Action Wednesday: War Against Women Edition
Posted on: November 18, 2009
- In: Feminism | Healthcare | misogyny | Morning Widdershins | Open Thread | Patriarchy | Sexism | War | Women
- 59 Comments
Yes, This is Sexist. Duh.
Our dear Canadian friend HT, whose country is (fortunately) much less insane than ours when it comes to women, asked in comments yesterday why there was a war against women in America. This was my response:
1. In terms of the latest revoltin’ development with the mammograms, I believe it’s simply because women live longer and cost insurance companies more money. If we die off earlier, it’s good for their bottom line. And nothing saves lives like mammograms and wellness exams. These, then, are the preventive measures that the insurance companies are now trying to “reform” out of being covered.
2. In terms of the religious half of the patriarchy, it’s because the fundies believe in the “talking snake” theory of evolution, as Mike Malloy used to say on Air America Radio. According to that theory, women are the source of all evil. After all, we only have pain during birth and our menstrual cycles because The Lord God punished us for eating the apple. So saith Genesis!
3. In terms of the corporatocracy half of the patriarchy, the more underpaid labor there is in the pool, the more profits they make. Thus, illegal immigration is encouraged, but the corporations who hire the illegal immigrants are no longer punished for it; and thus, women make 78 cents to every man’s dollar. Women’s inequality is a source of cashola to them.
4. If women are allowed to gain equality, then the Chalice principle will become more balanced with the Blade principle. There goes the patriarchy!
I thought I’d open this theorizing up to discussion today. What do you all think? Why is there a war on American women?
And… here are our actions today:
Lysistrata: We Say NO to Stupak and Pitts!
NOW Rally on 11/21 in Pitts’ Pennsylvania District
NOW Protest in DC on November 23rd
UPDATE: Lobby to Stop Stupak-Pitts on December 2nd in DC
Single-Payer/Medicare for All Actions
2009 Strategy Conference in St. Louis – November 14 and 15
Non-Violent Civil Disobedience
Anti-War
Climate Change
Demand that Ford Quit the Anti-Environmental Chamber of Commerce
This is an open thread.
59 Responses to "Action Wednesday: War Against Women Edition"
November 18, 2009 at 8:01 am
There’s a lot more to it. Some of it has to do with sex and men’ deep fears that if women are not bound somehow, they’ll never cast a glance upon them. I also suspect “reproduction envy” as I remember a Dennis Miller joke: when men become fathers they think: “Look, I can make my own people”
Meanwhile, sexism is the talk, but who started it last year?
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/palin-brings-sexism-to-the-forefront/
November 18, 2009 at 8:25 am
War on women? Don’t know if you saw it, but watch this, if you’re not at work, or if you don’t wanna get mad. I did a post on it.
November 18, 2009 at 8:59 am
OMG. There are more than 1000 people in line in Grand Rapids to buy one of Sarah Palin’s books and get a bracelet to see her at 6 pm.
November 18, 2009 at 9:02 am
I got an email from TM also, and I never once commented on her blog, so she must have gotten a list from the Democratic Party.
November 18, 2009 at 9:04 am
Cinie. sadly, I’m at work. I’ll be sure to check out your post later. 
I agree, Janicen and EOF. There are a lot of dimensions to it. That’s why I wanted to hear all your thoughts!
One common thread I see already is fear – men fearing women will make them irrelevant, or fear that women will realize that men are irrelevant. Then what will we do? I remember that Tucker Carlson said something about how hearing Hillary’s voice made him want to cross his legs in terror. Oh noes, wimminz will gain ascendancy and cut off all of their penii!!!111!!!!
I also think that men make war on women because they are so ingrained with the idea that women are inferior beings incapable of thought. To them, it’s as if we’re saying that dogs deserve social justice, although dogs are actually treated better in terms of the law. (Rihanna’s abuser, Chris Brown, got away with probation, whereas Michael Vick, an abuser of dogs, served a year and a half.)
Whenever I go on a new blog and start bringing up the ERA and using it as a platform for social justice for women, it never fails that a man (and it’s always a man) will try to counter my argument by patting me on the head and telling me they know better how I should be spending my time, and/or chastising me for being so selfish as to put women first. Women may argue with my ideas, but they do it with an underlying assumption of equality.
November 18, 2009 at 9:12 am
Chat – They’re lined up already?
No wonder the PTB freak out every time her name is mentioned. Her fanbase is real, and quite mobilized.
Unlike Obama’s fanbase, they didn’t go away after the election.
November 18, 2009 at 9:19 am
“Fear” is the operative word. It’s “fear of loss” which has been shown to be the ultimate motivator. Successful salespeople have used it for decades in the form of the “takeaway”. Men have a great deal to lose, not only in the form of their profesional advantages, as I mentioned above, but in all areas of life from their treatment in the criminal justice system to what they pay for dry cleaning, most men see themselves losing a whole lot if equality reigns. That’s why I believe that women cannot wait for equality to be handed to them, because it will never happen. We have to take what we want and be prepared to fight like hell for it because men will not give it up easily. It’s just not human nature.
November 18, 2009 at 9:31 am
I have been struggling to understand the anger men have toward women these days. I think many of them are feeling impotent in their own lives, personally and professionally. It is easy and apparently socially acceptable to express this by verbally attacking and belittling women, turning them into ” jokes “, and sexualizing them ( the Palin ” Newsweek ” cover and the photo of Obama’s speechwriter ” cupping ” the breast of a cardboard figure of Hillary are just two examples).
All of this is bad enough but now we see women’s health being undermined by such things as the Stupak Amendment and the new guidelines regarding mamograms. Perhaps it is a wake-up call to women, especially younger ones, that we haven’t gained real equality in this country yet and have much more work to do.
November 18, 2009 at 9:32 am
Amen, janicen!
That’s why I believe that women cannot wait for equality to be handed to them, because it will never happen. We have to take what we want and be prepared to fight like hell for it because men will not give it up easily. It’s just not human nature.
Men are praying that women will continue to be fended off with the type of platitudes that Obama and the mainstream “feminist” organizations spouted last year. But Stupak tore the mask off the hatred and fear that were hiding behind those platitudes. We saw it a long time before others did, but now women are finally coming to their senses.
Our righteous anger won’t be “tamped down,” Obama.
November 18, 2009 at 9:33 am
I am thinking my new avatar is too sexy! Maybe I should change it. 
November 18, 2009 at 9:36 am
Madamab:
I would like to hear more from you about why you think it is so important to pass the ERA. I confess I do not know very much about it. How will it positively impact women’s day-to day lives?
November 18, 2009 at 9:41 am
The patriarchy’s stronghold has existed since the Bronze Age. Better and more resilient weapons were crafted, and because of this new alloy, men bullied their way to the forefront and decimated the more reasoned approach of matriarchal culture. Prior to that, women (excuse me, Women, with a big capital “W”) ruled.
This controversy (or ‘hostile takeover’ as I call it) eventually reached a peak in 411 BC, when Aristophanes’ “Lysistrata” was first performed in Athens. Kudos to him for writing it and addressing this issue (and Kudos to The Widdershins, MadamaB and Cinie for their brainchild of the same name). Unfortunately, this issue has yet to be resolved.
The linear thought process of the male (as opposed to the more contemplative and cyclical process of women) still remains, and look what we got from it: war, war and more war. But, like any dimwitted idiot (see: Ogun, Chango, Popeye’s Brutus, Kronos and the current inhabitant of the Oval Office) they believe themselves to be invincible. What they just don’t get is that at some point (like right now), those of us who must live with their bullshit are getting mighty tired of it. Witness we men who supported HRC and are still not willing to ‘come to the fold’.
Interesting to me was a recent spiritual meeting that I attended where this was the topic of discussion and meditation. After much debate and visualization, the traditional ritual was performed, but this time with a twist: The Great Rite was performed spontaneously and surprisingly in reverse with the Chalice held atop and vanquishing the upturned Blade. A moment of stunned silence followed by HUGE applause. Almond cakes never tasted so good.
November 18, 2009 at 9:43 am
With the ERA, we could guarantee — repeat, really threaten because we could guarantee — a challenge to a Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
And that’s just for starters.
(Then again, a court fight is guaranteed on a health care bill, anyway — part of the opponents’ strategy, so I suspect that is some of what is behind the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and more.)
November 18, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’ve learned from observing my daughter’s taekwondo class. The instructor drills one message, over and over again, “…the aggressor wins the fight…”
The aggressor wins the fight. The aggressor wins the fight.
November 18, 2009 at 10:05 am
Beata – Cream City is right, but there is so much more, as I see it. The ERA would provide a legal basis for challenging quite a few of the entrenched inequalities in society. here is a partial list:
1. Equal pay for equal work.
2. Equal representation in all the Parties.
3. A strong Constitutional basis for reproductive freedom from interference by the State, rather than the shaky Roe v. Wade decision based on the 14th Amendment.
4. Strict legal penalties for violence against women, and enforcement of the new hate crimes legislation that has gender language in it (obscured by the language declaring assaults on LGBT hate crimes as well).
5. Legalization of same-sex marriage.
6. More woman-friendly tax policies (the 2nd-earner policy is discriminatory towards women).
Of course, this would be contingent on the post-ERA ratification strategy. We can’t just get it done and then breathe a sigh of relief. We would need an army of attorneys and legislators to push for exactly the reforms I mentioned, and push back against the inevitable backlash.
Anthony – that was truly beautiful. Thanks so much for sharing it.
Janicen – once again, you nailed it.
November 18, 2009 at 10:11 am
The word “gender” was actually a last minute insertion by Howard W. Smith into the original Civil Rights Act, which leands many detractors to say that the current ERA is unnecessary. However, since only token gender-based support had ever been mustered, I firmly believe that a seperate ERA is the best answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
November 18, 2009 at 10:20 am
I agree, chat. And by the way, you just took about 40 words to say something that a man over at Corrente took about 2000 words to say.
November 18, 2009 at 10:20 am
But maybe that’s because your 61st birthday has given you additional wisdom!
November 18, 2009 at 10:51 am
Madamab: Thank you for that explaination of the ERA. How can we interest young women in it? I fear they see it ( if they have even heard of it ) as something their mothers attempted to get passed and failed. They may not understand that it is still very relevant to their lives.
Jancien: I studied Tai Chi, a Chinese ” soft ” martial art, which has a very different philosophy than Tae Kwon Do. The Yin ( feminine ) principle is associated with water. In the words of Lao Tzu, ” Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it. “
November 18, 2009 at 11:29 am
Good analogy, Beata. We have been very soft and flexible. Now we need the irresistable force of a tidal wave.
November 18, 2009 at 11:32 am
Beata – The ERA needs to be well-marketed and sold to women in general. A good marketing campaign will be catchy enough to get women of all ages interested in it. I’m thinking of something viral that will be well-produced and could be uploaded to youtube.
I am not sure that we need to target young women specifically. That was the mistake of the Obama campaign – throwing the traditional base under the base in order to get the youth vote. Now, where are those young voters? They sure didn’t come out in the 2009 elections – and that was just a few short months after Obama was elected. The young ‘uns are already on to the next trend.
November 18, 2009 at 11:34 am
Well said, Chat.
We need only to look at the geological history of our earth to see what the force of water can do. I just hope social change does not take quite so long.
November 18, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Would that a tidal wave be created now! Of course it’s fear and controlling mind set that created this misogynistic view since the beginning of time. The analogy using water is good – we will not get equality until most if not all bind together to cause a tidal wave.
November 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Hmmm…this water/tidal wave analogy seems to have legs.
The Fourth Wave of feminism = the Tidal Wave?
What do you all think?
November 18, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Also very effective, Beata. Whatever the method as long as we fight together. Frankly, at my age, I’m not flexible enough for either one. My daughter got me to try one of her kicks and I thought my leg would crack off at the hip!
I like the wave metaphor. We need to keep pushing until we’re a tsunami for equal rights!
November 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I haven’t read any comments yet. I’ll post and catch up.
Any of you ladies want to take a symbolic bite out of the patriarchy?
November 18, 2009 at 1:54 pm
And this is for Miz Chat. I wanted to wait for **the** day!
November 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm
All – I just added an update to the post under the Stupak-Pitts actions…NOW is holding a rally in DC on December 2nd.
November 18, 2009 at 3:06 pm
TM sent me one also Chatblu. Don’t know why…she threw me off her blog because I questioned her sudden..”Come to Jesus moment” with Obama after she claimed she never would.
sorry…but TM can kiss my…..GRITS!
LOL
November 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm
LOL Madam.
I didn’t even bother to read it. I saw it on my BlackBerry and deleted it without opening it.
November 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Mad, I have no idea how she got mine. I’ve never commented at her place. So, RD, you’re excused from the blog, but please send money??
November 18, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Yes, chat, that is pretty hilarious considering she banned RD62!
I’m sure it’s a DNC list. Which tells you all you really need to know about her objectivity, no?
November 18, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Wow, check this out: 10% of the jobs Obama claims are “saved or created” came from projects that did not spend any money.
Maybe he really IS the Messiah, and jobs are his loaves and fishes!
November 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The e-mail I used while at TM and during the primary is closed, so I don’t know what’s going on. What did the e-mail say?
November 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Janicen, go back to yesterday’s post (I think) and I pasted it in there. She’s begging for money and says a teensie-weensie % will go to some Afghan something or other.
Hell if I recall, when she was tying herself to HRC’s campaign, i.e. contribute to us both, Dr. Socks raised a shitload of money for her. At least I think it Violet.
Red, glad to know I was in such fine company when I got “moderated” out of there. There sure were plenty of us that left in droves and after it was just an Obie echo chamber.
November 18, 2009 at 6:18 pm
As I said yesterday, I get TM’s epistles at a different email address than the one I used when I logged on to her site. I don’t know how she got my current email, but I find it rather creepy that she has it ( stalker! ). I never read any of them. I just click on ” delete “. She didn’t ban me. I simply left when she started supporting Obama and the Obots took over the site.
November 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Madama, I appreciated your response, because I truly find this unfathomable. Studies have proven that when women are treated fairly, everyone in the society benefits. I am at the stage of knocking my head against the wall, because the more this plays out in your country, the more it infiltrates in mine. As mentioned in my comment yesterday, it’s hands across the border. Women need to mobilize.
November 18, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Harry Reid has come out of conference with a compromise plan between the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee.
God only knows what is in it?
Some Kinda Public Option Op-out Thingy.
Don’t know about Stupak. Casey and other Catholic anti-choice Senators are probably consulting with their Bishops right now, to find out how they should vote.
Ah, progress….
November 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Beata, and this is the 21st century. Progress? Not so much. Same old, same old.
Chat, you deserve them. You have taken a stand, drawn a line in the sand. You, unlike me, have said “Enough”, and I am thankful for you because it makes me feel that I’m not alone in my outrage. You, with all the other posters help to focus people.
November 18, 2009 at 9:03 pm
HT – Thank you for asking the question, and inspiring this post!
November 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Well, folks, the Senate health plan is out. It’s 2,074 pages long, and is even more crapulent than the House plan, from what I can tell.
Some of the awesome features:
1) Taxing more expensive plans that employers provide. The meme is that these are “Cadillac” plans, as if the people who are covered by these plans have any say WHATSOEVER in how much the programs cost.
2) Cutting even more from Medicare.
3) Offering an “opt-out” option for the states.
4) Forcing people to buy insurance, then penalizing them if they don’t do so.
That’s it!
Oh, wait. You wanted to know about that whole abortion thingy? Don’t worry. The Senate has you covered!
Mr. Reid’s bill would not go as far as the House-passed bill in limiting insurance coverage for abortions. Democratic senators said that the bill seeks to extend current law by barring the use of federal money for abortions (emphasis mine). But it would also require that at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered in every state.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?! This is the best our Congresscritters can come up with?!
Ridiculous! Beneath contempt. They’re all beneath f*cking contempt.
November 18, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“Cadillac” plans? A top story in my paper today cited a study that found that the average plan in this country costs almost $9,000.
And the study found, yet again, that I’m in one of the most costly states for health insurance, way above the national average, no matter which plan we pick. I am so screwed by the Dems again.
November 18, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Cream City,
There’s no excuse for being that cruel. Not only do people in certain states (I’m sure mine is very high) have to pay extra for their health care plan, but they are now to be taxed more for the privilege! And are we supposed to be excited that they are going to narrow the insurance plans that cover abortion down to one in each state? You know that’s what’s going to happen.
November 18, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The unions must be foaming at the mouth with this plan. They spent $65M to put the Lightbringer in office.
November 18, 2009 at 11:26 pm
And how will the ” opt-out ” option work? Will governors or state legislators or voters get to decide whether to ” opt-out “? What if you live in a really crappy conservative state like mine? Is that just your tough luck, loser? Do you suffer and die quickly or vote with your feet and move to a better state?
God, this thing is awful!
November 18, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Tell me about it. I’m pretty certain that it will be at the whim of state government rather than the citizens. If you want to opt-out, don;t buy it. What could be simpler?
November 19, 2009 at 1:18 am
Something I heard about on the Weather Channel tonight and then confirmed on the new orleans paper’s site and a tv station.
A federal court has found the Corpse of Engineers liable for the flooding of nola by the MRGO and the crappy floodwalls they built. We filed seeking compensation from the C.O.E. and will be members of a class action. I have two boxes filled with receipts of any and every type for practically everything we’ve had to buy since Katrina like clothes, food, hotel bills loss of employment since I had to resign my job and God knows what else!
Without a doubt the Corpse will appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and this will end up, one way or another with the Supremes. I’ve got a link below:
Comments are closed.
November 18, 2009 at 7:29 am
I think there is a war on women because men have so much to lose, and they will fight with all that they have to keep it. They don’t see the overall benefit to society and to all people’s lives that will result when women become equal partners, they only see the things they will lose and that life will change and change is frightening. All of my life, I have personally and professionally known men, with barely mediocre qualifications, land dream jobs that require little actual work and have enormous salaries and bonuses. Jobs no woman could ever access. To my mind, it’s the mediocre men who resist the elevation of women with the most violence and visciousness. Accomplished and capable men are not threatened, but the less capable don’t see women as human beings, only as potential competition. Women are especially threatening because they have been conditioned to have to work and prepare twice as hard in order to achieve their goals, thus becoming even more threatening to those men who have been handed a free pass to the executive lounge. The harder women try to elevate themselves, the greater the backlash.