Your Modern Pro-Life Movement

Okay, lovers of life, liberty, fetuses, etc. You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

I almost hate to write about this because I’m sure our local Tennessee legislators will immediately want one of these bills, too.

This just sums up everything we’ve ever said is wrong with the so-called “pro-life” crowd in one amazing ball of astonishing suckitude: How is murdering abortion providers pro-life? Why do you hate women so much that you’d treat them this way? Why don’t you trust us? Why do you care more about the unborn than the people who are already living? How is this “Christian”?

I bring up the religious point because of the people behind the bill:

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

These are all right-wing "Christian" organizations. Shame on you. I wish you people would get Raptured already and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

Time For Us Women To Cut You Boys Off

I am so ready to nip shit like this in the bud:

Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III, vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said contraceptives fit any reasonable definition of preventive health care because they averted unintended pregnancies and allowed women to control the timing, number and spacing of births. This, in turn, improves maternal and child health by reducing infant mortality, complications of pregnancy and even birth defects, said Dr. Lawrence, who is in charge of the group’s practice guidelines.

But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, say birth control is not a preventive service in the usual sense of the term.

“Pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, nor is fertility a pathological condition,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “So birth control is not preventive care, and it should not be mandated.”

About one-half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

Wow, and right on the heels of the whole “forcible rape” outrage, too. Assholes.

I will never understand why the people screaming the loudest about how awful abortion is are the same people putting up roadblocks to women trying to access birth control. What the hell is wrong with you people?

And don’t even get me started on the whole tortured “pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented” bullshit. Who says “preventive care” applies only to disease?

Last week I got into an argument with someone over abortion coverage in insurance policies. He said he didn’t understand why he should pay more because women are “irresponsible.” Because an unwanted pregnancy is always the woman’s fault! Isn’t that neat how that works? Heads you win, tails we lose.

Look fellas, I’m sorry you lack the plumbing that would enable you to get pregnant, gestate and give birth and all that. I’ve long suspected your inability to create life in the same way we ladies do has been a source of equal amounts fascination and disgust on your parts for thousands of years. Grow the fuck up already.

You know, I can’t imagine what it’s like to have my reproductive organs flying around loose in the breeze where any predator, fungus or hunting accident could come along and snip it all off, making me evolutionarily irrelevant. That’s a hard burden to bear, a not-so-subtle reminder of how biologically dispensable you guys really are. There are always more males out there willing to spread their seed; it’s the female of the species who carries the burden of the species’ survival. We’re the ones who not only bear the young but care for them as well.

This isn’t me talking feminist claptrap, this is basic evolutionary biology: the bird that’s going to get snapped up at the feeder is the bright red highly visible male cardinal, not the drab brown female blessed with a natural protective camouflage. She’s more important in the grand scheme, which is why she’s been given this protection. God I know that chaps y’all’s ass big time.

It’s the battle of the sexes, played out over thousands of years. Men are bigger and stronger and take down a mammoth but for all your bravado it’s we women who keep the species going. And you’re just dying to control that, too.

Well guess what: you can’t. And you won’t. The earliest cave women knew which plants and herbs and tinctures and infusions prevented pregnancy and induced miscarriage. It’s in the archeological record. Women have been doing this for thousands of years. Do you seriously think you can stop what women have been doing forever? You won’t outlaw abortion, you’ll just drive women to desperate, unsafe, archaic means of doing what they’ve always done. And keeping women from accessing birth control is only making more unwanted pregnancies, not fewer of them.

I repeat: We’re the ones who not only bear the young but care for them as well. We know what’s best for us. And we will act accordingly.

I’m thinking this battle needs another ancient solution. A little nationwide Lysistrata action, perhaps. I’m tired of being dicked around by you assholes. Really, I am. And while plenty of men out there are believers in women’s reproductive choice and women’s access to birth control, I’m thinking maybe some of you guys just aren’t fighting hard enough on our behalf.

I think it’s time to cut you off until you guys recognize that we women will not be pushed around, that “small government” does not mean government small enough to fit inside my womb, that women can be trusted to make the right decisions for the human race because dammit that’s what we’ve been doing for thousands of years anyway.

[UPDATE]:

Oh for God's sake. This was totally the wrong day for me to learn we have a state breastfeeding law. Words fail me.

Jesus get over your squeamishness, people. What is the deal?

Teach Those Sluts A Lesson

We don’t need no stinkin’ Stupak Amendment when doctors are inexplicably refusing to treat women who have had previous abortions all on their own:

I want to focus, however, on one particularly disturbing obstacle that was mentioned in city after city: doctors refusing to care for women who have had abortions. Mind you, these are not doctors refusing to perform abortions. What we heard, in three separate communities, was that there are doctors who refuse to perform routine post-abortion check-ups or even to provide care for completely unrelated ailments to women who previously had abortions. What’s worse, in two instances we heard that these doctors were some of the few who were accepting Medicaid patients at all – meaning that poor women would have to face greater obstacles to receive needed medical care. In one instance, we heard of a doctor throwing a patient’s medical records on the ground and storming out after he learned she had had an abortion.

Hey, what could be more “pro life” than refusing to give medical treatment to someone because you disapprove of something they did in the past? I wonder what would happen if a woman showed up and proved she was sufficiently sorry? Would you treat her then?

Look, most of us women know that the whole anti-choice movement is really about making women feel bad for being sluts. That’s it in a nutshell. Any doctor who turns a female patient away because she had an abortion is pretty much trying to make her pay. It’s a punitive thing. And to those people I say: Fuck You.

Because The GOP Just Can’t Piss Off Enough People

(This post in honor of the 19th Amendment, ratified 90 years ago today ....)

Apparently not content to simply offend African Americans, Latinos and Muslims, the GOP has decided to go for the home run and piss off women, as well.

Via Mother Jones we have the Minnesota GOP telling people to vote Republican because their chicks are hotter than those hairy bull dyke “dogs” who are the “Democrat” women. No, I’m not making this up, you can watch the video for yourself:



Minnesota GOP webmaster Randy Brown said of the video:

"[I]ts only intention was to bring a smile to a few peoples faces, and possibly irritate a few others. Is it fair? Does that matter? It wasn't intended to be fair. It was intended to be funny."

Yeah, cuz I tell you, we women think it’s hilarious when we are judged by how we look (or how well we are photoshopped), not the content of our character or what’s in our brains.

Vote GOP. Because they will always treat you like an object. Winning slogan, guys.

Let The Women Jump

Welcome, Eschatonians!

I’ve always wondered why there is no women’s ski jump event in the Winter Olympics. And literally, I have always wondered that, ever since I was a little kid, because it's obvious women have been doing every other winter sport in the games--luge, downhill skiing, ice hockey, etc. So women’s ski jumping has always been notable for its absence.

It makes no sense: we can fly through the air on snowboards, do back flips on the moguls, yet we can’t ski jump? What’s up with that? Especially since men’s ski jumping has been an Olympic event since the 1920s.

It seems the issue is a hot topic this year and via this MSNBC.com video I finally have my answer. Although some very thin and lame excuses have been floated around, what it seems to boil down to is that the European men don’t want to be shown up by a bunch of girls, one of whom holds the record on the actual ski jump used at the Vancouver games.

Yes that’s right, Lindsey Van beat the men’s record on the exact same ski jump the men will be sliding down to claim their Olympic medals this week. I ask you: how fucked up is that?

This quote cracked me up:

In 2005, Gian Franco Kasper, FIS president and a member of the IOC, said that he didn't think women should ski jump because the sport "seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."

Oh my God are we still having that same argument? Seriously? In this day and age? What does Gian Franco Kasper think is going to happen? Vaginas scattered all over the hill? Menstrual blood on the start bar? Boobies flying through the air?

If you think about it, it seems like men with all that stuff dangling around down there would be less "medically" suited to a whole bunch of sports, not just ski jumping. Imagine if one of y'all's testicles just flew off in mid-air. Someone could get hurt. An eye could get poked out.

Even worse is IOC member Dick Pound, who withdrew his head from his ass long enough to utter this asinine warning to the women ski jumpers:

"If in the meantime you're making all kinds of allegations about the IOC and how it's discriminating on the basis of gender," he warned, "the IOC may say, 'Oh yeah, I remember them. They're the ones that embarrassed us and caused us a lot of trouble of trouble in Vancouver, maybe they should wait another four years or eight years.'"

Oh, man. Is that a threat? Are you fucking serious?

You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see all female athletes stick together on this one--and I mean all of them. Skaters, skiers, gymnasts, track stars, tennis players, golfers, you name it. Because if bogus “medical reasons” and lies about “competitiveness” are still being used to bar women athletes from the Olympic games, then they will be used to bar women from every avenue of achievement. The Olympic Games are not just about medals; for the athletes involved, it’s about sponsorships, it’s about access to gear and training facilities. It’s about validating your sport.

In the meantime, to learn more about the isssue or help the cause, go to Women’s Ski Jumping USA.

Rebel against the patriarchy--and the stupidity!

A Word About Birthers

Ha! Made you look!

No, this post is not about those birthers. Saturday night I happened to catch Ricki Lake’s fabulous documentary "The Business Of Being Born”. I highly recommend it, whether you are an expectant mother or not, because it addresses a lot of what’s wrong with our healthcare system in this country.

Nothing highlights the problems of a for-profit healthcare system more starkly than when a woman gives birth. Women have been having babies since the dawn of the species; they’ve been giving birth at home, aided by experienced practitioners such as midwives, for thousands of years. Yet in the past 100 years, the trend toward hospital birth has escalated, and not always with good results. For example, the rate of Caesarian sections in America is an astonishing one-in-three births. This is off the charts, especially when studies indicate there is no medical reason for this level of C-sections.

Despite the movement toward natural childbirth in the 60s and 70s, today women choosing to give birth at home assisted by a midwife are not supported by our healthcare system. Many healthcare professionals seem to feel threatened by midwifery, despite the fact that midwifes have been bringing babies in to the world for centuries. Insurance policies don’t cover midwife-assisted home birth, and the medical lobby seems to treat midwifery with outright hostility.

This is despite all of the evidence that shows non-hospital births are both less expensive and have better outcomes. The American Prospect looked at this issue earlier this month:

Midwives like Bartlett are often the only option for pregnant women who are underinsured, as many in her state are. She's seen a growth in her midwifery practice in recent years, and many of the women who come to her fall between the gap of the privately insured and those who qualify for Medicaid. These women choose to enlist Bartlett's services (a bargain at around $3,000) rather than pay out of pocket for a hospital birth (around $8,500) or even the high deductible for their insurance plan.

Bartlett and her clients aren't the only ones who see the cost benefits of midwifery. David Anderson, economics professor at Centre College in Kentucky, has run the numbers and says that midwifery care could save us billions of dollars annually, without affecting quality of care (maybe even improving it). Anderson posits that if we increase the percentage of women giving birth out of hospital by 10 percent (currently at only 1 percent nationally) we could save close to $9 billion per year. He points to the difference in baseline costs for out-of-hospital birth -- a difference of more than $6,000 when comparing the average cost of a home birth to an in-hospital one. Another main cost reducer, according to Anderson, is the significantly lower rate of C-sections for out-of-hospital births.

It's not just the costs that are lower, according to these advocates. The outcomes are better too, which in turn, further lowers cost by reducing additional care needed by sick babies and mothers. Anderson adds that if CPMs are allowed to practice in all 50 states, competition will drive down prices for maternity care, since more women will have access to a low-cost alternative to hospital births.

This is just one of the many things that frustrates me about our whole healthcare reform conversation. Today I saw Congressman Jim Cooper on CBS’ Face The Nation, and all I heard from him was how much he supported covering all Americans, the need to make health insurance more affordable and make health insurance more available and to offer Americans a variety of different insurance plans. This is his idea of reform. It’s all about insurance and it’s not about healthcare.

That’s not my idea of reform. Health insurance companies are part of the powerful medical industry lobby that is basically dictating to women what kind of care they can have and where and how they can deliver their babies, despite the fact that it’s cheaper and safer to do it another way!

That makes me wonder: what other medical procedures are cheaper, safer, more effective, less traumatic for patients, etc. which we are denied access to by our medical gatekeepers? (Acupuncture?)

I don’t have the answers. I don’t know if this means we need to include some kind of health savings account component to cover things like home births and treatments not currently blessed by insurance companies or what. I just think if we’re talking about giving people choice, then choosing among a bunch of different insurance options isn’t really “choice” to me. I think our problems are bigger than just "choice." Our entire system needs to be overhauled.


If you’d like to learn more about the birth issue, a good place to start is the documentary’s trailer:

Clubbed

Looks like the Republicans have been hitting their Faux Umbrage Concern Kits, this time over Sonia Sotomayor’s membership in a women’s club. Over at Pith we’ve got more phony cries of “double standard” in the comments. It would be hilarious if it all weren’t so stupid.

Here’s Congress “man” Marsha Blackburn, promoting her book at the Woman’s Club of Nashville in January:



I’d say Congress “man” Blackburn is also familiar with the Brentwood Woman's Club because she's participated in candidates' forums there. Meanwhile, we have the Nashville Republican Women and the Davidson County Democratic Women.

Woman's clubs all.

Some prominent Nashville business women have also formed the Nashville Women’s Breakfast Club:

In 1985, Lynn May was the only woman in her department of the bank that became Sun Trust. She decided she needed some female friends who worked downtown. Lynn formed the Gang of Four with Suzanne Braden, Patty Bryan and Lucy Owen, and by early 1986 they had founded the Nashville Women’s Breakfast Club.

From the beginning the focus of the club has been on networking, on sharing referrals and customers. Membership nominations are screened to avoid professional competition; the idea is that members use each other’s services.

Then we have the Junior League, a woman’s group that claims 160,000 members worldwide. Here’s their mission:

The Association of Junior Leagues International Inc. (AJLI) is an organization of women committed to promoting voluntarism, developing the potential of women and improving communities through the effective action and leadership of trained volunteers. Its purpose is exclusively educational and charitable.

The Junior League touts such famous members as former First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush, and, ZOMG, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

So, the men in the Republican Party are going to say they have a problem with all of this?


Good luck with that.

Hey Mona Charen: Focus On Your Own Damn Family

Neocon columnist Mona Charen plays the scold, and blames Rep. Linda Sanchez for an unemployed woman’s desire to have multiple babies:

Consider Rep. Linda Sanchez, who represents the district in which Suleman lives. She announced last November that she is pregnant, though single. "I don't know how it'll be received," Sanchez told the Los Angeles Times. "I hope people will recognize that to be able to plan that in your life — I don't think that marriage and childbirth are black and white. There are certain instances in which you have to do things in reverse order." Yes, well, she needn't have worried. Everyone was totally understanding. No marriage yet either.

People think the old stigma about unwed childbearing was all about sex. It wasn't. It was about children and what's best for them. Of course some women want babies the way others crave shoes, but babies are not, or at least shouldn't be treated as, consumables. Badly done all around.

Rep. Sanchez’s spokesperson was forced to respond to this attack on the Congresswoman’s character by revealing personal information that, frankly, is none of Mona’s (or anyone’s) business:

Because your research did not seem to go further than opinion-based statements, I want to let you know a few facts about Congresswoman Sánchez:  One, she is a 40-year old woman in a long-standing committed and loving relationship; Two, upon regular checkup, her doctor recommended a planned pregnancy at this immediate time in her life for a healthy delivery that was best for the child (in fact, putting off her pregnancy may have resulted in the need for fertility treatments, with the result of risky multiple births); Three, she has an established and prominent career as an attorney, a former labor leader, and current Member of Congress; Four, she resides in a home she owns in California, and when in Washington for votes, resides in a condo she owns there; and Five, maintains a salary that is sufficient to provide for herself and her future child.

So, it has come to this. Two women make personal, private family planning decisions, and Mona Charen thinks it’s incumbent upon her to stick her big nose where it doesn’t belong and play judge and jury over others’ decisions.

I really wish Rep. Sanchez’s spokesperson had not issued that statement. “Choice” is meaningless if women are forced to publicly defend their decisions to budinskies like Mona Charen. Unless we are interested in becoming like China with its “one child” rule, women’s decisions over when, why and how many children they choose to bear should be kept between them, their families and their healthcare providers.

I don’t know Nadya Suleman, I don’t live her life, I don’t know what would compel her to want 14 children any more than I know what inspires the Duggar Family to want 18 kids or the Quiverfull crowd to pop out as many babies as they can (and nobody asks any of those folks if they can adequately provide for all of those kids).

But it seems a little hypocritical to me to trot out a fetus fetish at rallies all around the country, spout bromides like “families are the cornerstone of American society,” and then wonder why some people are so hung up on having kids. Charen might wring her little fingers over a society that treats babies as “consummables” but the far right treats them as political props and fundraising tools.

Of course this is about sex. What else could it be when a prominent neocon like Charen criticizes a professional woman, a Congresswoman, for choosing to have a family? Get real. We can't win for losing here.

Mona Charen and the rest of that crowd need to mind their own fucking business.

Serious People

Dick Armey tells Joan Walsh “I am so damn glad you could never be my wife” because she has the temerity to call him on his bullshit.

I feel very sorry for Dick Armey’s wife right now:

Not So Funny Now, Is It?

Remember the “anonymous e-mail” attacking TNDP wannabe-chair Chip Forrester for attending a meeting about female circumcision back in 1999? This was discussed ad nauseum on Nashville political blogs in early December. The e-mail sent to Tennessee Democrats asked:

"Debating 'female circumcision'? Really?" The header asks: "Is this the guy we want as party chair?"

to which Pith In The Wind blogger Jeff Woods asked:

Still wondering why the Democrats lost the legislature?

As if having an interest in a human rights issue like female circumcision somehow precludes one from running the TNDP?

When the story broke a conservative even commented at Pith:

If this is the best Forrester can do, we Republicans should pray he become Democrat Party chair. Let's hold "salon" sessions to discuss the latest topic from Oprah while real Tennesseans are fighting to pay their mortgages. I'm sure there was plenty of arugula and white wine spritzers on those potluck tables.

Ha ha that’s so funny coming from the party peddling in racism these days.

Anyhoo, those scoffers might be interested in reading this WaPo article about widespread female circumcision in Kurdish Iraq:

Sheelan Anwar Omer, a shy 7-year-old Kurdish girl, bounded into her neighbor's house with an ear-to-ear smile, looking for the party her mother had promised.

There was no celebration. Instead, a local woman quickly locked a rusty red door behind Sheelan, who looked bewildered when her mother ordered the girl to remove her underpants. Sheelan began to whimper, then tremble, while the women pushed apart her legs and a midwife raised a stainless-steel razor blade in the air. "I do this in the name of Allah!" she intoned.

As the midwife sliced off part of Sheelan's genitals, the girl let out a high-pitched wail heard throughout the neighborhood. As she carried the sobbing child back home, Sheelan's mother smiled with pride.

"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember," said the mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town about 100 miles north of Baghdad. "We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."

Ow. While reading that I reflexively crossed my legs.

Now keep in mind that Nashville has the largest population of immigrant Kurds in the United States, estimated at some 12,000.

I don’t know if female circumcision is practiced by Kurds in America but it’s reasonable to expect that it is at least an issue, especially for new immigrants, and one which should be discussed by legislators and political folks in their new home. It's kinda ironic that Tennessee Republicans would find this an issue of controversy, I guess because it concerns women's naughty parts and all. I'm glad that at least one political party here is interested in learning about issues affecting immigrant women in our city. Figures it's not the GOP.

(h/t, Atrios.)

Why Conservatives Can’t Do Social Policy

I had no idea that this was the conservative explanation for gender wage disparity:

If Women Were More Like Men: Why Females Earn Less

One of the oldest debates in contemporary social science is why women earn less than men.

Conservatives tend to argue that because women anticipate taking time off to raise children, they have fewer incentives to work hard in school, and they choose careers where on-the-job training and long hours are less important.

Really? That’s what conservatives think?

Hey! Conservatives! Is that true? Is that why you think women are paid less than men? Because we don’t deserve it? Because we decided in school not to study so hard for that test, or decided not to work so hard on the job, because we just knew that we were going to be stay at home moms at some point?

You really think that?

Y’all are morons.

That is without a doubt the lamest thing I’ve ever heard. As noted in this article, liberals know deeply entrenched sex discrimination is the primary culprit in gender pay disparity. Now a study looking at folks who have changed their gender proves we are right:

The men and women in the study had already gone to school and made their career choices. Some of them changed jobs after they transitioned, and some stayed in the same jobs. Some were out to their employers; others started completely new lives as members of the opposite sex. Regardless, the overall pattern was very clear: newly minted women were punished, and newly minted men got a little bump-up in pay.

Amazing.

Hey, Cristi Adkins!

This video is for you and the other "If I can't have Hillary I'm voting Republican" party poopers out there. And you call yourself a nurse, too? I think you're a moron.

Ban’d Part 2

Finally. Commenter Ban concedes that the photo David Horowitz used to promote Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week is a fake. However, I am still a “liberal imperialist liar”:

”You know, I suggest you jumpy delusional indignant westerners who abuse us middle easterners, rather than concentrate on what's turned out to be an honest mistake about something REAL, you should concentrate on the lies of your liberal imperialist liars: http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.co...-code-pink.html
I wonder what you racist elitists have to say to YOUR side's lies and propaganda. SHAME ON YOU FASCISTS.

I’m so glad we got that settled. Yes, Ban, women’s rights is a real issue. I’m not quite sure how bombing the crap out of Iran will make life better for the women there, though. Let’s ask some Iraqi women how it’s worked out for them:

Iraqi women: Prostituting ourselves to feed our children

Prostitution is a choice more and more Iraqi women are making just to survive.

"It's increasing," Suha says. "I found this 'thing' through my friend, and I have another friend in the same predicament as mine. Because of the circumstance, she is forced to do such things."

Violence, increased cost of living, and lack of any sort of government aid leave women like these with few other options, according to humanitarian workers.

"At this point there is a population of women who have to sell their bodies in order to keep their children alive," says Yanar Mohammed, head and founder of the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq. "It's a taboo that no one is speaking about."

She adds, "There is a huge population of women who were the victims of war who had to sell their bodies, their souls and they lost it all. It crushes us to see them, but we have to work on it and that's why we started our team of women activists."

Refugees don’t fare much better:

Iraqi Refugees Turn To Prostitution

Many Women In Syria Are Forced To Sell Their Bodies To Support Their Families

(CBS) It's after midnight, and the action on the Jermana strip on the edge of Damascus is just picking up. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that this might seem an unlikely place to look for war refugees from Iraq, but inside — beyond the musicians and the floor show — they are there.

These refugees are selling the only thing they have left of any value: their bodies. In the clubs, the waiters act as dealmakers between clients and the Iraqi prostitutes.

This is the Arab world, where a woman's honor means everything. The fact that so many Iraqi women refugees are turning to prostitution is a mark of their desperation.

Historically, women and children have suffered the most during times of war. So I really have to question the agenda of those who would claim war with Iran will be good for women in that country. Sane people know better.

The Hoax With The Most

We all suspected MarryOurDaughter.org was a hoax -- at least, I know we all hoped it was (though with movements like QuiverFull it’s hard to know).

Now Newsweek has interviewed the creator of the site. Yes it is a hoax--sort of:

As it turns out, Ordover’s intentions go deeper than poking fun. He says he was hired by a group of women from a local support group who'd been married out in similar fashions—and wanted to draw attention to a very real problem. Marriage laws vary by state in the U.S. and are often in conflict with statutory-rape laws, he says—meaning that, with parental permission, it's not uncommon to find girls as young as 13 married with children in states where the legal age of sexual consent is more like 17. "This is an issue that people are extremely complacent about, and I said, 'I think I can find a way to get people to care, or at least start talking about it'," Ordover says. He hopes the site will generate controversy and spur outraged readers to pressure their local legislators to elevate the marriage age.

The MarryOurDaughter site received 60 million hits in one week, according to the article; what’s truly creepy is the real e-mails the site received, like this one:

“Darling Makayla, Seeing your bright smile among the other girls on this site was a joy among joys—to see someone so obviously full of life and laughter made me keep coming back to your profile,” writes one suitor, who identifies himself as Mark B. “I want to provide you with everything you need, I want to have a partnership that will last a lifetime. You love to laugh, and I would love to make you laugh for the rest of our lives ... Please consider me as a husband.”

Makayla is the 15-year-old whose “bride’s price” was $24,995.

And then there's this e-mail:

Someone who appears to be a mother signing up her daughter writes that her 16-year-old, Elizabeth, is “uppity but very pretty, and says she wants to work for the United Nation when she grows up. She's a liberal, and extremely smart and needs a strong, Christian man to help guide her.” Her bride price: $45,000—set high, she says, “because we see this as an investment."

Of course, there’s no way of knowing if these e-mails are hoax responses, but I suspect at least a few are not.

There’s something truly wrong with a culture that still, after all this time, views women as property, incapable of making their own decisions, needing “guidance.” Baby's still got a long way to go.