Category Archives: framing

Obama Declares War on Pro-Choice Americans: No One Notices.

Lipstick on a Misogynist Pig

Lipstick on a Misogynist Pig

FAIR WARNING: This is a rant. With swear words and everything. Caution, earmuffs and burn cream are recommended before proceeding.

Oh my Goddess, did you read what our Dear Leader said last night? (I’m assuming that most of you didn’t watch, lest you die from Obama Narcissism Overload, or at the very least, overdose on the saccharine ejaculations of the chattering classes over the Bestest, Most Melanin-Enhanced Preznit Evah.) Did you fucking read what this condescending, preening creep said about being pro-choice in America?

First of all, he said that the issue of abortion is not just about women’s freedom. Yes, you heard that right, sweeties. It’s NOT about being free to control your own body. (I have to admit, a small part of me wonders if he read my post yesterday; the coincidence is just bizarre!)

THE PRESIDENT: You know, my view on abortion I think has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I’m pro-choice is because I don’t think women take that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day, and I think they are in a better position to make these decision ultimately than members of Congress or a President of the United States — in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy. So that’s been my consistent position.

All right, stay with me here, I know your heads are rotating 360 degrees and you’re wanting to projectile-vomit. I feel ya, sisters and brothers!

So on the one hand, he says that pro-choice Americans are wrong to make access to abortion about women’s freedom. Then, Both Ways Barack says that no one in the government should make those decisions for women because they’re the best ones to make that decision. So if no one in the government should make those decisions for women, then it’s a private matter, right? Then it IS about women’s freedom to control their own bodies without the government interfering, you fucking asshole!

Continue reading

Advertisements

Yes, I Will Rant About Obama’s Declaration of War Against Pro-Choice Women.

Woman At Work

Woman At Work

I promise, you won’t be disappointed.

But right now, I gotta do a little thing called “work.”

Check you later. Just know that I’m as angry as you are.

Toxic Meme Alert! Today’s Phrase is: Abortion Rights

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Abortion rights: the term is everywhere these days. 

Pro-choice organizations use it; anti-choice organizations use it. The phrase seems to have slipped into today’s lexicon without making a splash. But really, what does it mean?

Let me ask you, feminist females who are in the pro-choice camp. Do you want abortion rights? Are you going to go around carrying a sign saying, “My body, my abortion?”

I don’t think so.

I believe that this meme is classic rightwing ratf*cking from the Gingrich school, and to use it is giving the He-Man Woman-Haters’ Club yet another victory in the framing wars.

Here’s how they do it. First, they smear pro-choice activists as “pro-abortion” (yes, this meme is all over anti-choice sites). BZZZZZT! Wrong-o. No woman is pro-abortion. No woman says,”Hooray! I’m getting an abortion today!” No woman goes skipping down the street, deciding between a mani-pedi, lunch with Samantha, Carrie and Charlotte, and an abortion. That idea is pure misogynistic crap. Women are airheads who can’t be trusted to make these decisions, the fundiegelicals imply (or state outright). These godless temptresses think abortion is cool and hip. They don’t want the responsibility of caring for the child they, apparently, created all by themselves out of angel wings and holy water (because of course, men are never blamed or held responsible for an unwanted pregnancy by the fundies).

Continue reading

Word Games

Just Words?

Just Words?

I have said it before many times: Republicans are really, really fantastic at framing. They take an issue, and put it in such a way that if you try to disagree, you put yourself into a verbal noose that can’t be untied. One example is the phrase ,”I support the troops!” That is an essentially innocuous statement, but when KKKarl Rove gets a hold of it, it becomes, “I support the war in Iraq, and George W. Bush, and if you don’t, then why do you hate America?”

I had an interesting exchange with my online frenemy, “Republican in Seattle,” on my recent post “On Consciences, and Rules.” (I swear we’ll do karaoke someday, Republican!) Her tactics were most interesting. She tried to redefine the words “pro-choice” as meaning, “pro-EVERYONE’s choice.” This was her logic: If you’re REALLY pro-choice, you’ll support the choice of the pharmacist to deny a woman emergency contraception or birth control based on conscience.

Uh-uh. That’s not what “pro-choice” means. “Pro-choice” means pro – the woman’s choice. It means the woman’s choice is the most important when it comes to reproductive issues. How could it not be – it’s her life, her body, and her baby (or not).

The idea that my pro-choice position means I have to give a pharmacist power over my body is classic Republican doublethink. I expected her next to tell me that “some animals are more equal than others,” or that “we have always been at war with East Asia.”

But you see what she did there? If you’re not paying attention, these types of word games could really sway you into thinking that “pro-choice” means…well, its exact opposite. 

Continue reading

The Law of Unintended? Consequences

Trust Me!

Trust Me!

I’ve been doing a bit of research on Governor Janet Napolitano, and have read many contradicting things about her qualifications and ability to do the job of Director of Homeland Security. I just can’t get a bead on her, so I am adopting a “wait and see” attitude and hoping she will bring some fresh ideas, organizational ability, and competence to the position. I do like the fact that she is female, of course.

Unfortunately, her appointment may be a net negative for the population of Arizona – the pro-freedom population, that is (I use  the words “pro-freedom” and “anti-freedom” because “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are inaccurate and misleading, in my opinion.)

Should Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama’s pick for homeland security chief, be confirmed as expected by the Senate, Napolitano will need to step down from her current position as governor of Arizona.

The state has no lieutenant governor, and its laws dictate that the governor, who is a Democrat, be replaced by Secretary of State Jan Brewer – a Republican.

The Associated Press reports that Brewer, who would be governor through 2010, “had a reputation as a fiscal hard-liner and conservative on social issues while a legislator in the 1980s and 1990s, so her taking over the governorship would mean a new approach from Napolitano’s direction.”

Since governors are not members of a legislative body along the lines of the House or Senate, a shift from blue to red in the Arizona governor’s office doesn’t hold great national significance. There would be far more fanfare if a Senate seat was to switch hands due to an Obama cabinet selection, though such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

Hmmm…the new Governor, Jan Brewer, will be far more conservative with regard to “social issues.”  That sounds a bit ominous.

The CBS story doesn’t go into more details, perhaps because the story is not of “national significance,” or perhaps because the consequences of Jan Brewer’s ascendancy might be a bit more serious for pro-freedom advocates than the “news” outlet would like to admit. But hey – some folks are over the moon. Apparently Governor Napolitano has been a one-woman wall against a veritable tidal wave of anti-freedom state legislation, using her veto pen to protect womens’ rights time and again.

Now, that wall will be gone.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Incoming president Barack Obama has picked pro-abortion Gov. Janet Napolitano to become his new head of the Department of Homeland Security. (MB’s Note: They’re using “pro-abortion” now instead of “pro-choice.” I’m seeing this new frame more and more, and we should not allow it to pass unnoticed or unchallenged. It’s absolutely disgusting how these people manipulate the language to demonize women.) Napolitano constantly chagrined pro-life advocates with her vetoes of pro-life legislation and the pick may help get pro-life laws on the books there.

Napolitano would have to survive a Senate confirmation vote, which isn’t expected to be difficult despite some criticism of her on other issues.

Should she be confirmed, pro-life Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer would become the state’s next governor — which appears to be good news for pro-life groups.

That would put pro-life advocates in control of both the state legislature and the governor’s seat and would theoretically make it easier to get new laws on the books.

Napolitano has been a formidable obstacle as governor. She vetoed every piece of abortion legislation that has come across her desk — seven pro-life measures in total.

Continue reading

Churches and Gay Marriage: Why Don’t They Mix?

(NOTE: My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims of terrorism in Mumbai. Such a terrible tragedy. I just can’t write more about it today.)

Why Is This Scary?

Why Is This Scary?

After the passage of California’s Proposition 8,  I’ve been shaking my head over why many religious institutions are virulently against gay marriage. This interview with Richard Rodriguez, an author, fervent Catholic, proud Hispanic, and “out” gay man, has a very interesting take on the subject. According to him, it’s all about the family and the wimminz, and how the church is afraid of losing its power over them both. I have to admit that I’ve never heard of this theory before, but Rodriguez makes a convincing case for his point of view.

The first couple of paragraphs pack quite a wallop.

For author Richard Rodriguez, no one is talking about the real issues behind Proposition 8.

While conservative churches are busy trying to whip up another round of culture wars over same-sex marriage, Rodriguez says the real reason for their panic lies elsewhere: the breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family and the shifting role of women in society and the church itself. As the American family fractures and the majority of women choose to live without men, churches are losing their grip on power and scapegoating gays and lesbians for their failures.

Rodriguez goes on to say this about how the feminist movement and the gay rights movement are linked, in the minds of those who are invested in religious institutions:

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn’t declining, it’s increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people — it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

In such a world, we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. These movements began, in some sense, to achieve visibility alongside one another. I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women’s movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually — even form our sense of what a sex is — sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.

Continue reading

The Politics of Fear?

This Woman Is Not Scary!
This Woman Is Not Scary!

If you have been paying attention to all the Palin-mania over the past few weeks, you might notice a common thread running through all the negativity: Fear.

Here are just some of the things we are supposed to fear about Governor Palin:

These claims, despite their zero basis in fact, can easily be believed by the Democratic Party faithful. They simply reinforce our underlying credo that Republicans are evil, hateful, ignorant idiots, just as the Party Republican faithful believe we Democrats are weak, unpatriotic, foolish moonbats.

But to win a Presidential election, both parties must convince the undecided voters, since neither party makes up a majority of the electorate. And here’s something we may not realize about these folks: They’re not stupid. They’re not uninformed.

They just don’t agree with us.

Continue reading