… but it would be to a recent (past week) story about Asian (Korean?) entrepreneurs, one of whom, a woman, wore pantsuits because otherwise, whenever she came in the room, all the men would look at her legs.

Now, I’d probably do exactly the same, being who and what I am, but I certainly wouldn’t begrudge her the opportunity to work round my deficiencies by wearing a pantsuit!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

the way a distinguished, highly competent american political leader was treated by the print, electronic, and weblog media from january-june, 2008.

i won’t.

They are not permitted the same right as Fox men to dress modestly so that viewers will focus on their message. It doesn’t matter if the rule is written or unwritten.

The damage from this campaign is being grossly underestimated. It will be felt for a generation or more.

I will attempt to inflict pain on the perps.

Since I have no money, it’s the only way I have to influence them.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Read Tristero on the latest GOP effort in the war on women. Via Avedon.

Do you think the last 35 years of GOP talking points about Roe and how irresponsible women who get abortions are is unconnected to the misogyny unleashed in the campaign? I don’t. It’s all tied together because it’s all about controlling women. WWTSBQ? Why do those women keep making Democrats lose because they’re so noisy on reproductive rights? Where’s your sense of humor, sweetie?

This is why Obama and other Dems get no break for me when they “pander” on reproductive rights to the evangelical right. They are helping reinforce a framing that women are frivolous and can’t be trusted to make big decisions and that undermines not only reproductive rights, but women’s rights generally. The demand to full equal rights for your person is not a political issue like Social Security, it’s not something to be bargained away.

oh lord.

next, the sexoreligious policepriests will be coming after me for disrespecting the life in my sperm.

damn.

where to emigrate?

… the right to age and die with some modicum of dignity isn’t part of “full equal rights for your person”?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The War On Fucking.

Which is highly unfortunate, because, as ever, fucking, along with reading, is one of the few, simple pleasures poor people have that doesn’t cost anything (as long as there’s birth control (and no thought police)).

And it looks like a lot more people are going to have to focus on simple pleasures in the coming months and years…

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But to me, here’s the difference between social security and women’s equality. At its base, social security is a discussion over the mechanism to give economic support to older Americans. The politics surrounding it is an argument about how to do this - the current system, privatizing it, a mix, income caps, etc. Now there are arguments for all of these ways, some good and some bad. But basically what you’re arguing over is how Government should deliver its services, which I know has a real-world effect, but that’s still what you’re arguing over.

Women’s rights (or gay rights or civil rights) is about whether historically discriminated against groups are going to be treated and seen as equals in the culture and under the law. And often, as Melissa McEwan notes, what we get told time and time again is that it’s not your time. We have to “fix” Social Security. We have to do X, we’ll get to giving you the same cultural and legal rights next time. We’d speak out strongly in support for Roe, but there’s an election to win (and be sure to vote for us in November!). There’s always something more important to do first, but if we’ll just vote for the Democrats this time, they promise that next time it will be our turn. Then, of course, next time there’s somethiing else they have to do (like say clean up a mess on Wall Street created primarily by white men). Funny how that works.

And my point is that for me, having a culture and goverment that treats me as an equal, that doesn’t spew misogynistic hatred or find ways to rationalize not giving me the same autonomy over my body that men enjoy, is of primary importance because without that, everything else is less valuable.

I’m reminded of something the Dixie Chicks said during their contract dispute with Sony, that it wasn’t that they had a shitty record deal, all first record deals are shitty. It was that Sony didn’t even live up to the shitty deal.

I know that the economic structure and the increasing authoritarianism of this country are a shitty deal for most people. But given that women get paid less than men and have even more constraints culturally and legally on their behaviors, we don’t even get that shitty deal. It’s hard to get excited about negotiating changes to a deal you aren’t even getting because if you aren’t getting the current deal, what are the odds you’re going to get all of the benefits of the revised deal?

If that makes any sense.

I’m looking for a turn-less “grand unified theory.” Regardless of how these issues are grounded in the discourse and the political system today, what are the commonalities between them? I have a vague sense that it does indeed has to do with the dignity and autonomy of the body — even the aging body. This would, BTW, also connect to torture, animal abuse, and the “penumbra” of privacy in the Fourth Amendment, and the issues of how to value persons without bodies — corporations — as opposed to persons with real bodies.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I was all set to post on Party Invariance, but your comment makes me want to focus on “The Original Position” and “Justice as Fairness” as a way to a grand unified theory.

I consider myself moderate by temperament, but as I’ve tried to picture the world from an “original position”, I find myself more and more “radicalized”. It seems natural to me to support women’s equality, but it is still a radical position. This campaign demonstrated that.

For me the horrifying part was the unembarrassed gusto with which the left spewed the same venomous misogyny I expected of the right, along with the poorly disguised glee of MY PARTY at the effectiveness of such a full court press, and the almost inaudible chirp from Women/Feminist leaders. Just because we’re lost in the permanent forest, let us not deny that this primary was the 50 year nadir of women’s rights.

If you’re carrying sperm, you may be transporting minors across state lines for immoral purposes.

[Oops — an unexpected last gasp from my dying light heart. That, or Heineken hath wrought a miracle…]

realistic and practical sex ed in schools from Obama?

and where’s the swearing to kill abstinence-only foreign aid funding? (we already know he’ll fund faith-based stupidity domestically — which includes abstinence programs that don’t work)

— http://www.lifenews.com/nat4045.html

Melissa’s essay there is the finest statement I’ve seen on why progressive women may not support Obama:

Perfectly Logical Calculations, and Why They’re Actually Not
by: Melissa McEwan

…the ominous accusation that if McCain won, it would be their fault. As ever, it was the people calling out sexism and/or anti-FW policies who were charged with creating division among progressives, as opposed to the people engaging in sexism and their defenders…And so the drumbeat to cast [feminists] with legitimate complaints as the root of progressive discordance has only intensified….

This essay should be widely read and circulated.

More smart politics that may win the battle and lose the war.

What a surprise… NARAL approves.

Sounds like you’re up to something interesting. Can you expound?

But his Big Talk oddly may not satisfy me anymore.

“I not only will not forget…
I will attempt to inflict pain on the perps.”

Mom warned me about that kind of sweet talk.

i was reading through that one last night. open left has a few more good guest bloggers since then, but that’s still the best post so far.

you don’t suppose ICE would seize my hard drive?

they wouldn’t do that, would they?

well,

that leaves only one recourse; can’t take chances.

i must find me a coyote and reverse-immigrate across the river to old mexico.

my wife loves to travel anyway.

Think about what that really means, and what the meaning implies. Why would you imagine, for example, that the health care system had anything to do with healthy outcomes?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

this whole series falls into the category “too little too late” AFAIC.

Parallelism of great minds, since i just wrote a “Too fucking little, way too fucking late” headline, though on a different topic.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Open Left is suddenly interested in sexism during the primaries and its consequences… geez, Melissa could have written that great diary for them months ago, when it might actually have made a difference.

It’s especially ironic when it’s one of the peddler blogs that does it.

The sexist stuff was highly visible in real time and could have been debunked (and was debunked here and at Shakesville, among other few) when it mattered.

what OL is doing is trying to reclaim progressive credibility on the gender front by attracting big names to its frontpage.

But I’m willing to bet it’s going to be a one-shot thing. “See? We got these great ladies bloggers posting diaries on gender and sexism… so, we’re good now, sweeties?” all the while ignoring those non-A list bloggers who did extensive work on that during the primary.

AFAIC, these blogs lost credibility on gender and other progressive issues and a couple of diaries won’t change that.

Because the bottom line, they’re not doing the reflection work that matters: the one we’re trying to do here with PB2.0 (shameless plug alert).

answer up.

puma?

or not puma?

sorry i’m so ignorant on personal preference.

None of your fucking business if FrenchDoc doesn’t want to say.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

but ’too late’ isn’t a good enough reason to keep quiet.

What I was saying is let’s not be naive. They still don’t get it.

it’s very evident in the comments on that post. but two male commenters did eventually start to talk themselves into the right direction, which is one tiny step forward. teaspoons, always teaspoons, isn’t it?

granted, we need much larger steps, and many more of them, and no i’m not going to give open left a huge amount of credit for what they’ve done here. they did put off discussing this issue until it was ’safe’ to talk about it.

i did not have any sense of frenchdoc being concerned with the issues of how senator clinton was treated.

that may be my error, my oversight; which is why i appended the final sentence.

i’m not interested in “party” affiliation. but at corrente, i’ve observed that all logic, opinion, commentary is divided into two categories - for obama or against obama.

were the search function open, i could have answered my question for myself.

I wasn’t aware that I’d written a “party variant” gardening post, lately.

You’ve heard of Google?

And, regardless of whether you had “any sense” at all, don’t go around demanding of other contributors that they “answer up.” That was really the point of my comment, although that was apparently not clear.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

and you’ll see I was an active writer of the series WWTSBQ Watch and I initiated the Why Hillary Should be President series.

I posted and commented pretty consistently all through the primary and I don’t think there is any ambiguity on where I stand…

Heck, I even made “overtures” to VL to try to change his mind on his reluctant vote for Obama (I claim all the credit for his change of mind! :-))

This being said, I am also an “issue” poster with a strong focus on social justice.

the credit, that is. my next hamster kibble donation will be in your name. :-)

you’re part of the long-anticipated menage a cinq! :-)

as you were writing, i looked up your writing on senator clinton. what i found impressed me -

both what you had written

and what i had missed.

i have followed your writings about extra-american affairs with interest, however, i did not fairly or accurately record in my mind your well-articulated concerns about the mistreatment senator clinton received.

i am newly admiring of your efforts in each of these very different venues.

i apologize for popping off as i did.

i wouldn’t want to risk losing out on that. but you do realize i love you only for your mind, sweetie. ;-)

Apology accepted.

[ And, regardless of whether you had “any sense” at all, don’t go around demanding of other contributors that they “answer up.” That was really the point of my comment, although that was apparently not clear. ]

the language i used was appropriate for my suspicion (unfounded though it proved to be). and it was just that, the use of language for effect.

not so different from obscure, inarticulate, cutesy, atrios-impregnated, sarcastic weblog jargon, i would say,

except my simple, direct english is much easier for the “uninitiated” to understand.

Answer up!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.