Thursday, February 23, 2006

Misogyny: Variations on a Theme

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 Guy

The 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.

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 Pizza

Tom 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.


South Dakota Makes Flamingo's Head Explode

And 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.


Blogger Ian McGibboney said...

The South Dakota thing totally blows my mind too. It saddens me more than it makes me angry, which is really saying something. To think that the anti-abortion movement would be so blase so soon after Scalito's anointment to the SCOTUS. I figured they'd at least find time to call it something appropriately Orwellian, like "The Womyn's Empowerment Act of 2006."

Well, I guess we know what the "South" in South Dakota means. And, as you pointed out with all your examples, where this nation seems to be heading.

February 23, 2006 11:08 PM  
Blogger Flamingo Jones said...

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised at the lack of Orwellian language too.

And I'm kind of disgusted at the thought that I (and probably most of the women in S.D.) feel grateful that they at least allowed women to choose to try to save their own lives if needed.

February 23, 2006 11:51 PM  
Blogger The leftist southpaw said...

Does the governor of South Dakota support capital punishment? That would be a hoot.

"Right to life! life is sacred..."

"Fry the bastard!"

February 24, 2006 6:52 AM  
Blogger R said...

If I ever built a city, I would build it on...rock and roll.

February 24, 2006 7:59 AM  
Blogger Flamingo Jones said...

Southpaw, SD does have the death penalty, and I would be very surprised if the self-righteous governor WASN'T a staunch supporter of it.

February 24, 2006 8:29 AM  
Blogger Ian McGibboney said...

Conservatives are supposed to be against big government, and yet they're so high on the biggest government power of all: the right to determine who lives and who dies.

So government shouldn't be allowed to regulate business, but it should be allowed to kill people? Sick.

February 24, 2006 10:37 AM  
Blogger R said...

Recall that those who have been proven guilty and sentenced to death have done something to deserve it.

They're not nice folks.

Now before you go blowing a gasket, I do not support the death penalty either, but I suppose you should say that you're really upset at the hypocrisy that is displayed with the right-to-lifers supporting the death penalty.

Because I very much doubt you'd be on the side of a multiple-murderer/rapist headed for the electric chair.

February 24, 2006 1:01 PM  
Blogger jenny said...

excellent post! thank you. i too would like to know why. we must seem really scary to them. it drives me mad, doesn't it drive you mad?

February 24, 2006 2:44 PM  
Blogger jenny said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 24, 2006 2:49 PM  
Blogger jenny said...

oh, and R,

trust me, i would be on the side of the multiple murderer/rapist headed for the electric chair. not for setting him free, but for saving his life. it doesn't matter what he's (cos they're mostly hes) done. he does not deserve to die.

February 24, 2006 2:50 PM  
Blogger Ian McGibboney said...

I don't believe that the government should have the right to kill people. It's not because I want to coddle any double murderers/whatever, because I don't think a lifetime of imprisonment is what anyone would call getting off (shower escapades notwithstanding).

The need to kill someone is rooted in passion, selfishness and/or self-defense. These are human feelings, not a code for governmental operation. Besides, the death penalty is far costlier and applied far more unevenly than life sentences.

And no, R, they don't all deserve it. More than 100 inmates have been released from death row since 1973 on wrongful charges, and we now know from DNA evidence that innocents have been executed. That is wrong.

February 24, 2006 4:06 PM  
Blogger Flamingo Jones said...

R, you set up the most fallaciously black and white arguments...I don't get're a smart guy. You must be able to see that there are gray areas between Pro-Death Penalty and Pro-Rape and Murder.

It's not just the hypocrisy I'm against, I'm against the whole damn institution. I am 100% opposed to the death penalty, and if you think that puts me on the side of the multiple-murderer/rapist headed for the electric chair, then you're free to view it that way.

February 24, 2006 10:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home