, counseling and reporting. The bill would require costly changes at the clinics, which could force many of them to close, impacting poor women and women who reside in rural areas.

14. South Carolina: House approves H 3406, a bill that would ban private coverage of abortion care in plans purchased in the new state insurance exchange. Women who want abortion coverage will have to purchase it separately. In addition, the bill would expand the state’s conscience clause to include euthanasia, cloning and stem cell research. Physicians would be allowed to opt out of providing such services (including abortion) if they conflict with their religious beliefs.

15. South Dakota: Passed HB 1217, mandating a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion procedure. The law will go into effect July 1 and impose the longest waiting period in the U.S. HB 1217 also requires a woman to receive counseling from a crisis pregnancy center (notoriously anti-choice) before she can obtain services. There are no exceptions for rape and incest – only “emergencies”. There are many talks of challenges to the law, including a possible injunction by Planned Parenthood of South Dakota. Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, points out how requiring women to disclose medical information to third parties who are not physicians is a violation of medical privacy laws. The ACLU has also threatened to bring a lawsuit against the state.

16. Texas: State Senate Committee on State Affairs approved a compromise bill between a House and Senate version of a sonogram bill. The final bill requires a woman see the sonogram, have her listen to the fetal heartbeat and hear a description of the ultrasound in detail before her procedure. The compromise also includes exemptions in cases of rape, incest or instances where the fetus is not expected to survive. The measure also exempts women in rural areas from waiting 24 hours.

17. Virginia: Passed HB 1428, becoming the first state to require abortion clinics to comply with hospital standards. Currently, clinics are licensed by the state and are treated like physician offices, similar to those that provide plastic and corrective eye surgeries, colonoscopies and a range of other outpatient medical procedures. Virginia is the first state to adopt such a requirement, which could include making structural changes to the buildings, making certain equipment mandatory, or increasing training. Opponents of the bill say that it could force up to 17 of the state's 21 abortion clinics to close. Public comment will be heard before the rules are adopted on Sept. 15; the law takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.

In addition, Virginia is another state that will prohibit abortion from being covered under any health insurance plans offered in the state exchange. Governor Robert McDonnell added this amendment to a bill already passed by the General Assembly, establishing insurance exchanges as part of health care reform.

And, done.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Bloggin' and Schemin'

Good lord, it must really look like I was incredibly crushed over Sex and the City’s decline of epic proportions – almost one full year with no posts! Yes, I quickly got over my disappointment and now follow my amazing friend Holly’s blog Back On Carrie’s Stoop, reliving the good ol’days and examining the series with a different set of lenses: one that knows what’s coming.

So, for the past 10 months I’ve been dealing with life sans blog. Although I’m notorious for crowding my back burners, I always end up coming back to R4R because…really, nothing I could possibly do in my professional or personal life gives me as much satisfaction as being able to create something on my own terms. No board members, no stakeholders, no supervisors, no editors – just me. (Cue sinister laugh)

Truth be told, the thought of blogging again almost became a tad overwhelming. With all the wretched nonsense happening on the women’s health/reproductive justice front, I didn’t know where to start. As soon as I had an idea of where to start, more nonsense would fall from the sky and my head would explode once again (rightfully so).

Since I last logged into R4R, our U.S. House has been taken over by wackadoos who see fighting the culture wars as reeeaaally, reeeaaally important right now – despite the fact that our economy is in the shitter. Newly (and no so newly) elected wackadoos across the nation are masquerading their sexist/racist/classist/ableist agenda as – ahem – “fiscal responsibility”. Explain to me the logic, asshats, of how eliminating programs that help keep low-income folks afloat will be better for our economy…while letting those top 2% income earners sit on their fat assets??

Oooh, I’m getting angry! How I missed blogging! A few more thoughts:

* I find it incredibly ignorant – no, I mean stupid – that wackadoo legislators can stand on the SENATE FLOOR and give outright FALSE statistics about Planned Parenthood…and wake up the next morning with their jobs intact. If I came into work spewing lies and disseminating them on our listservs, I’d be gainfully employed no more. Just because PP is considered “controversial”, it’s ok to not pay attention to facts?! Who does your research?! (You do know what research is, don’t you?) Oh, and the fact that it’s considered “controversial” is only because of your verbal shit-tactics – not because of any truth.

* Recently, I found out from Glenn Beck that I’m a hooker. Apparently, so are ALL of my female friends…and a few of my male friends, as well. He also informed me that if birth control is too expensive, we should quit crying about it and just use condoms. While I am tickled that GB is advocating condom use, I will assume (with good reason) that if said condom were to break (with no backup method), I would no longer be considered a responsible woman, but a stupid “tough luck!” whore.

* If Donald Trump really wants to help America, he should write the U.S. Gov’t a check and go hide under a rock. I’ve seen and heard more from him in the past few weeks than I care to EVER. (And I thought I could avoid his “my-mother-breast-fed-me-with-a-lemon-face” by simply not watching The Apprentice. Joke’s on me!)

* What the hell is happening in the states?! Last I checked, we had this thing called Roe v. Wade…(more on this later…)

* Congressman Bob (Wackadoo) Latta of Ohio wants to ax funding for the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) under the guise of being “fiscally responsible”….but how dare we talk about cutting funding for abstinence-only education, which has PROVEN to be….um….not working and not based on any…….how do you call it?……evidence.