I actually had a really lengthy post all ready to go earlier this week, until blogger ate it. So, bits of this were actually part of that, reincarnated.
Another Skeezy Frey GuyThe Frey in question is being charged for attempting to kidnap his own wife. However, this should have come as no surprise to anyone involved, when you take a look at
the creepy-as-hell marriage contract he had drawn up for his lucky lady. This is one sick and crazy mofo, I tell ya. You'll have to follow that link to read the whole thing, because there's very little of it I'm comfortable re-posting here.
MY TIME
Whenever we are at home and alone as a family, from when you are to be naked until 12:00am, or for three hours, which ever is later, will be My Time. This time will be time you will devout [sic] soley [sic again] to me, whereas you will be in my service to do anything and everything I want, which may be or may not be sexual in manner [sick]...
It gets a lot worse than that. And as sick as he is, I'm most worried about what kind of a woman ties up with this guy? Whoever she is, I just want to shake some self-esteem into her.
Moving on.
A Half-Baked Idea from the Man Who Brought Us Domino's PizzaTom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is using his vast wealth and influence to build his own
Catholic-themed city, apparently for the main purpose of being able to ban the future city's pharmacists from providing contraceptives to women. He has enough money to buy and sell just about anyone or anything, and he wants to use that power to nix birth-control. Please. Can't you come up with something better than THAT? I mean, if I was going to build my own city for the sole purpose of micromanaging the lives of others, I'd make it worth my while. Honestly, Pseudo-Christian Misogyny is soooo passe nowadays.
Think of the possibilities:
Hop-to-Work-or-Go-to-Jail Wednesdays.
3 Lawn Flamingos Minimums.
Daily Sno-Cone and Nap breaks. AND, thanks to mandatory dress-codes, I could single-handedly revive the HyperColor phenomenon.
But no. He's going in a different direction. Small-potatoes misogynists draw up crazy controlling marriage contracts. Pizza mogul misogynists just build their own cities.
Next.
South Dakota Makes Flamingo's Head ExplodeAnd yesterday, South Dakota's Senate
passed a bill banning abortion. BANNING abortion. They threw the women a bone, and included a measure to allow an abortion if the mother's life is at stake. But if you get pregnant from rape or incest, you're out of luck. THAT amendment failed 21-14. Maybe that will teach you not to dress so trashy, you little hussy.
Seriously, this blows my mind. And the part of the story than eradicates the meatiest chunks of my brain is the fact that the sponsor of the bill is a
woman who happens to be a
Democrat.
The bill will no doubt be signed into law by the Republican Governor. As soon as that happens, the court battles regarding the law's constitutionality will begin. The ultimate goal (I mean
besides controlling women and their bodies)? Force the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and let Bush's court take on the Roe v. Wade decision.
That's a scary thought.
I don't like abortion. Nobody does. I agree with the Clinton mantra of "Rare, Safe and Legal." And I believe that a majority of Americans feel that way, deep down.
And the thing is, I do not believe that ending abortion is the big picture here. If ending abortion were all this was about, you would see these same groups of activists and politicians doing something about the social pressures that are the root cause of increased need for abortions.
You
would see them doing something about the poverty/homeless/jobless rates.
You would
not see them fighting sex education in schools.
You
would see them advocating self-esteem and empowerment courses for girls and young women, so they understand that they are their own people, and they do not have to hand over either their bodies or their decision-making capabilities to the first creep who hands them a marriage contract.
You would
NOT see them building cities for the express purpose of eliminating birth-control.
If this were all about protecting babies and giving all children an equal chance at life, they
would be fighting for pre-natal care for all mothers, regardless of income, and free health and dental care for all children, no matter what tax bracket they're born into.
They
would be fighting for equal rights for all those babies who are born female, or with a skin color other than lilly-white, or (god-forbid) gay.
They
would be fighting to protect the environment that these children are being born into.
But that's not what they're fighting for. They are fighting for the legal ability to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. That's what all of these things boil down to. Whether it's the creep dictating how much pubic hair his wife is allowed to have, or Tom Monaghan salivating at the thought of mandating what prescriptions women may fill at the pharmacy, or the Great State of South Dakota itching to deny women
who have been raped the ability to make the most intimate, personal and grave decision of all, it all comes back to exerting control over women.
For what? Is it a turn-on? Does it make the men feel more powerful and manly? Does it make them feel closer to God, or Heaven, or immortality? Does it compensate for small penises? What? I seriously would like to know. I think they owe us that much. If I'm going to live my life in a world like this, at least tell me
why.
And I don't even know where to begin with questions for
Julie Bartling, sponsor of the South Dakota bill. Does she think this will win her a spot at their table? It won't. In the morning, she's still going to be a woman. Welcome to the club.
If anyone can make sense of it all, let me know.