I saw Jurassic World nearly two weeks ago with my husband and a friend. While I enjoyed it while I was watching it (barring some discomfort I'm going to get into in a moment), my main impression by the end was that I'd enjoyed it far more when I saw it twenty-two years ago and it was titledJurassic Park. This felt almost like a (bad) remake, rather than a sequel. Hell, Ron said that it was the Superman Returns of Jurassic Park and after two weeks of thinking, I tend to agree.

Spoilers ahead. )

TRIGGER WARNING - RAPE, INCEST, MISOGYNY, AND ALL OTHER ISSUES ABORTION-RELATED

After seeing some anti-woman protestors on my former college campus today, seeing them use Nazi imagery and pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields to make their disgusting "point," I felt the need to express my rage with the following reasons why I'm Pro-Choice.

1) It's not my business what anyone else does with their body.
2) It's not anyone's business what I do with my body.
3) Savita Halappanavar of Ireland.
4) Beatriz of El Salvador - you can still speak for her.
5) Every woman who has ever died because of a "back alley" abortion.
6) The evidence supporting the idea that the crime rate drops when abortion is legal because wanted children are less likely to grow up in circumstances that lead them to become criminals.
7) Forcing a rape or incest survivor to carry her rapist's baby to term is a way of raping her all over again.
8) In 31 U.S. states, it is legal for a rapist to sue for visitation rights and/or custody of the child he fathered during the rape.  This is horrific on many levels, as it forces the woman to continue to have contact with the person who attacked her, which can be used as a way to leverage her into not pressing charges.  There's also the added horror of a convicted rapist being permitted to have a hand in raising the child to whom he donated genetic material during the attack.
9) The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her will is involuntary servitude and violates the very Constitution that most conservative assholes seem to worship. Women are human beings, not the property of the state.  Giving women control over their reproductive choices is a form of empowerment.  Conversely, taking away those choices turns women into second-class citizens.
10) Forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy risks her life.  Not to mention that outlawing abortion risks the lives of women who have wanted pregnancies that are non-viable (see 3 and 4).  To those who want to argue that a woman can give the baby up for adoption, there is a lot of evidence that it is more psychologically damaging to give up a baby after giving birth to it than having an abortion.  Yes, a lot of people want to adopt, but that doesn't mean that a pregnant woman should act as their handmaid unless it is 100% HER CHOICE to do so.

Having given the reasons I'm pro-choice, I'd now like to address the arguments against my feelings.

I thought about getting into the philosophical debate of whether or not a fetus is "alive" or should be considered a person, but I realized that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.  The woman was here first.  The rights of the born must outweigh the rights of the unborn, otherwise a woman is no longer legally a person the moment the sperm hits the egg.

When does the fetus start to have rights?  A lot of people say, "In the third trimester, once it's theoretically possible for it to survive outside the womb."  Let's examine that.  Under what circumstances would a woman carry a fetus for twenty-eight weeks and then decide she doesn't want it inside of her anymore?  I can't imagine a circumstance, but if a woman is in that position, I don't think that the state has a right to block her.  Do I find the idea of aborting a nearly full-term or full-term fetus horrifying?  Fuck yes! But I believe that the circumstances under which that would be necessary are so rare that they shouldn't even be included in any arguments against abortion.

What about gendercide, i.e. abortion of a female fetus because the parents want a male?  Fix society so that women are considered equal to men, don't deny a woman her right to choose.

Abortion as birth control?  If someone wants to go through the pain of multiple abortions rather than taking birth control, it's their body, their choice.  Especially since birth control, even multiple forms used in conjunction, can fail.  That and, like it or not, abortion IS a form of birth control.

There's also the "one penis, no vote" argument, which I find repugnant simply because NO ONE but the pregnant person gets a vote.  I have a uterus.  Having one doesn't give me more of a right to weigh in on this issue than someone who doesn't have one.

And now we've come to men's rights.  If you are a man and choose to have sex with a woman, you accept that whatever she decides to do after you put her penis close enough to her for your semen to get inside of her is her decision.  You accept child support.  You accept that she may abort a fetus that carries your genetic material.  You accept that it is her body and her decision as to whether she's going to risk her life to bring your child into the world.  If you don't think that's fair, don't have sex.  ANY sex, not merely protected sex.  Even if the woman stops taking her pills or pokes holes in the condoms, you're still choosing to have sex with her.

Which brings me to woman rapists.  They exist and I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  That said, while I don't feel that you should have to pay child support if a woman rapes you, nor do you have the right to force her to have an abortion.  It's still her body in which the fetus is growing.  Is that "fair" when we chemically castrate some pedophiles and rapists?   Is it "fair" for a man to have that genetic link to a child that was conceived against his will?  No, but it's the woman's body in which said child grows, so sorry men, no forced abortions OR forced births, no matter what the circumstances.

Essentially, I'm pro-choice under all circumstances, with NO EXCEPTIONS.  Go ahead, come up with a scenario in which you think that abortion shouldn't be allowed and I'll tell you my reasoning for why it should be permitted.  I'll give you a hint: they're ALL going to start with, "It's not my business, nor is it yours." 
This is your trigger warning.

Scroll fast if you need to because I'm not cutting this.

Before this case came about, I'd heard of Steubenville from a lovely older couple (the Enditches from Steubenville, which is how I remember) on a bus tour I took roughly twenty-two years ago.

I didn't know about the football program there or how it was basically the only thing that held the town together.  However, when I heard it, it didn't surprise me because of how utterly beyond the pale OSU fans are.  They riot sometimes when they WIN, :/.

For those of you who are either not in the U.S. or who have been living under a large boulder for the last few months, a young woman of sixteen got drunk at a party last August and was dragged, semi-conscious and unconscious to several locations, where she was sexually assaulted multiple times.  She didn't know she'd been attacked until the next day, when she discovered multiple text posts, pictures, and videos about/of the assaults had been posted online.

Sunday, two football players, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, were convicted of "digitally penetrating" her. There were at least two dozen other witnesses/possible assailants, but these two were (in my opinion) the sacrificial lambs.  I wonder how good they were on the team?  I wonder how many more players/bystanders actually assaulted this young woman?  These two young men were convicted in juvenile court despite their ages (seventeen and sixteen, which in a lot of cases would have them tried as adults), which means that once they're over twenty-one, their records could be swept clean.  Yes, they have to register as "juvenile sex offenders" and yes, their pictures have been plastered all over the media, (we'll be talking more about the media in a moment), which will hopefully help to save future victims, but they still won't have ADULT criminal records.  This still won't necessarily ruin their lives forever in the same way it's affected the life of their victim, who has been shamed in court and received death threats from two other young women via social media sites.  Ohio's Attorney General is charging those who made the latest threats, but where are the charges against all of those who watched this young women be raped?  Not only that, but made videos in which they were laughing about her being raped.

To be clear, I think that this young woman can overcome this, but she might not.  She might not be able to come back from what they did to her.  Her life might spiral out of control because of the control that was stolen from her that night.  She's a survivor either way, but whether this rules her life forever or she's able to put it behind her, the fault still lies with those who, according to the prosecution, "treated her like a toy."

Where is the outrage?  Oh, that's right.  It's being directed towards the RAPISTS, in that media outlets like CNN think it's a shame that their lives were ruined by all of this. (Here's a petition you can sign to tell them what you think of their coverage of this issue.)  And the fucking Onion predicted all of this two years ago.

So what am I taking away from all of this?  I'm not a person once I get drunk.  Hell, I'm not a person if I'm out after dark alone or forget to lock my door or to set my alarm or am not careful enough with my surroundings or wear pants that are "too tight," a skirt that is "too short," or a burqa that shows "too much ankle."  You see where I'm going with this, right?

We teach men that women are "asking for it."  We teach them that they aren't responsible for their actions and that their "innocent lives" could be ruined by "giving in" to a girl who was too drunk to say no.  We shame rape victims so much that someone made a video called, "Shit Everyone Says To Rape Victims," and I'd heard them all before.

Our society doesn't teach men not to rape. Look at what happened to the woman who dared to suggest that we do so on Fox News - she was vilified and got both rape and death threats. Bullying is a part of it - men are bullied by their peers into going along with behavior that makes them seem "manly" to said peers. Even now, we're telling them to "man up," as though being a man is automatically strong and capable.


However, young men are also bullied by their fathers who bullied them, "Don't be a [misogynistic slur]" if they dare to express their emotions. They are bullied by a society that tells them that they aren't "real men" unless they attract as many women as possible, by any means possible. This is not peer-on-peer bullying. This is bullying at every level, from every angle, every day from the moment these young men are born.


If this is not 100% clear - I'm not excusing their actions, but until the rape culture stops telling women how they can avoid rape instead of telling men not to rape, cases like this will continue to happen.  People are starting to think this way (in Vancouver, an ad campaign entitled "Don't Be That Guy" has helped to reduce sexual assaults there by 10%), but the process is entirely too slow.   Also, the myth of the stranger attack needs to go away. Most women are raped by men they know. The Steubenville survivor even testified that she "thought she could trust" one of her rapists and didn't realize that she couldn't until she saw all of the social media about her attack the next day.

Can you imagine that?  Finding out you were raped (and that multiple bystanders, many of whom were your classmates, stood around ENJOYING your rape as though it was entertainment) via fucking Facebook and Twitter?  Can you imagine having two supposed friends of yours call you a liar and end your friendship because they wanted you to leave the party and you didn't do so, ergo what happened to you was your fault?

I've spoken about this before, but seeing what this sixteen-year-old woman is having to go through, with 18,000 townspeople she's known all her life and thousands more strangers online all acting as though this situation came about because she was drunk and not because those young men are fucking rapists, is making me sick on a level I can't begin to express.

She deserves better.  She deserves to be believed, to be supported, to be cared for, and, above all, to be told it was NOT HER FAULT!  But we don't do that in this country, or apparently any other, if Steig Larson and recent reports out of India are accurate, which I'm certain they are.  And those are only two examples - if anyone knows of a country/culture where rape is considered SOLELY the fault of the rapist, I would certainly love to hear about it, as I could use some good news on this front today.

The worst part - everything I've linked here is the barest tip of an iceberg so huge it could sink a million Titanics.  I could find dozens more links, all telling me that in the eyes of the world, my bodily autonomy is subject to the whims of others.

Society doesn't see me as a person.  I'm going to fight to change that.


ETA: Henry Rollins' commentary is rather similar to mine.
I was going to cut this, but couldn't decide where, so scroll if you don't want a rant with mentions of misogyny, homophobia, and racism.

You'll notice that I used AND instead of VERSUS in my subject line because unlike what seems like most of the rest of the Sherlock Holmes-loving world, I like them both.

Shocking, I know.  Blasphemy!  I, a woman of thirty-six years and reasonable intelligence, can actually like two shows about the same character who have completely different approaches AT THE SAME TIME!

My sarcasm, it is showing.  Mostly because I'm more than a little irritated that someone actually blocked me on Facebook over this shit (a while ago, actually, this rant has been building for that time - I figured I should get it out before it boiled over).  For that, I think they are an asshat.  They were also an LJ friend and guess what?  I blocked them from this journal.  Because I can be online petty too.

For the record, it took me a few episodes to get into the groove of "Elementary."  I wasn't sure about having Joan instead of John (for probably a lot of the same misogynistic reasons as those who absolutely refuse to watch it, even if I didn't want to admit it) and was even less sure about Jonny Lee Miller's ability to play Sherlock.  Guess what?  He pulls it off.  He is not Benedict Cumberbatch, but he's not TRYING to be.  Miller is is own version of the character.

I started to compare them, but there is no comparison - they might as well be playing completely different roles.  Well, what do you know?  They ARE playing two different roles, neither one doing a "better" job at it than the other.  They each capture Sherlock Holmes in the modern world, they simply approach it very differently.  And I like them both.

Did you hear that?  I.  Like.  Them.  BOTH!

It bears repeating, because I don't feel like I should be forced to choose here.  There is no "side," no "right" or "wrong."  They're both good in their own way.  They each have strengths and weaknesses, neither of which do I wish to discuss at length, mostly because I've seen "Elementary" more recently and so right now I like it more.  When "Sherlock" comes back, I'll probably like it more for while I have it.  It's a matter of changing gears, not fucking RELIGIONS.

Also for the record, I don't give a flying fuck about CBS "not being true to the character" by moving him to New York and giving him an amazing woman partner.  Nor do I give a flying fuck about those who say that CBS "just wanted to cash in on the popularity of BBC's "Sherlock."  Um, yeah - that's what TV networks do.  And sorry boys and girls (I would say men and woman, but the people in this "debate" have shown themselves to be little more than silly children), but neither concept is anymore "true" to Conan Doyle's work than Robert Downey Jr.'s version is.

Fact: John and Sherlock may be your slash OTP, but in the original, Victorian-era canon, they were friends and Watson was married.  To a woman. 

Fact: in the BBC's "Sherlock," both John AND Sherlock have shown attraction to women.  That's not to say that they can't also love each other romantically (hello, bisexual poly woman here), but they are not shown as sexual towards each other.  If anything, Sherlock is shown as being more asexual, with the exception of Irene Adler.  There have been a lot of jokes about John and Watson getting or being together in "Sherlock" canon, but as others have pointed out far more eloquently than I, "bromances" and "winks to the camera" do not equal gay inclusion. 

So sorry slashers, it's not homophobia to turn Watson into a woman for a new TV show.  For "Sherlock" fan fiction, I can see the argument because writers are changing the canon gender of a character because they don't like the idea of two cis-men together. 

For an entirely new show, no, though I do see where you're arguing from.  Your argument is flawed, but I see it.

Fact: the backlash of misogyny and racism against Lucy Liu since "Elementary" came out has been disgusting in the extreme, especially since she is made of total awesome in the role.  Martin Freeman can kiss her beautiful ass, as well.  Don't fucking tell me he was joking.  It was unfunny, m'kay?

To be honest, all of this bullshit (along with the mods of horror at the most popular "Sherlock" LJ site) have kind of turned me off "Sherlock."  I'm not saying I won't watch it (though it's now rather in the category of "liking a problematic thing"), but I'm avoiding the fandom even more ardently since I got blocked on Facebook for telling someone I felt they were missing out* to summarily dismiss "Elementary," because they were "completely opposed to Watson being a woman."

Why?  There is no answer to that question that I've seen so far that isn't rooted in misogyny.  Somewhere.  Yes, Watson was canonically male.  But canonically, both Holmes and Watson lived over 100 years ago, so canon is pretty much out the window the moment writers take a modern take on it.

Vaginas are icky, I guess.  And heaven forbid a vagina come anywhere near beloved characters that have been redone and remade so many times I think that only "The Three Musketeers" have them beat for variety of productions.

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that anyone has to watch or like either show.  However, I am saying that it's possible to enjoy both without it being some epic battle over who is more awesome.  And I also think it's wrong to judge something without having watched a single fucking episode.  Now, there are those who say that one can judge something by its previews ("Battleship," anyone?), but when most of the negative press has more to do with casting decisions than actual acting critiques, I start to smell a misogynistic, racist rat.

*The person argued that I wasn't respecting their judgment by saying they were missing out.  They're right.  I wasn't.  And I'm not apologizing for it, especially since they blocked me on Facebook over it because they didn't like my telling them (fairly nicely, I thought) that they were full of shit. 
Black Women, Sexual Assault, and the Art of Resistance



This is an amazing article and the trailer for this documentary moved me deeply.  I won't say that I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary in its entirety, but I do plan to watch it.
...I also used to smoke pot to get high.  I don't do either anymore for reasons that are none of your business.  But then, it's not really your business that I did either in the first place.

What's my point here?  I'm just sick and tired of seeing posts floating around that say, "What about all of those women who have horrible periods?  Or bad acne?  Or ovarian cysts?  Are they whores and sluts too?"  Or with marijuana it's, "What about cancer patients?  Or people with glaucoma?"

Who gives a fuck WHY someone is taking medication?  Why does it need to be justified at all?

I took birth control because wanted to fuck and I didn't want to have an unplanned pregnancy.  I used it in addition to other methods because I REALLY didn't want an unplanned pregnancy.  

And again, I smoked weed because I liked the feeling more than I enjoyed the feeling of alcohol.  

But my feelings on these subjects don't count.  Never mind that it's MY body and I wasn't hurting anyone, my reasons for using these drugs aren't as socially acceptable, so I get to be shamed by even those who are ostensibly on "my side" for doing things that are no one's business but mine.  And yes, I do see it as shaming when someone says, "Well, what about those people with legitimate medical conditions who use these drugs?" because it's still playing into the culture that says that doing what one wants with one's own body is not okay unless there's a reason other than pleasure for doing it.

Well, fuck all of you who use this justification.  I liked fucking and being high.  I still like fucking, but I chose to stop using hormonal birth control. 

Because it's my fucking body.  Not yours.  And you don't get to have an opinion about what I do with my body so long as I'm not causing direct harm to you PERSONALLY. 

Oh, and before anyone says something about the Pill being legal and marijuana not being so, in states where the "personhood" bills are being passed, the type of hormonal birth control I was on would become illegal, so there you are.  The only drug that should be illegal is meth because it can endanger a neighborhood simply by making it.  Everything else should be legal and regulated.  Period.
WARNING for victim blaming, slut shaming, and generally horrible things that people say.  I know because I've heard every.  Single. ONE OF THEM!

Video under the cut. )

PS - the video itself is positive in that it's shining a light on the horrible things that people say to survivors.  It's the fact that it could be made that's making me so very angry at the world today.
Now you can look like a covergirl with the magic of Photoshop, by Adobé. 

Fake commercial under the cut. )

As someone who has been photoshopped (see icon), I can vouch for both the accuracy of the ad and the unrealistic beauty standards it promotes.
So I re-watched two of Jim Jeffries concerts tonight and discovered something I'd missed before.

He's a raging misogynist. 


TW: References to rape and general misogyny. )

I guess I just don't have any sense of humor. 
I generally don't do book reviews - the "book review" tag was created for this entry - but in this case I'm making an exception.  Also, you'll notice that this is not so much a review as a comment on the reflections on society that this book has provoked within me. 


Trigger warnings for references to things that happen to women every moment of every day.  )

If you consider yourself a feminist, whether you are male or female, I highly recommend "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."  Not only is it a wonderful murder mystery, but it may provoke deep thoughts as it has for me, :).
Trigger warnings for references to things that happen to girls and women every minute of every day.  )

If you watch nothing else today, please watch this.  It is stark and disturbing, but it needs to be seen and shared.  Please pass it on.

Thank you.

As a follow-up to this post, I thought I would share the form response their "Consumer Relations" department sent.  I know that it's a form response, because someone else on my f-list got the exact same e-mail.

October 26, 2011
Thank you for writing to us about Dr Pepper TEN and allowing us to respond to your concerns.  I am a woman who loves the full flavor of Dr Pepper TEN and the fact that it’s only 10 calories. When I first saw the tongue-in-cheek advertising campaign and the tagline, my reaction was, “I’ll be the judge of that.”  In other words, no one is going to tell me what I can eat or drink. 

We hope you, too, will come to see our advertising campaign for what it is, a humorous take on the many men who are worried about their waistlines but are too “manly” to drink a diet soda.

Sincerely,

Consumer Relations


011243818A


Screw them telling me how I should be feeling and explaining to me (in very small words) exactly what their ad campaign intended to convey.  Guess what, douchekayaks at Dr. Pepper?  I understood exactly what your ad campaign was conveying and it wasn't what you thought it was. 

I hope your company goes bankrupt. 

Well, Shit

Oct. 26th, 2011 12:03 am
For those who can't see the video below, it's an ad for Dr. Pepper that parodies an action movie and says, "This movie isn't for you and neither is Dr. Pepper 10."

I usually don't see commercials because I DVR everything and fast-forward, but this one popped up on [livejournal.com profile] sf_drama and pissed me off enough for me to make a separate post about it for one reason and one reason only.

I love Dr. Pepper.  It's literally my favorite soda.  It's in my pantry and if it's on the menu, it's what I always order at a restaurant.  And now I can never drink it again because drinking it would literally leave a bad taste in my mouth.  I'm tasting bile right now because of it.  And yes, I do have more important things to be thinking about, which is, in part, why this is pissing me off so much.  I should be worrying about how my abortion rights are being curtailed.  I should be worrying about a GOP candidate who's so stupid that he thinks that the President signs Constitutional Amendments

Instead, I'm thinking about Dr. Pepper and about how a lot of women are BUYING it "in protest", basically giving in to the reverse psychology of this ad telling them they can't drink it.  Which is depressing, because the only way for a company to not do this shit is for people to NOT buy the product.  As I am doing.  Someone just told me to, "Have fun making absolutely no impact on Dr. Pepper's marketing strategies," which is a fair comment.  Dr. Pepper doesn't give a shit about whether or not I buy it - they just proved it with this ad.  So the only impact I'm going to try to make here is on my wallet.  Every time I see Dr. Pepper on a menu, I'm going to not order it and have water only instead.  I'm going to make a note of what it would have cost and stick that money in a jar somewhere.  When I would have bought it at the grocery store (along with Mt. Dew, because those are the two sodas I buy when Coke and Sprite aren't on sale), I'm going to save that money too. 

We'll see how much adds up in a year. 
Cut for video of the ad. )

On The ERA

Oct. 1st, 2011 06:12 pm
I've been hearing about the Equal Rights Amendment for most of my life.  My dad was (and I assume, is, though the subject hasn't come up recently) very anti-ERA (big shock to all of you, I know).  From the semi-coherent ramblings he gave me on the subject, I assumed it was a plot to turn women into men (or something equally stupid).  I'd never actually read the text of it until last week and I have to say, it utterly stunned me:

bulletSection 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
bulletSection 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
bulletSection 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
That's it.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. 

It's mind-boggling, stunning, sickening - I really can't put into words how horrified I am that this has been impossible to pass.  

Cut for length and possible triggers for everything associated with anti-feminist thought. )

Why is all of this so difficult?

Why can't I just be a person? 
[Error: unknown template qotd]I would erase the intrinsic idea that most human beings have that anyone "Other" is someone to be feared.  I know the place where it comes from is one that helped our ancestors to survive (because it told us that the thing that went "bump" in the night might be a bear coming to eat us or that a stranger might be a drain on resources already stretched thin by subsistence living), but I'd truly rather that our species never have made it to this point, instead of us being sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic and generally horrible to anyone who doesn't fit within our specific definition of "normal" (which is something that literally varies from person to person and no one really has set values for anyway).

Cut for length and mentions of harm. )

Bottom line:  I would erase all of the excuses and justifications that people use to rationalize hurting those who are different from them.   

Abortion

Mar. 9th, 2011 03:55 am
I've posted on this before, but for those who are new, my position is this:

A woman's body is HERS.  If she feels like fucking the NFL, the NBA and the NHL in alphabetical order (so long as she is not actively spreading diseases because then it's a public health hazard, something with which I wound take issue) she has a right to do so.

I do not tolerate any form of slut-shaming in my journal.  If you think that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, regardless of their reasons, we're going to disagree.  In other words, the following arguments aren't welcome here:
Cut for length. )

I'm a woman with a functioning uterus.  I have a right to do whatever the fuck I please with that uterus.  If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about it.  My body is mine.  You do what you want with your body and I'll do what I want with mine. 
Not too long ago, someone commented in my journal with an icon that was a picture of Hitler with the caption, "My mommy chose life."  I banned the icon (it was the first time I'd ever deleted a comment, which caused a bit of angst for me because I'm just like that) and eventually the person who used it when they came back to be shitty because I'd made a public post supposedly 'shaming' them when all I was doing was essentially making a post for future reference - "Hey everyone, no Hitler or Nazi imagery of any type allowed here."    

That's not what you've all had happen, heh.

No, what happened was I later realized that the icon was not just offensive, it was also WRONG.  Hitler's mommy didn't CHOOSE life.  Hitler's mommy had no choice in the matter whatsoever.  When Hitler was born in 1889, his mommy had basically no rights as a person.  She couldn't vote, let alone go and get abortion, and was generally defined by her role as 'Hitler's mommy' or 'Hitler's daddy's wife'.  She wasn't a person - she was a broodmare and broodmares don't get to choose whether or not they stay pregnant. 

Using that icon as a dig at the Pro-Life crowd may get some surface attention, but it ignores the essential truth that Hilter's mommy was a woman and women don't get to make decisions about whether or not they have children.  Oh, we say they do now, but as I pointed out yesterday, with 87% of the counties in the US not having access to abortion providers, we really don't mean it.  At least not in the US or in other parts of the world where women are still chattel, which I believe comprises a greater percentage of the world's population than not. 

I didn't get to tell the owner of that icon any of this because I didn't realize it until WAY after the fact and wow, does it suck thinking of the perfect comeback a month later (or however long it's been), but hey, at least I get to share it with all of you, :).

ETA: Hilter's mommy's name was Klara.  Thanks, [livejournal.com profile] darth_eldritch.

Profile

teleen_fiction

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 01:09 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios