War on Women

In general, I'm not fond of using such dramatic media/propaganda terms. However, a "War on Women" has seemed increasingly more real and less like propaganda.

It seemed to really start with the whole Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke mess. Not over abortion, but over birth control. Many may dispute that birth control is a women's rights issue, but I am in agreement with those who say that it is. I think we've all heard the sarcastic joke about how a woman's place is to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Well, birth control does give women some say in the matter. It lets women choose when they are pregnant, lets them secure an education and career... and most importantly with that, independence. And it's working.

Many of the conservatives may say to this, "well then, women should just keep their legs closed!" Ahem... let us not forget where the sperm comes from that impregnates women. Should men keep having sex with women while women keep their legs closed, and it all continues to be blamed on women? Does anyone else see the problem here?

I firmly believe that women are entitled to, shall we say, "enjoy life" the same as men are, and without men making their life decisions for them. It's easy for a misogynist to make a decision about something that doesn't concern him.

If the "War on Women" ended there, I may still be likely to grit my teeth about it being called such, though. Sad to say however, it does not end there:

See, we have the old standby's of calling her a whore, calling her ugly... whatever, that's nothing new. We see this every time there is a fight for women's rights. Susan B. Anthony faced similar adversity. Misogynists were emboldened by Limbaugh's statements of her being a slut (for having sex). Why is it that women get called sluts for having sex, but men are just called "lucky?"

Again though, it goes well beyond this.

Wisconsin lawmaker says battered women should just remember what they love about their husbands.

TN law would require detailed info to be made public about women who have abortions (institutionalized blackmail).

AZ law would allow employers to question (and fire) women over the use of birth control pills. 

GA law to potentially punish women for miscarriages (as murder).

Dildos illegal in Texas.

Mandated pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women in VA, even in emergencies. 

1 in 5 pharmacies hinder access to "morning-after" pill. 

Then let's not forget that the objections to abortion or even the "morning-after" pill stay intact even in cases of rape.

While yes, there is a smaller, more quiet war on men... there is no denying that the war on women has been revived. The misogynists we had hoped were gone have been emboldened, and extremism is now being seen as admirable, if not heroic.

Ya know, I just thought of something...

Why all this stink about birth control being paid for by insurance and Blue Cross and the like, but the erectile dysfunction drugs seem to be kept so quiet. Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, among other things, for advocating birth control. What about guys who want those ED drugs? Should those also be taken off the formularies?

Repost the shit out of this picture on facebook and the like:

Awww...

Such a pity... Rush Limbaugh chose not to heed my advice:

Rush Limbaugh, afraid of losing too much money (and thus losing his spot on the radio waves), apologizes to Sandra Fluke.

Ah well... This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. It's not a matter of "if," but "when" he puts his foot in his mouth yet again. And the thing is that only a fool would believe his apology to her is sincere. His apology in truth is not to her, but to his advertisers that effectively sign his paycheck. For those of you boycotting his advertisers, I'd really recommend you continue this boycott.

He said it was an attempt at humor. This might be believable if he'd only insulted her on one occasion. He didn't. He had previous opportunities to apologize, and he responded by insulting her again, along with laughing at those who took offense. Yeah, he saw humor in it, no doubt. But not the type of humor you get from say, watching American Pie or going to a comedy club or something like that. It's the type of humor a bully finds in shoving a seemingly weaker kid's face into a toilet. And his apology is the same as when that bully is faced with going to a boot camp for juvenile delinquents.

You see, Limbaugh is afraid of real work... for all his hawking in talking about people mooching off the system and not wanting to find real work, radio is all he has. He doesn't have any college degree. In his mother's words, "he flunked out of everything," and "didn't seem interested in anything except radio." Not only that, but he managed to skip out on the Vietnam draft, on account of an ingrown ass hair.

He will bluster and bloviate, but when confronted with losing his advertisers, and thus losing his job... well, he makes lame excuses. But not before digging himself in much deeper, of course.

Like I said, I don't buy his apology even for a second. Regardless of who he overtly addressed in the apology, it was in reality made only to and because of his advertisers. So, for now at least, we're stuck with the oxycodone-addicted hypocritical blowhard misogynist chicken hawk.

The Wit and Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

With a title like this, I'm tempted to leave this post blank to make my point. But... oh, what the hell! I just can't resist!

Oh Rushy, Rushy, Rushy... what are you getting yourself into? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, him having coined the term "feminazi." Now, I won't say this term is all bad... but horribly over used. I've known some "feminists" who believe that all men are evil and should die in a fire... or worse, if they can think of it. I wouldn't argue about the term "feminazi" being applied to them. To me, real feminism is about equality, not superiority. Let's see... if hating women is called misogyny, what would hating men be called? Misandry? Looked it up, and that apparently is the proper term, but not one I've ever actually heard being used. My spell-checker didn't recognize it, but it did recognize "misogyny." Reflective of society's double standards toward the issue too, I suppose. Society is rather accepting of bashing men and taking it in stride... but if the same things were said about women that are said about men... forget about it.

For those who haven't seen the news, I give you:

-Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke, birth control advocate, a slut.

-Limbaugh dismisses Danica Patrick, race car driver, as a woman driver over her support of birth control measure.

-Limbaugh, unrepentant of calling her a slut, suggests Fluke make online sex videos.

At this point, advertisers are distancing themselves from him.You'd think that he'd be scrambling to save face at this point. That after making not one, not two, but at least three misogynist comments in regards to the same issue, he'd be meekly making some kind of apology.

Nope, not this conservative megalomaniac:

Limbaugh thinks it's "hilarious."

Many are calling on him to stop and to apologize. Me, I encourage him to keep on going. Why? Because I don't like the guy. He's a figurehead for what I don't like about the side I disagree with. He's one I'm glad I don't have on my side. So by all means - Rush, if you're reading this, keep with those misogynist comments! You'll show 'em!

Religion and Medicine

Catholic church is furious about being required to provide birth control through church-linked hospitals and healthcare.

Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.