Republicans are the new feminists. Either that or they’re pro-rape and anti-family.

5 Sep

I’m bringing the banner back because the Anti-Woman Threat Level has been elevated to fuchsia.

I watched part of the RNC last night. I know, I know, I shouldn’t be doing that lest I risk putting myself into a coma, but I can’t help it. (Have you ever seen anything more boring than this convention? I’ve seen people party harder on the Lawrence Welk Show.) I couldn’t help it. I turned it on and was just caught in the headlights by seeing my city’s old mayor pretend to be a dumb hick in order to pander to the willfully ignorant provincialism of a room full of Tim McGraw fans who believe poor people are poor because they’re evil, dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test their faith, and liberals’ real goals consist of sacrificing late-term fetuses to the Indigo Girls and turning all of our little boys into Eddie Izzard. He did so by jocularly implying that Obama’s an urban chauvinist/elitist for mentioning the fact that Sara Palin hasn’t run a city big enough to have bus service nor a state with more people in it than any city with more than one Hooters. (Rudy’s just so small town, so main street.) He then tisk-tisked Democrats for asking whether Palin can handle being a mom to so many kids while holding high office, acting fucking outraged that they would ask such a question of a woman when they wouldn’t ask it of a man. You know, because they’re such feminists over in the GOP.

I know the Democrats have been blowing it lately when it comes to women’s issues (hey, Obama, thanks for selling out half the population in a stupid attempt to court the seven or so religious zealots that were already going to vote for you out of spite because McCain refuses to acknowledge that the apocalypse is scheduled for next month), but watching Republicans talk about women’s rights nearly had me in convulsions. The dissimulations and misrepresentations I saw in fifteen minutes of watching the RNC were so obscene, so obvious, and so stupid that I squirted ginger ale out of my nose like five times. Hearing these ass clowns pretend to give a shit about women’s issues, pretend they’re the party of resisting the status quo, pretend they care about anything but giving rich people more money, starting some more wars with brown people with oil, taking rights away from women and people with the temerity to not be rich, and forcing people to adhere to their backward bullshit religious ideology is offensive to the max.

Or perhaps it’s illuminating. 

It’s illuminating because I’ve seen the essence of Republican strategy in action: smart, sophisticated rich guys pretending to be dumb philistines in order to trick people who really are dumb philistines into thinking their best interests lie in voting in support of smart rich guys’ financial interests. It’s really kind of amazing if you think about it. I mean, these guys have to say insane shit in public that they absolutely know is stupid and wrong, and they have to act like they mean it. But they have to make sure not to go too far with their ridiculous rhetoric lest they tip the public off to the fact that they think their entire base has the IQ of Fred Durst. It’s a fine line, and I’m kind of impressed with how they’ve managed to stand astride it for so long. 

So they get to come out and pretend, because they’ve nominated an anti-woman psycho who happens to have a vagina (maybe — I’m still not convinced she isn’t a cyborg created by Sean Hannity and Phyllis Schlafly or a transvestite MRA), that they’re the party of women’s rights and gender progress. They can claim that they’re the feminists and the Democrats are the misogynists (not that a lot of them aren’t), and do so with straight faces. McCain and whatever doctor of tomfoolery runs his campaign also think that they’re going to nab the mythological bloc of disaffected Clinton supporters who are disgruntled at Obama’s nomination, simply because they’ve nominated a woman (a woman who thinks being called a pit bull with lipstick is a compliment and that women ought to be forced to rent their uteri out as life support equipment free of charge). I don’t believe that a huge group of people that love Clinton more than their own human rights exists, but I do, unfortunately, think there are plenty of (Republican) women that are stupid enough to pick up what the GOP is laying down and decide Sara Palin is a step forward for womankind.

What can I say? The GOP might just have the public pegged. In any case, the Republicans have devised some pretty impressive framing if you ask me. 

Maybe the leadership of the party of homophobes with wide stances and women who wish women weren’t allowed to vote gets something I don’t. Maybe I’m presenting arguments that are just too honest, complex, and thoughtful. Maybe what I need to do in order to hasten the gender revolution is repackage it as something other than what it really is in blisteringly stupid terms. I’ll give it a shot, I guess, and try it out on the voting public who are considering whether they ought to vote for John “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran… did I mention that I was a POW?” McCain and his kapo out of their “love” for womankind. The following will be my attempt at “framing,” GOP style, the debate over whether Palin’s election would be a step forward for women: 

Here’s why I’m opposed to Sara Palin: she may be a woman, but she ain’t no feminist, and I doubt whether she’s even got America’s interests at heart. In fact, I doubt whether she’s even an American. Look where she’s from. I know Alaska’s a state, but it’s basically in Canada, and there’s nothing in Canada but socialists, hockey players, and people who don’t know how to pronounce the word “about.” That ain’t American no how. But it may be even worse than that. Alaska is just a hop, skip, and a few little islands away from Russia. I’m not sure this woman isn’t a foreign agent, and if she happens to turn out to be one, let’s hope she’s “just” a Canadian and not a Russki. 

You may be wondering why I suspect Palin of working for a foreign government. I’ll tell you why: she’s already publicly admitted to being anti-American. I hate to quote myself (I, like Bill O’Reilly, am a paragon of modesty), but let us remember: 

As of now, our Supreme Court (however tenuous the status of this decision may be) holds that a woman has the right to decide how she wants to utilize her uterus… The Supreme Court is an American institution and has been one for much longer than apple pie, NASCAR, or fake German beers, ergo, anyone who disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision is anti-American.

Palin has brazenly proclaimed that she’s anti-American, and has even admitted to sympathizing with terrorists who would attack us and take away our freedoms. She is vehemently opposed to American women’s freedom and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and would, if elected, force us to use our organs to provide life support against our will.

And she’s radical about it (what’s scarier than a radical, folks?). She has stated publicly that she opposes our right to determine our own destiny even in the case of rape. You know what that means? That’s right. Sara Palin is pro-rape. She’d rather force you to give birth to the spawn of a rapist than allow you, after you’ve already had your human rights and personal sovereignty violated, to decide not to suffer further physical and emotional torment as a result of the crime. Palin claims she’s pro-family, but how can we trust someone’s claims to being pro-family when she has also publicly proclaimed that she’d even force her own daughter to carry a fetus that resulted from a rape? Palin is in favor of taking rights away from rape victims and giving more power to rapists to hurt us, and she’s ready to put the might of the state behind the rapists rather than innocent women, including her own daughters. That is downright treasonous — not to mention anti-family — if you ask me. 

I think it’s clear what the right choice is here. Sara Palin is a pro-rape, anti-family, anti-American radical, and she might very well be a foreign agent. She’s clearly not qualified to lead on behalf of the majority of freedom-loving, anti-rape, patriotic Americans, and neither is the man who is so incompetent as to be fooled into choosing an anti-American foreigner as his running mate for our nation’s highest office.

Hey, they started it.

(I guess watching this bullshit wasn’t a total loss. I found out about Cowboy Troy, who the GOP hired to participate in the most embarrassing rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I’ve ever seen, but who nonetheless might be the most awesome person alive. Plus, I learned some things about how to package the iss-yous for the troglodytes we call “average Americans.” George Lakoff would be proud.)

Bookmark and Share

62 Responses to “Republicans are the new feminists. Either that or they’re pro-rape and anti-family.”

  1. Screaming Lemur September 5, 2008 at 3:02 AM #

    She scares me. And the worst part? Whenever I hear some douchenozzle saying shit like “blah blah hot” and “blah blah can’t take care of her kids” and “blah blah VPILF”, I *have* to speak up and tell them it isn’t cool, because that’s how feminism works. I hate her views and if she and McSame get voted in, I’m goin’ to Canada, but she doesn’t deserve misogynist idiocy any more than Hillary did, even if she is an “Auntie Ann”.
    Frankly, there’s enough wrong with her politics that her family/looks/vagina shouldn’t come into it.

  2. Jen September 5, 2008 at 3:58 AM #

    Perhaps the only thing funnier than the Democrats pretending they give a shit about women’s rights is the Republicans pretending they give a shit about women’s rights. When O’Reilly recently talked about gender and sexism, I about bust a nut from the shear irony of it.

    You know, but I have to defend Palin against misogynist attacks. I laugh a little inside when some assume I’m a GOP sympathizer. Me, who won’t vote for the Democrats because they’re too conservative, a stealth Republican… ha!

    The RNC was just too pathetic for words, I agree there. I especially liked how they kept tabs on the two people of color in the audience so that the camera could strategically zoom in on them to show how “diverse” Republicans are.

  3. Konservo September 5, 2008 at 4:13 AM #

    He did so by jocularly implying that Obama’s an urban chauvinist-elitist for mentioning the fact that Sara Palin hasn’t run a city big enough to have bus service.

    That’s because Obama’s camp was ragging on Palin for being a small town mayor, which completely ignores the fact that she’s now the governor of the state.

    when did that happen again?

    August 29, 2008 CNN Newsroom:

    ROBERTS: You know, there’s one other issue. We’ve talked about her experience and what depth of experience she has, the fact that maybe she tries to peel off a few women voters on the Democratic side who really wanted to see a woman in the White House in some way, shape, or form.

    There’s also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down Syndrome. The baby is just slightly more than 4 months old now. Children with Down Syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of, how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?

    92 sez:

    watching Republicans talk about women’s rights

    Republicans treat everybody the same regardless of race, religion and gender: if you can be useful, they like you and will use you, if you want them to do something for you, you’ll have to pay a price, if you’re looking for a handout, get lost.

    Democrats are the misogynists

    Not all Dems, but many are indeed (and so are Reps., who, btw are not feminists, as you know).

    I do think there are plenty of people that are stupid enough to pick up what the GOP is laying down and decide Sara Palin is a step forward for womankind.

    There sure are. There are even blacks who think that Barack Obama is a step forward for African-American-kind. The former are called sexists, the later, racists.

    I know Alaska’s a state, but it’s basically in Canada

    I know. I don’t consider Alaska a real state.

    I don’t know if Palin is anti-choice. I know that she personally does not believe in abortion, but I don’t think she’s taken any steps to make laws more restrictive.

  4. Nine Deuce September 5, 2008 at 5:19 AM #

    Democrats are most certainly not my pals, especially the male ones who seem to sell us women out every time they get the chance, but I’ve got to take the lesser of two evils, and the GOP looks pretty evil this week.

    Palin hasn’t done anything on abortion because she hasn’t had the chance, but I’m not really interested in seeing what she’d do if given the chance.

    So should we give Alaska to Canada? I think they’d probably take better care of it.

  5. D September 5, 2008 at 5:52 AM #

    I think bringing her family up is important, really.

    She’s a staunch advocate of abstinence-only education. Her family shows, in no uncertain terms, that this woman can’t even make “abstinence-only” work in her own home.

    If you stand up and say abstinence-only education is the only thing that can prevent teen pregnancy, and you’ve got a pregnant teen at home, you look a whole lot less credible, and so does what you’re selling.

  6. Nine Deuce September 5, 2008 at 6:14 AM #

    I don’t disagree, but I don’t know that it’s being brought up in the right way.

  7. Konservo September 5, 2008 at 6:45 AM #

    If you stand up and say abstinence-only education is the only thing that can prevent teen pregnancy, and you’ve got a pregnant teen at home, you look a whole lot less credible, and so does what you’re selling.

    I don’t know about that. The young woman made her own decision to have sex. Are we really supposed to believe that neither she nor her partner had heard of condoms?

    I don’t vote, so I really don’t care, but just because her belief is not shared by her daughter doesn’t mean she’s not entitled to hold that belief.

    This is a positive characteristic in a politician. I don’t want someone who’s going to intimidate me to the point where I’m forced to comply with his or her beliefs. Just because VP Palin believes in abstinence only, doesn’t mean I have to, and if she can accept that and serve the citizens of the US who disagree with her, then she’s more liberal than we are giving her credit for.

  8. D September 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM #

    I don’t know about that. The young woman made her own decision to have sex. Are we really supposed to believe that neither she nor her partner had heard of condoms?

    Oh, she’d probably heard of them, but had her mother to thank for quite possibly not knowing how to use them, or the proper way to use them. Or, believing one shouldn’t use them. After all, many abstinence-only education types will attempt to teach that condoms are not only “bad”, but cause bad things.

    I don’t vote, so I really don’t care, but just because her belief is not shared by her daughter doesn’t mean she’s not entitled to hold that belief.

    She’s entitled to whatever belief she pleases. However, when you attempt to use a position of legal authority to push those beliefs on others, that’s when you have a problem.

    Abstinence-only politicians aren’t holding a personal belief for themselves, they’re very much interested in making sure you play by their rules.

    I don’t want someone who’s going to intimidate me to the point where I’m forced to comply with his or her beliefs. Just because VP Palin believes in abstinence only, doesn’t mean I have to, and if she can accept that and serve the citizens of the US who disagree with her, then she’s more liberal than we are giving her credit for.

    That’s just it: Her type fully intends to make you comply with her beliefs.

    I wouldn’t think her liberal in the least, considering this is the woman who made a speech about the Iraq war being a task “from God”/”God’s will”. Which she also said about a gas pipeline.

  9. syndicalist702 September 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM #

    I like how Fred Thompson said that Alaska is the largest state in the union. Geographically, yes. BUT population-wise it’s the fourth smallest and the least densely populated. That is, unless you count moose, caribou, and polar bears. Then maybe you’d have a competitive population.

  10. syndicalist702 September 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM #

    “Are we really supposed to believe that neither she nor her partner had heard of condoms?”

    Oh, yes. Because knowledge about contraception and its use magically falls out of the sky, -gawd- willing. Way to pretend we live in a vacuum.

  11. syndicalist702 September 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM #

    “Hearing these ass clowns pretend to give a shit about women’s issues, pretend they’re the party of resisting the status quo, pretend they care about anything but giving rich people more money, starting some more wars with brown people with oil, taking rights away from women and people with the temerity to not be rich, and forcing people to adhere to their backward bullshit religious ideology is offensive to the max.

    Or perhaps it’s illuminating.

    It’s illuminating because I’ve seen the essence of Republican strategy in action: smart, sophisticated rich guys pretending to be dumb philistines in order to trick people who really are dumb philistines into thinking their best interests lie in voting in support of smart rich guys’ financial interests. It’s really kind of amazing if you think about it. I mean, these guys have to say insane shit in public that they absolutely know is stupid and wrong, and they have to act like they mean it. But they have to make sure not to go too far with their ridiculous rhetoric lest they tip the public off to the fact that they think their entire base has the IQ of Fred Durst. It’s a fine line, and I’m kind of impressed with how they’ve managed to straddle it for so long.”

    So. Getting. Quoted.

  12. Konservo September 5, 2008 at 2:42 PM #

    As for the type’s that fully intend to make me comply with her or his beliefs… I’ll be sure to let them know where to stick it when I’m found to be insubordinate.

    When it comes to American politics, I find little difference between the two parties. I usually favor the conservatives, though, because, even though Bush went overboard with the whole war on terror thing, the conservatives tend to be more about smaller governments. Obama’s got an ambitious plan to create millions of jobs through new and or expanded government organizations, that’s not something I can get behind. If there’s work to be done then it’s justified, but if he’s creating jobs to be paid with tax dollars just for the sake of creating jobs, then that’s not justified, imho.

    Damn it! It’s 10:41, I missed MickeyD’s breakfast! Oh well, I’m told the sausage is all anus’ and lips anyway.

  13. D September 5, 2008 at 6:44 PM #

    Oh, yes. Because knowledge about contraception and its use magically falls out of the sky, -gawd- willing. Way to pretend we live in a vacuum.

    I’d have to admit, it’d take a really, really stupid person to be unable to figure out a condom’s use without a class, though.

    I mean, what’s that difficult to understand?

    I admit, I haven’t used one in a long while, but I’m pretty certain they even offer instructions in the package.

    the conservatives tend to be more about smaller governments.

    You must not follow too closely. A conservative has been responsible for the largest increase in government size in our history.

  14. Renee September 6, 2008 at 4:03 AM #

    I appreciate that you were doing satire but Canadians are sick of being the referential in American commentary. This includes cracks about escaping to Canada if McCain is elected, offering us Alaska or commenting on our obsessive love of hockey and supposed mispronunciations. We may be neighbors but the average Canadian knows far more about the US than the average American knows about Canada. There is more to us than hockey and ice and I am sick of those traits being used as the only descriptors. Slightly off topic I agree but as a maple leaf waving, maple syrup pouring, peace loving, timmy drinking cannuck I had to say my peace.

  15. Nine Deuce September 6, 2008 at 4:13 AM #

    I was making fun of people (usually Republicans) who make such dumb comments, not putting them out there as my opinion. I’m one of the four Americans who knows a few things about Canada, and I most certainly know my silly little satirical stereotypes aren’t representative.

  16. atheist woman September 6, 2008 at 11:54 AM #

    Is this satire? Are you really using the anti-American radical spiel from the other side?

  17. Nine Deuce September 6, 2008 at 3:53 PM #

    Of course it’s satire.

  18. crankosaur September 7, 2008 at 2:39 AM #

    That’s one way to get through to the dumbasses!

  19. wiggles September 7, 2008 at 7:33 AM #

    Just because VP Palin believes in abstinence only, doesn’t mean I have to

    What you personally believe is not the point. The point is that given the opportunity, Palin will continue throwing away federal tax dollars on abstinence-only sex education, which has been shown repeatedly and conclusively to increase the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs.

    And regarding how Bristol and her BF didn’t know to use condoms:
    Abstinence-only educated, home-schooled children of fundies like Palin wouldn’t be carrying any condoms – let alone walking into the local drug store where everyone and the cashier knows who they are and slapping a box of Trojans and $5 on the counter – because they’re indoctrinated to believe that only sluts carry condoms, and that condoms aren’t effective anyway. So they rely on the withdrawal method and tell themselves that the sex they just had “doesn’t count” as long as they apologize to Jesus for it.

  20. Sally September 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM #

    I’m anti-american, but only because I’m british.

    Oh and hey, this woman who’s thing I always watch did a segment on Sarah Plain, she tends to talk about some of the same issues as you and she’s awesome.

    http://current.com/items/89270795_target_women_sarah_palin

  21. stormy September 7, 2008 at 12:59 PM #

    Loved the post ND.

    I am sure that cartographers would also be behind giving Alaska to the Canadians, it would make the colouring-in so much easier.

    Palin may be a woman, but she ain’t no sister. Views such as forced incubation means she gets an honorary penis.

  22. D September 7, 2008 at 7:03 PM #

    What you personally believe is not the point. The point is that given the opportunity, Palin will continue throwing away federal tax dollars on abstinence-only sex education, which has been shown repeatedly and conclusively to increase the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs.

    Thank you! Someone else understands the point I was getting at.

    And regarding how Bristol and her BF didn’t know to use condoms:
    Abstinence-only educated, home-schooled children of fundies like Palin wouldn’t be carrying any condoms – let alone walking into the local drug store where everyone and the cashier knows who they are and slapping a box of Trojans and $5 on the counter – because they’re indoctrinated to believe that only sluts carry condoms, and that condoms aren’t effective anyway. So they rely on the withdrawal method and tell themselves that the sex they just had “doesn’t count” as long as they apologize to Jesus for it.

    ‘Zactly.

    Also, that many of the abstinence-only types will actively teach that condoms don’t work, or CAUSE problems, instead of preventing them.

  23. gare September 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM #

    Those dam republicans, they have John Mcain now cued up to be the guy W wouldve had without 9/11, a one term lame duck do nothing military drummer president, and all because they somehow totally stole Obama Luther Kings Hillary mojo, they out womaned the demos, and brought in Tina Fey with a moose gun who oozes ‘Im more of everything than you are’.. Biden is going to be slaughtered, he already looks like a husband caught staying out too late … this is what the republicans do, they take democrat’s strengths and turn them into weaknesses… Ive never seen anything close to this brilliantly stoopid or stoopidly brilliant in my life. toting a special needs kid and a pregnant teen whos boyfriend is probably already recording a cd, suddenly nobody will our future VEEP to fall so they are going to vote for her… Pelosi and Palin .. in charge of Congress… who’d a thunk it? Im actually for Obama … but his machine aint as good as this machine. military military military, get used to it folks .. its all the vietnam generation knows

    regular patrons of this annoying blog realize most of what ND says is satirical in nature, like her name, her points arent really her straight up honest self, but its her blog aint it. She can be whoever she wants to be Sarahs gonna be VP after all!

    gare, in the field.. WAYY out in the field

  24. Nine Deuce September 8, 2008 at 4:16 PM #

    “Tina Fey with a moose gun” – Ha! I actually thought of Tina Fey, too. I asked my friend over the phone, “When did Tina Fey start doing parody political speeches?”

  25. wiggles September 9, 2008 at 6:47 AM #

    Biden is going to be slaughtered

    Yeah, I doubt it. I’m actually quite looking forward to the debates. Biden’s got experience over Palin and he can do likable and folksy as well as anybody. Plus he’s got all kinds of specific ideas about getting out of Iraq with minimal damage. Palin’s and the GOP’s “stay the course, the surge is working” shtick isn’t going to cut it.
    I think McCain has an advantage over Obama though, just from his “moderate maverick” rep and from having done the old political doublespeak for so long. We’ll see. Maybe it won’t work this time. The tone of the MSM is heavily in Obama’s favor. And from the last couple-few U.S. elections and primaries I’ve seen, for better or worse (worse, though I don’t want more GOP), whoever wins the MSM’s popularity contest wins the elections.

  26. Bill September 9, 2008 at 9:42 AM #

    You know what really sucks? If you take all the money from rich people and give it to the poor, the rich people will end up getting it all back anyhow.

    Rich people do boring republican crap like investing in assets while poor people buy stuff.

    And that economic incentive check was a joke. $600 to $1200 isn’t enough to pull out of poverty. The government needs to give everyone who is broke at least $20,000 each.

    True, it would really blow up the deficit while triggering hyperinflation, which would have the net effect of making poor people even more poor, but it would be impressive even if it is counterproductive.

    Translation: The key to getting people out of poverty is through helping them develop skills and obtain productive assets, not through throwing them a one-shot of cash. The good news is many women are starting to realize that, and are starting businesses and/or obtaining in-demand skills, thereby obtaining greater independence. The bad news is the political party that otherwise promotes itself as the champion of women seems hostile to that idea, and thus are commited to spreading, not ending, dependence.

  27. gare September 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM #

    listen… hear that? its Saturday Night Live salivating ….

    g

  28. Nine Deuce September 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM #

    wiggles – I still think Obama will kill McCain in the debates because he’s such a better speaker and is so much more charismatic. Watching McCain speak is about as rousing as watching paint dry.

  29. Nine Deuce September 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM #

    stormy – Maybe we should send her an honorary penis trophy? I like the idea of awarding those.

  30. Konservo September 9, 2008 at 8:18 PM #

    What you personally believe is not the point. The point is that given the opportunity, Palin will continue throwing away federal tax dollars on abstinence-only sex education, which has been shown repeatedly and conclusively to increase the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs.

    And how does that compare to the tax-dollars thrown away on alternative sex-ed programs?

    I think that parents* should teach children about sex before high-school, and by the time the kid gets into biology or anatomy (or whatever) class in which learning about sex organs comes up for whatever reason (e.g. when discussing evolution and explaining why hair, now, only covers certain parts of the human body) the kid should be not be embarrassed or uncomfortable.

    However, that the kid’s parents are the ones to explain sex should, hopefully, conjure images of the folks if and when two youngsters think about going at it. Hopefully hearing mom’s voice in one’s mind describing how to put on a condom securely will have the intended effect on an erection. And, it seems to me, only a committed partner would still feel comfortable having relations with someone who, before sex, says something along the lines of “Now, my father told me that… etc.”

    But anyway, if we’re talking economics, I don’t believe in sex-ed at all. Scrap it.

    If we are talking about freedom to hold one’s own beliefs, than what I (or anyone else) personally believe is very much the point.

    Hey, how about we kill two birds with one stone and tell the government and schools to STFU about sex-ed and start… you know… teaching! I knew everything that was taught in my HS sex-ed course about year before hand in church. We even took a field trip to Planned Parenthood where we received free condoms. It was a hell of a lot more informative than the school gym teacher pointing at a cartoon body and saying “this is a penis and these are the testis.”

    *parents, preferably both, but at least one, if that is not possible then legal guardian.

  31. Nine Deuce September 9, 2008 at 8:26 PM #

    There is a public health concern that lies behind teaching sex ed in schools, as well as some issues that are of serious importance to the state. That these idiots care more about pushing their religious ideology on students in a state institution than they do about the needs of the state and society (an educated populace free of rampant STD outbreaks and teen pregnancy will reduce public health risks and increase productivity and ingenuity, making us all better off) is pretty ridiculous.

  32. Screaming Lemur September 10, 2008 at 4:42 AM #

    Konservo, I don’t agree with your idea that the public schools shouldn’t teach ANY kind of sex ed. It’s a noble thought that parents should be responsible for teaching their kids about sex, and yes, many do. I know my mom had ‘the talk’ with me before I got to high school. (And by the way, when I was ready to have sex, I did, and got condoms, and you know my parents didn’t enter my head ONCE. Just sayin’.)
    The thing is, you’re assuming ALL parents will a) be comfortable with talking to their kids about sex, and b) be both informed and not krazy-religious enough to give their kids accurate information about sex, consent and sexual health issues. And if you should happen to be gay? I know most schools don’t really teach gay safe sex methods, but most parents won’t want to even think their kid might be gay!
    And your experience is not indicative of the majority. Not all churches are progressive enough to organize a sex-ed trip to PP, and uh, we don’t all go to church, btw.
    So where does this leave the kid, who’s the one we’re trying to educate, after all? Well, if s/he’s got uneducated/uninformed or overconservative parents, and/or if s/he’s gay, well you’re just shit outta luck, ain’tcha kid! This is why public schools exist. If you could learn everything you need to know from your parents, we’d all be home-schooled. I’m afraid sex-ed is indeed necessary, just like music, and shop class, and history. Palin wants to teach abstinence-only, which is fine for those that choose to be abstinent. But for teenagers that are sexually active? They need accurate information, which does indeed help lower the rates of STD’s and unplanned pregnancies. (“Wear a condom” vs. “Condoms are 60% ineffective!”… amazing.)
    I’d like the government out of a great many sections of my life, personally, but leaving that kind of information untaught- in schools? Not safe and not responsible at all.

  33. Konservo September 10, 2008 at 6:07 AM #

    Sex is a necessity of life, just like eating and breathing. Without sex, the species dies out. It’s astonishing to me that a natural, necessary function of life has become something that parents feel uncomfortable discussing with children. Sex, for the most part, is not a technical activity like playing the French horn or building a wooden clock, schools, imo, should not devote resources to subjects that should be taught at home, and if so, then the kids who are already informed should not be held back because someone’s dad didn’t want to say “tampon” in front of his boy.

  34. Nine Deuce September 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM #

    Konservo- That would, of course, be ideal, but we live in a country full of people who like to pretend they don’t have genitalia.

  35. Jane September 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM #

    Deuce, Your the funniest person alive. Thanks for your blog. I watched the convention and just felt horrified. How the hell do people fall for this? Reading your post had me in tears laughing. Thanks!

  36. Screaming Lemur September 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM #

    Konservo- maybe once we evolve to the point where sex isn’t such a scary topic for people, and is seen as the natural thing it is, then maybe parents will be able to teach their kids about boundaries, consent, and sexual health. Until then, I’m afraid it will be seen as a “technical” topic. I’d rather have kids educated about it in school, where there’s some way of regulating what information they get. And a fighting chance of making sure it’s safe and accurate, not “wait til marriage and oh condoms give you cancer” type nuttery.

  37. Konservo September 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #

    92 and SL,

    I know, I know… I’m an idealist. But I do think that, in some ways at least, teaching “tough” topics like sex-ed in school enables a sort of disassociation or alienation (and I hate to use that word for it has different meanings depending on context) between parent and child. I know that some kids do not have contact with their parents for one reason or another due to natural circumstances, though.

    I see sex-ed as a way parents can further push-the-buck onto teachers and educators when it comes to helping children mature. It takes a crucial part of being a parent away from the parents. An understanding and bond that forms amongst members of an honest, open and concerned family is not able to form, because an important step for a child (namely the transition from child to young adult) in which parents should be supportive, occurs without one’s parents and instead in an impersonal, institutional environment (public school). But, yeah, I guess I’m an idealist at times.

  38. wiggles September 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM #

    And how does that compare to the tax-dollars thrown away on alternative sex-ed programs?

    Ever heard the old adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?” Educating kids how to prevent pregnancy and STIs is actually effective. Abstinence-only education is effective at raising the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs, leading to more young mothers on the dole, forgoing their educations and their future ability to garner decent-paying jobs just to meagerly support themselves and their children on some minimim-wage Wal-Mart job with no health benefits.

    I think that parents* should teach children about sex before high-school

    So do I. But what if they don’t? Is the government supposed to mandate parent-to-child birds-n-bees discussions somehow? What if the parents are misinformed about STIs, physical and emotional boundaries, levels of effectiveness of different types of contraception, etc?

  39. Konservo September 15, 2008 at 2:37 AM #

    But what if they don’t? Is the government supposed to mandate parent-to-child birds-n-bees discussions somehow? What if the parents are misinformed about STIs, physical and emotional boundaries, levels of effectiveness of different types of contraception, etc?

    Well, what if parents don’t teach their kids how to eat, speak, or wipe their own asses? And why all of this faith in the public school system? Haven’t some schools attempted to introduce creationism as an alternative to evolution in such a way that both would be taught in public schools? Let’s say Palin gets the VP job and she uses her power to make that nightmare a reality (and we can only guess at the strings Cheney has been able to pull from his VP seat over the last 8 years), would you not want to clear up a few issues with your children? It would be irresponsible, imho, to let my kids be indoctrinated with an ideology that I don’t subscribe to and that in fact I think is 100% false.

    But what’s the difference between the issue of Creationism v. Evolution on the one hand, and what and how to teach the fundamentals of sex on the other hand?

    It seems to me that most people think of evolution as a matter of facts whereas sex-ed can be seen as factual, but there is necessarily a moral aspect to the topic because of the inherently emotional act which it is for us humans. Sure, sex-ed can be taught following the abstinence only program, or it could be centered around contraception, or perhaps in other ways, but the sex-ed curricula can hardly do justice to the emotional and moral aspects of sex. With sex-ed taught in school, some parents will feel that they need not talk to their children about the emotional/moral, that is, human aspects of sex either. Perhaps we’ve yet to see Eliot’s waste land.

    Flushed and decided, he assaults at once;
    Exploring hands encounter no defence;
    His vanity requires no response,
    And makes a welcome of indifference.

  40. Screaming Lemur September 15, 2008 at 11:53 PM #

    Konservo, just because sex-ed is taught in school, doesn’t mean that parents don’t talk to their kids about it. In my experience, the parents who’re comfortable talking to their kids about sex do so, whether it’s been addressed in school or not.
    My question is, what about those kids whose parents AREN’T comfortable, or informed, or progressive enough to give information besides “not until you’re married!”?
    Also, I find that people tend to form their own opinions about where sex falls in the “casual—serious” spectrum, as far as relationships go. Having parents tell you their beliefs can help, but I don’t think it’s the ONLY important thing. Having the information to make to make your decision is, I believe, the first step. Ethics- as in, consent and boundaries- can be taught in school, and should be.
    This whole issue is about keeping kids healthy and informed, in our current society. They are the ones we want to come out of it relatively unscathed, after all.

  41. B September 16, 2008 at 2:32 AM #

    Konservo, it is really frustrating to read your comments. You have this big pseudo-intellectualism thing going on where you seem much more interested in winning pointless theoretical arguments than in considering where we practically are.

    Yes, obviously it would be great if parents taught their kids everything from how to use condoms to how to figure out what birth control is right for you, all voluntarily and at home. Given the ignorance and visceral discomfort most Americans feel with regards to sexual health, this will not happen.

    The evidence remains conclusive. Eliminating comprehensive sex ed causes STD rates and teen pregnancy rates to skyrocket. Kids have sex no matter what you teach. Thus, if we want to hedge against the public health threat of STDs, and help maintain social stability by giving kids the tools to prevent unwanted pregnancy, we need to give them sex ed. This is a no-brainer.

    Now stop derailing the thread. Start your own blog if you want to talk about your theories about what an ideal society looks like.

  42. Konservo September 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM #

    You have this big pseudo-intellectualism thing going

    Thanks!

    Given the ignorance and visceral discomfort most Americans feel with regards to sexual health, this will not happen.

    On behalf of ignorant and uncomfortable Americans, thanks!

    … This is a no-brainer.

    You must be a believer in what Barack Obama calls “the urgency of Now.” My point is that by institutionalizing and standardizing every aspect of life we lose vital parts of the private sphere of human affairs. Thus what was once private becomes public, and not just “out in the open for all to see” but public in the sense of regulated by a political body. I don’t think you want right-wing religious nut-jobs foisting creationism and abstinence only programs on you or your kids and there are views that I wouldn’t think conservatives want foisted upon them or their children in public schools. This being a democracy, and we Americans being an enlightened bunch, even if we *know* that something is detrimental to another person’s health his or her decisions are respected in spite of our disapproval.

    Now stop derailing the thread

    This post is about Sarah Palin, the sex-ed issue is related to Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, who is pregnant. Some think that if Bristol received a more Progressive and comprehensive sexual education then perhaps she wouldn’t be a pregnant 17 year old. Some go further and use her as an example of Sarah Palin’s flawed views on sex-ed. I think it is presumptuous to hold either view and to think that the moral code we use to guide our reasoning is somehow superior to the moral code that folks in Alaska use to guide their reasoning. I personally believe that learning about contraception and STD is preferable to the alternative, however, if someone thinks that an abstinence only sex-ed is the way to go, you and I have no right to compel or coerce him or her to take any other course of action.

    There’s also some faulty logic lingering around this subject. Abstinence only views on sex don’t cause teen pregnancy or STDs, those phenomena are a possible result of unprotected sex. You’d have to live in… shiiit… Alaska or something if you don’t know what a condom is. After all, you can watch T.V., listen to the radio, read magazines and billboards across the nation which contain ads for Trojans. If you’re going to abstain from abstinence before marriage is using a condom going to offend your religious beliefs still? And if so, if one is strongly opposed to condoms on religious grounds (that it’s against jesus or something like that) that’s her or his belief and if she or he has a partner with the same beliefs, then we must let them live their own lives.

    I’ve got some practical advice for you, B: if you find someone’s comments on a blog that frustrating, don’t read them.

  43. Screaming Lemur September 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM #

    Konservo, come on. The don’t-like-it-don’t-read-it argument is pointless and useless, especially here. It’s really condescending of you to tell B that. She has as much right to be here as you do, and every right to disagree with your comments. If she says you’re de-railing the thread, consider that she has a reason for saying so, other than that she doesn’t like your arguments. I personally don’t agree with what you’re saying either, but I’d be really offended if you said that to me. It doesn’t fly here, and you should know it.

  44. Konservo September 18, 2008 at 3:52 AM #

    She has as much right to be here as you do, and every right to disagree with your comments.

    Of course she does, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I simply don’t want to cause anyone any frustration as a result of reading my comments.

    And now, it seems, that I have gone off topic.

  45. Tamar Rowe September 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM #

    Not sure where this fits in with the argument, but there’s also the consideration that it’s easier to /start/ talking to your kid about sex after they’ve got the basics from school. The combination is better than either/or, IMO.

  46. isme September 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM #

    “There’s also some faulty logic lingering around this subject. Abstinence only views on sex don’t cause teen pregnancy or STDs, those phenomena are a possible result of unprotected sex. You’d have to live in… shiiit… Alaska or something if you don’t know what a condom is. After all, you can watch T.V., listen to the radio, read magazines and billboards across the nation which contain ads for Trojans. If you’re going to abstain from abstinence before marriage is using a condom going to offend your religious beliefs still? And if so, if one is strongly opposed to condoms on religious grounds (that it’s against jesus or something like that) that’s her or his belief and if she or he has a partner with the same beliefs, then we must let them live their own lives.”

    Correct…abstinence only views don’t cause pregnancies, as such. It’s a perfectly valid viewpoint if you choose it for yourself, nobody is going to argue against that. Well, by “nobody is”, I can only really say “I’m not”, but I’d be surprised if many other people dd.

    However, there are very few ideologies that people hold that they don’t want to convince others to follow, and should that fail, force them to. If believers in abstinence cannot convince non-believers that abstinence is right for them, often they’ll try other methods. Making people ashamed to use condoms, or promoting the idea that they don’t work.

    This is, of course, an extremely stupid approach, based on the idea that people won’t have sex if they are afraid of disease or pregnancy, which is clearly wrong. It doesn’t stop people from thinking that way, though…IIRC, there was a big fuss in Texas awhile ago about giving cervical cancer vaccines, because vaccinating young women would be encouraging them to have sex, and women should not have sex lives, or some such madness.

  47. Konservo September 23, 2008 at 3:03 PM #

    Not just in Texas, isme, and it wasn’t about merely “giving” the vaccine. It had been suggested that the HPV vaccine be mandatory and that, in order to attend public school, prepubescent girls were to be required to get their shots.

    Whether people believed that the vaccine somehow encouraged sexual activity at an early age or not, there’s still the question of the government deciding that, in order to live a “normal” life in America, girls must surrender their bodies over to Uncle Sam, who knows best what inject.

    And, yes, that’s a good example of people (on both sides of the argument) trying inoculate Americans with a particular ideology.

  48. Dan September 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM #

    The vaccine has also been linked with a few particularly serious side-effects, and may have contributed to a few deaths. Not to mention the fact that it isn’t 100% effective and the debate is still out on whether or not it has been tested thoroughly enough to be considered safe. It was rushed into the school system so that the company that makes it can make a killing off inoculating little children against one of at least a dozen strands of genital warts. Safe sex is a bound to be more effective than the vaccine, a ounce of prevention and all that? I’m sorry to rant, and sorry if I got some points a bit off, its been awhile since I got worked up about Guardasil.

  49. Odium October 10, 2008 at 2:08 PM #

    We-ell…another fine set of pratfalls and gaffes that have made this election year fine entertainment for all good-thinking observers.IF the whole Western world isn’t in the tubes in five years time (and so it should), I’ll eat my ex-rat chapeaux.

    Hmm…one must wonder…if the embryo conceived by rape is allowed to come to term, should they be given the same status as a child who originated from a less reprehensible act?

  50. Konservo October 10, 2008 at 8:57 PM #

    Hmm…one must wonder…if the embryo conceived by rape is allowed to come to term, should they be given the same status as a child who originated from a less reprehensible act?

    :roll:

    No, one need not “wonder.” Of course both children will “be given the same status.”

    It’s very telling that you presume a child needs to “be given” a particular status. As if the arbitrary circumstances of a child’s conception are factors considered by some group of “status givers” who bestow a “status” upon each new-born baby.

  51. isme October 11, 2008 at 1:43 AM #

    Well, yes. A person isn’t responsible for their ancestry.

    “IF the whole Western world isn’t in the tubes in five years time (and so it should), I’ll eat my ex-rat chapeaux.”

    Why? I mean, there is alot to complain about, but that’s hardly unusual. America/The West (not really the same thing, mind) has survived until now.

  52. Odium October 13, 2008 at 1:45 PM #

    I must confess, the second half was more out of worry than judgement…I’m definitely pro-choice, but if saying that you have a right to live means justifying oppression, then it seems to be implied that, in order to fight that same oppression, you must also believe you were better off never having lived…

    And for the whole collapse of the Wetern world thing, modern democracy an improvement on ye olde bloodsoaked tyrannies (even if there’s a touch of the old imperial swagger here and there). But, there’s evidently potential for the next Great Depression, and who knows how crippling it will be this time.

  53. Konservo October 13, 2008 at 7:01 PM #

    But, there’s evidently potential for the next Great Depression, and who knows how crippling it will be this time.

    Sure, if unemployment triples then we’d be looking at GD conditions, and remember, we’re currently in “a crisis.” Also, God Bless the 22nd Amendment! without which “þá cyningas” could pull some FDR type shit.

  54. wiggles October 14, 2008 at 7:17 AM #

    Let’s say Palin gets the VP job and she uses her power to make that nightmare a reality (and we can only guess at the strings Cheney has been able to pull from his VP seat over the last 8 years), would you not want to clear up a few issues with your children? It would be irresponsible, imho, to let my kids be indoctrinated with an ideology that I don’t subscribe to and that in fact I think is 100% false.

    Well yeah, obviously if I had kids I’d talk to them about sex. But then there’s all those other kids whose parents DON’T talk to them about sex or fill them full of misinformation, like that condoms don’t prevent STIs and that sexual harassment is a compliment. I’d like some kind of safety net in place to hedge some of that. ‘Cause see, I grok the fact that my awareness doesn’t transfer to every other person in the world and that screaming “parents should give their kids factual information about sex!” over and over won’t make it happen. People have been making that same argument for decades, yet there are still kids who think pulling out is an effective form of birth control and that drinking bleach will prevent HIV.

  55. wiggles October 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM #

    Not sure where this fits in with the argument, but there’s also the consideration that it’s easier to /start/ talking to your kid about sex after they’ve got the basics from school. The combination is better than either/or, IMO.

    Good point.

  56. intelligentbydesign October 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM #

    So, not to get back on the original topic by leading the comments off topic, but…haven’t seen any mention here of Palin’s charging victims for rape kits. Or any of the other laundry list of misogynist/anti-free thought things she’s done (attempting to ban books, using her position as mayor to try and outlaw abortions by appointing a hospital board comprised of fundamentalists from her church who outlawed abortions until that ban was overturned in a court case, etc). Just wanted to make sure those were also well understood. Palin is truly evil, and if put anywhere near the White House will most likely take women’s rights (and just about every other right along with it) through a wormhole that leads to an unknown place in time when dinosaurs and men walked the earth.

  57. Rachael October 27, 2008 at 6:24 AM #

    Greetings from Alaska!

    I consider myself American first, Alaskan second, and I can’t stand Sarah Palin. She’s so annoying. She talks about her “special needs” child and “diverse family” and “maverick” status like they’re going out of style. Give me a break! She’s not a maverick–she’s a typical Republican, only she’s from Alaska and wants to “tap” (i.e. exploit) our resources so we can get a big fat check and 2,000 tons of pork.

    I watched the veep debate with a room full of other UAA (University of Alaska Anchorage) students and most of the people around me either groaned or laughed every time she said something.

    Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the country, especially in the rural areas. You can read the real story behind the rape kits here, but . She didn’t directly force victims to pay for them, but she didn’t really try to do anything about it, either. Basically, when she was mayor of Wasilla, she fired the chief of police who included rape kits in the police budget. She hired a guy who removed the cost of rape kits from the police budget, and she also signed the budget that did not include the rape kits.

    Basically, the victim’s insurance company would be billed for the cost, which suggests that those without health insurance would have to pay themselves. This was done in order to decrease the “burden” on taxpayers.

    There are plenty of people in Alaska who are pissed off about this, but there are probably also a lot of assholes who don’t even care. After all, Gov. Palin isn’t exactly unpopular here. Gag. Well, considering all the crap that’s been dug up during this election, she’ll have a lot to answer for when she does get back to her office in Alaska (I’m going to be optimistic and say I think McCain’s going to lose).

    Needless to say, I don’t agree with her positions on, well, anything. Even if it weren’t for everything else I said, I still wouldn’t like her.

    P.S. I’m also glad that so many of my fellow feminists are calling people on their sexist statements against Gov. Palin. Just because she sucks doesn’t mean people need to make “NOT Sarah Palin” blow-up dolls and share their fantasies that involve screwing her on their Barack Obama sheets while their wives read from the U.S. Constitution (yes, sadly, I did see a post about this).

  58. Imaginary November 30, 2009 at 7:01 AM #

    I’m a Canadian. Can we have Alaska pretty pretty please? We’ll feed it and everything.

  59. isme November 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM #

    LOL!

  60. Issac Maez February 20, 2010 at 1:28 AM #

    Is there a way to see any updates to your site on my desktop? I have been tracking your website for a while now and want to see when it is updated.

  61. Lyra November 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM #

    I’m so glad I chose the Independence party.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. South City Confidential » Blog Archive » I Had A Dream… - September 5, 2008

    [...] fairly certain everything I want to say has been said by Jon Stewart, or here, here, here, here, here or here.  So I’m not going to rant.  I did it last week.  Here are the only things [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 484 other followers