Sex + Gender
Queer + Feminist
Social theory + Cultural Critique

Thoughts on Romney and the Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

In addition to being misogynistic, oppressive, antiquated and, quite frankly, unconstitutional, politicians who support anti-abortion laws and seek to defund Planned Parenthood are just not very smart politicians. When someone is elected into an executive position, every decision they make will change and shape the history of a nation. Because of this, it is important to have a vision that goes beyond just being elected. 

Mitt Romney, who I believe will win the Republican nomination (but not the election), has said the following regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood: 

"Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that." (source)

"Let me say it. I’d be delighted to sign that bill [overturning Roe v. Wade]. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in the country, terrific." (source)

So, if you’re elected President Mitt, you’re going to defund Planned Parenthood [which would place 27,000 employees on the unemployment list during record unemployment rates while leaving Planned Parenthood’s 5 million annual clients without a health resource (source)], you’re going to cut social spending, removing other health resources and make abortion illegal, despite population predictions of 9.22 billion people by 2075 (source). On average, Planned Parenthood performs 300,000 abortions a year (source), which would mean almost one million more citizens by the time Mitt would hit his “potential” reelection year. One million more people without access to health resources, without access to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which Romney also wants to phase out, replacing it with privatized choices for those who qualify (source). In addition, Romney seems quite concerned with the rights and recognition of a fetus but disregards the rights and agency of many actual living groups of American citizens. Of the almost million abortions that would not be legally performed in his first term, how will Romney feel when they are undocumented? LBGTQ? FAAB? low-income? The question is rhetorical, because his stance on these “issues” is quite clear - he just doesn’t care. 

To put it simply, the vision of the GOP is misogynistic, oppressive, antiquated, and near-sited. Romney’s flip-flopping on the issues reveals that he is more concerned with “winning” than he is with the idealism of creating change in this country. Although the ability for politicians to actually create change is, in my opinion, greatly limited, their greatest ability is in institutionalizing and legitimizing particular ideologies, contributing and participating in a collective consciousness that is then distributed via federal funded curriculums, the media, government funded programs and, lastly, particular mouthpieces (we see extensive evidence with this in the recent political climate: the GOP has allowed and encouraged the anti-woman legislation that has swept across many states). Put simply, they control the stories we are told. Whether I believe in the governments ability to truly create positive change doesn’t really matter - what does matter is that, at the very least, a presidential candidate should have the foresight to create a political narrative that is actually good for the country. And when I say good, I mean that it brings more people together than is drives them apart, gives more rights to people (actual people, not conceptual people) than takes them away, creates more opportunities for equality than inequality and can recognize the very real fact that the decisions they make once elected really do effect the history of a nation. 



Bill Clinton having a consensual sexual relationship with a woman who was willing is not the same as running your hand up a womans leg and pushing her head towards your crotch under the guise that you will give her a job if she consents. ITS HARASSMENT. 

The idea that children should be taught about sex and protection has NOTHING to do with Herman Cain being a man who thinks its ok to sexually harass women. How are the two even related? Except that maybe children in sex education classes will learn what defines sexual harassment and feel more empowered to report it when they are a victim. Or maybe Herman Cain could have benefited from a more thorough education about what constitutes the very defined line between consensual sexual activity and sexual harassment, since clearly he JUST DOESNT GET IT.

I’d like to punch the person who made this in the throat with a splintered wooden spoon.

wow. smh.

Spewing Misinformation and Ideology, A New York Times Op-Ed Spreads Unfounded Fears About Sex Ed


An op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?” by Robert George and Melissa Moschella, is not as much about sexuality education as it is an overt example of how deeply the socially-conservative agenda is pervading all aspects of our culture.

This is no accident; it is an intentional, widespread campaign against not only sexual and reproductive health, sexuality education, women’s rights, and the inclusion of LGBTQ youth in anti-bullying measures, but also against the rights of young people to dare to want to access information that will make them educated consumers of the world in which they live.

This campaign started gaining momentum with the Tea Party (you know, the folks who applauded “Let’s hear it for letting someone who doesn’t have health insurance die!”), formerly considered to be more on the fringe, but who are now, inexplicably and horrifyingly, gaining legitimacy.

I’d like to highlight several core elements of social conservative propaganda—some of which appear throughout the piece—that continue to be used to manipulate people into thinking there is a concerted effort being made by educators to contribute, as the authors claim, to “the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages:”

Read More

Oh my … read the article. Would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this. I am at a loss for words. Once I find them, I will sting them together to form an eloquent argument as to why this kind of mentality is a) dangerous b) unfair c) inaccurate. Thoughts? 

You can’t pray the gay away flash mob = awesomeness

This is a picture of a students bumper I saw on my campus. He was sitting in the car when I took the picture. I just … couldn’t believe this was all happening. At once. On his bumper. At school. In life. Like, the sticker was real

It’s just so crazy to me. Jesus, Pro-God and Pro-life and yet, Pro-Gun? Don’t guns fucking kill people!? And that’s what defines being AMERICAN? 

Every time I try to understand the mindset behind whoever actually purchased this sticker, I fail. I simply fail to understand. 

Do any of you?


Religious Conservatives Hate HPV Vaccines Because They Want Women To Die

Dan Savage comments:

In the midst of the shitstorm over Michele Bachmann’s comments about the HPV vaccine—her false statements, a.k.a “lies”—let’s pause to remember why religious conservatives like Bachmann hate the HPV vaccine so much.
HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections. HPV is easily transmitted by skin-to-skin contact; condoms provide some protection, but not much. Most people who have been exposed to the human papilloma virus don’t know they’ve been exposed. Most are asymptomatic. An asymptomatic person can still pass the virus on. A small percentage of women who have HPV go on to develop cervical cancer and some of those women wind up dead. Religious conservatives loved the HPV virus because it killed women. Here was a potentially fatal STI that condoms couldn’t protect you from. Abstinence educators pointed to HPV and jumped up and down—they loved to overstate HPV’s seriousness and its deadliness—in their efforts to scare kids into saving themselves for marriage. And they fought the introduction of the HPV vaccine tooth-and-nail because vaccinating women against HPV would “undermine” the abstinence message. Given a choice between your wife, daughter, sister, or mom dying of cervical cancer or no longer being to scream “HPV IS GOING TO KILL YOU!” at classrooms full of terrified teenagers, socially conservative abstinence “educators” preferred the former.
Bachmann and her ilk believe that woman who have sex—along with men who fail to purchase health insurance—deserve to die horrible deaths. That’s why they hate the HPV vaccine, that’s why they fought its introduction, that’s why they tell lies about it now. Because they want women to die.
The party of life, ladies and gentlemen.

Very interesting perspective … thoughts? 

The issues I discuss on this blog are absolutely intertwined with politics. Although much of the change I hope to see take place are cultural shifts, many major laws need to change and evolve to accommodate our modern, expanding and diverse population. In recent history, the American political climate has drastically changed, taking huge leaps further right creating an incredibly difficult legal environment for change to take place. Much of this right wing shift is due to the rise of the tea party and small, yet significant, changes to our political system. Most notably, the range of Church and State is now in inches, not in miles. This is an EXCELLENT video bringing these very issues to light. Take a moment to watch! 



This Is Important, You Should Know About It of the Day: Republican presidential nomination hopeful Michele Bachmann is the first candidate to sign the “pro-marriage” pledge of conservative Christian group The Family Leader.

According to the Des Moines Register, those who sign “The Marriage Vow” [pdf] agree “to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of ‘faithful constitutionalists’ as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.”

The vow also affirms the signee’s belief that homosexuality is a public health risk and a choice, and on par with polygamy and polyandry.

Worse still is the vow’s shocking suggestion that children born into African-American families under slavery were better off than they are today because they were “more likely to be raised by [their] mother and father in a two-parent household.”

And, finally, for good measure, candidates who sign the pledge must also make a point of rejecting Sharia law.

A spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul has expressed reservations on behalf of the congressman, while Tim Pawlenty’s spokesman said the former Minnesota governor was reviewing the document. Most of the other candidates refused to comment on their plans; only Jon Huntsman has stated (through an aide) that he will not sign the pledge as he “never signs any pledges.” Family Leader CEO Bob Vander Plaats — who was state chair of Mike Huckabee’s Republican presidential campaign in 2008 — said his organization will only support candidates who sign the pledge.

(NB: It should be noted that the controversial passage in the pledge that refers to the “protection” of women and children from “all forms of pornography” may not be a call for the outright banning of porn as some assert, but is certainly worth questioning.)

[dmr / tp / wonkette / mediaite / photo: politico.]

Related: Bachmann compared same-sex marriage to Pearl Harbor in 2004.


Her politics are frightening and so is this document.