The list of Greatest Hits for my very favorite Really Awful Political Candidate keeps growing. In a discussion about the GOP war on women, a political gadfly once again tried to derail the discussion by calling President Bill Clinton a rapist. ~yawn~ What perked up my interest, however, was a comment from candidate Norma Duffy (slogan: Fuck off and get a life!) It was typically reactionary, and full of her trademark mangling of the written word. She wrote:
Ah Ingy, let’s just say there were no victims in the Clinton /Lewinsky
thing. She was an immature sleaze( yes a woman can call another a
sleaze, but a man shouldn’t) who had done this sort of thing before and
President Clinton was an Testosterone accident looking to happen.
Let's just disregard, for a moment, that men have "Testosterone accidents" (I think I've only really had those while sleeping, and it's kind of embarrassing), and the implication that women's sexual desire is simply an 'estrogen accident' .?. The part that stands out is the claim that women can call each other "a sleaze", but a "testosterone accident" prone man shouldn't. Hmmm.
Now, it could be the case she was alluding to the idea that the term can rightly be used ironically or as a bridge of conspiratorial comradery, the way that some folks use "nigga" or how girlfriends might call each other a 'slut' or 'bitch' in fun. But that's not the manner in which Norma Duffy used it. She referred to Monica Lewinski in purely judgmental terms as a "sleaze", a mark of shame for desiring sex with a man who is attractive, powerful and receptive. By extension, it was okay that Ann Coulter referred to Sandra Fluke as a slut, but not that Rush Limbaugh did so. Hmmmm.
This is only tangentially related to the topic, but someday, just once,
I’d love to read you posting a moral, or even rational, foundation for
such idiocy, Norma.
It is my bad for calling her pronouncement "idiocy". After all, it's possible that she did have a moral and/or rational reason for why women can judge other women's sexuality and men "shouldn't". After all, we don't have 'estrogen accidents' the way women do. Ms. Duffy's response was - disappointing. Certainly not moral and absolutely not reasonable.
And then we Hear from the Righteous Man who continually believes he is
better at knowing a woman’s definitions about others, then the woman
So, apparently, I was wrong to even ask for a definition. Two things:
This kind of bullshit is what makes it very very difficult for men to get involved in the ideal and cause of feminism, or be accepted if we already are. There are apparently some unwritten rules which we aren't even allowed to ask about. (that isn't typical of most women who espouse feminism, but very typical of RAPC Duffy.)
If I were Jeffrey Welborn, I would publicize this comment from Norma Duffy widely across Beaverhead County. I'm certain every voter who believes in gender equality would love to know that, as a legislator, Norma would reserve to herself the right to decide what you are allowed to think and questioning what she thinks is merely 'sexism', if you are prone to testosterone accidents, of course.
I just answered the phone for a 'Montana' computerized poll on current issues. Lately, my habit has been to hang up on these folks, but I figured I'd give it a listen. It had the standard two questions on "Obama's Health Care Plan", and then a question about anthropogenic 'Global Warming' (notice the phrasing, please). I relay the rest as it happened:
Computer: Now, the Abortion Issue. Are you pro-life, or pro-choice? If you are pro-life, press one. If you are pro-choice, pres ...
Rob: ~click~ as he hangs up the phone.
Pro-life and pro-choice are not opposed, and never have been. Nope, not going there.
That stands for Post white Male privilege Syndrome.
Seriously, you have got to be fucking kidding me. We have had two female Supreme Court justices, and still the defenders of white male privilege trot out the PMS argument. What should be no surprise is that it would come from a man who conspired against the Constitution.
Any bets on whether or not more conservatives derisively understand the title of this post, than progressives do?
I've been struggling with posting about this for several days. I'm trying to reach out to the more pleasant in the world, and this simply isn't a pleasant topic. I'm hoping that many of you by now know the nature of Montana's SB. 46, fathered by Senator Dan McGee (slaver - Laurel). He seeks with this bill to put forth an amendment to the Montana Constitution such that pregnant Montana women become property of the state. Article II, Section 10, The Right to Privacy currently reads:
The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free
society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.
McGee would have Montana add the line:
The protection of unborn
human life is a compelling state interest.
I would hope that for many who read this, this is not new news, and I beg your forgiveness for making you wade through the obvious again. But we need to be clear, damned clear, on exactly what this means. This amendment, if passed by the legislature and voted into the Constitution, would establish that the contents of a woman's uterus is a compelling state interest. Montana Women For sums up what is at stake rather nicely:
This amendment would authorize governmental intrusion into every
pregnancy and undermine private medical decisions made between a woman
and her doctor. We should be very careful when considering amending
this vital protection against intrusive and unwarranted government
intervention in our state constitution.
I've no interest in putting this nicely, or being even remotely subtle. This amendment would make women into state property. One needn't wail or caterwaul about back-alley abortions, or birth control or protection of special cases. This is property law, plain and simple. If you are pregnant, the state would own your womb.
I peruse the Rotunda Report every now and then just to keep up with the 'impotant' Montana wingnut thought, that which spews from legislative Republicans. Dan McGee's defense of his bastard bill is precisely why. (And don't chortle over the word 'bastard'; if this is enacted, every child born here will be the bastard of the state.) McGee opines:
Some issues are bigger than the courts and bigger than the legislature.Such issues must be taken directly to the people of Montana.
Why? That's a serious question McGee never answers. His only argument amounts to this: He and like minded haven't gotten their way, so we need to subvert the law until they do. Don't get me wrong, I know full well that he is appealing to the populist sentiment that we all like babies and hate abortions. And what he is requesting is that we all get to vote that we all like babies and hate abortion. BUT, what he has proposed has nothing to do with what we like and adore and have good feels about. What he has proposed is that we impose what we like on the rights and bodies of others. Their rights are superseded by our desire. The amendment he proposes is such that a basic Montana right is voided because the majority really like babies and don't like abortion. That is not democracy anymore than slavery was. A woman's right to privacy becomes a matter of "compelling state interest". (That should be a warning flag to all liberals and progressives that your rhetoric about how much you detest abortion is not only counter-productive, but hateful towards the rights of women.) Does the pregnant woman smoke? Not any more. Compelling State Interest. Does the Pregnant woman ski? A matter of law due to Compelling State Interest. Does this woman have a job, and what job does she have? Compelling State Interest. Does she need to wear a tracking device such that "we" know when she goes to a bar? Compelling State Interest.
I know, "it would never get that far; we're only concerned that she not abort her baby." BULL and SHIT. The proposed amendment doesn't say a damned thing about abortion. It states, quite clearly, that the contents of the uterus is a matter of Compelling State Interest. There is no backing off from that. If a husband sues his wife for behavior that might have challenged the development of the fetus in his opinion, he would be able to do so based on Compelling State Interest. This is a slavery bill. That is all it is.
The truly tragic irony comes from McGee himself.
remember, Courts can, and have been wrong.In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled that a black man was “chattel property”. They have never overturned that decision.
This proposed amendment would establish women as chattel property, a thing McGee himself says is wrong. It grants to the state the right to control the contents of uteri, with no, notta, zip concern for the vessel that surrounds that body part. A pregnant woman's rights are forfeit, due to Compelling State Interest. It's not a negligible right in discussion here. It's the very right to privacy that all Montanans are guaranteed. If this horror passes, Montana women would be chattel property, those who bear our State Interest in their bodies.
It doesn't look like this bill will gain traction enough to pass and come before the Montana voters. But if it does, I'm telling you now that no single woman in the state should vote for it, and that McGee should be reviled as the slave master he wishes to be.
(Side note to my progressive brethren: One of the big reasons we have a right to privacy in the Montana Constitution is because of the efforts of Bob Kelleher. You might want to cut the crazy old coot a little slack ...)