Trent Franks, the Arizona Republican who proposed a 20-week abortion ban in Washington, DC and then barred DC’s pro-choice female delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from speaking out against the measure has a new problem on his hands: a flood of DC residents who are bringing their municipal complaints directly to the Congressman, who they’re calling “Mayor.” From potholes to rodent problems to public transportation complaints, DC residents have followed Franks’ lead and begun funneling their problems to him rather than the city’s own government. Well played, smartasses. Well fucking played.
The protest was a cooperative effort between Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington DC and a group called DC Vote, which aims to secure representation for DC in Congress. Today, about 50 DC residents eagerly waited outside of Rep. Franks’ door, ready to let “Mayor Franks” know how he could make his newly claimed city better. According to the Huffington Post‘sLaura Bassett, some carried plastic rats, some toted pictures of the potholes they wanted Mayor Franks to fill, and some brought disputed parking tickets.
But not everyone got the chance for face time with Mayor Franks, the Arizonan who just sorta declared himself King of DC’s D&C’s. One put-out resident explained his complaint,
My issue today is metro — full funding for metro. As a constituent here, I use metro all the time, my children use it, and it’s really disgraceful the condition they’ve allowed metro to get to. I have to say I’m very disappointed today. I really wanted to meet my representative, Mr. Franks. He’s supposed to be representing us and I did take some time to come in here today, so I hope he takes these concerns into account.
When confronted on the absurdity of a man from Arizona trying to legislate the rights of women in DC, Franks explained that it wasn’t about Arizona, or DC, or women. It’s about “the pain of the fetus.”
Category: Full Frontal Feminism
It isn’t freedom
If you have no agency over your own body.
The latest line from the Obama cheerleaders is that the wimmenz should just shut up and sit down, or big bad Romney will make the next SCOTUS appointment. That kind of brilliant strategy has led to the fact that in many states, women can no longer get an abortion. That’s mind-boggling. Soon it will be like the old days, when women ran an underground service that brought women to NYC, which was then the only place in the US where abortion was available.
Yeah, what Liss said. This is bullshit.
Sponsor a uterus
I stole this from Digby:
Defunding Planned Parenthood in PA
I am so sick of these goddamned people. And now, they’re going to do it to Pennsylvania:
A bill to defund Planned Parenthood will be introduced in the Pennsylvania state legislature this week.
The bill, like similar efforts in Texas and Arizona, will put the women’s health provider at the end of the list for any federal funding, according to the Huffington Post. But it isn’t even written by the Pennsylvania state legislature. Rather, the bill is an effort by the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List:[State Rep. Daryl] Metcalfe’s bill, the Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act, would put health care providers that offer abortion services at the bottom of the priority list for state funding. The anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List wrote the bill, which closely resembles the one Arizona lawmakers used to defund Planned Parenthood earlier this year.
Planned Parenthood clinics receive a substantial percentage of their money through state and federal government funding streams, including Medicaid and Titles V, X and XX. The clinics use the funds to offer breast cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, pap smears, maternity care and other medical services for low-income and uninsured patients.
Federal funding cannot be used for abortion services at Planned Parenthood. However, that funding is used for vital well woman care, particularly for low-income women, and women who live in rural areas and have few health care options.
Another piece of the glass ceiling
The new millennium has not brought much progress for women seeking top leadership roles in the workplace. Although female graduates continue to pour out of colleges and professional schools, the percentages of women running large companies, or serving as managing partners of their law firms, or sitting on corporate boards have barely budged in the past decade.
Why has progress stalled? A recent study suggests the unlikeliest of reasons: the marriage structure of men in the workplace.
A group of researchers from several universities recently published a report on the attitudes and beliefs of employed men, which shows that those with wives who did not work outside the home or who worked part-time were more likely than those with wives who worked to: (1) have an unfavorable view about women in the workplace; (2)think workplaces run less smoothly with more women; (3) view workplaces with female leaders as less desirable; and (4) conside female candidates for promotion to be less qualified than comparable male colleagues.
The researchers also found that the men who exhibited resistance to women’s advancement were “more likely to populate the upper echelons of organizations and thus, occupy more powerful positions.”
Their conclusion? “Marriage structures play an important role in economic life beyond the four walls of the house.” They affect how people view gender roles and how they categorize others. And, as Harvard professor Mahzarin Banaji has documented in her work, using the Implicit Association Test, this can happen even unconsciously.
Parental guidance
For years, whenever I’ve been forced to sit through a children’s dance recital, I’ve been appalled at how blatantly they sexualize little girls. (I can assure you if I’d had girls, if they wanted to take dance lessons, I’d be sure to find a place that didn’t make them wiggle like miniature hookers.) Like this video, for instance: Why is it necessary to make nine-year-olds look like pole dancers? “Oh, because all the competition is wearing the same thing!” See how that works? (via Riverdaughter.)
Dear daughter
A mother tells her little girl that she is hated, just for being a girl.
I just learned that my “googie” is not properly groomed…..
I have to thank Joe, my social network friend, that is mostly offends to me with his sexist posts, who is still is in a 8O’s style “hair band” to point out that this stupidity.
I have just learned that a “brown” googie that does not have a haircut is not just not acceptable.
Joe disagrees. In some ways I guess he is a feminist, or just a guy.
Here is the article from Jezebel.
Good news, ladies! Society has discovered another new thing that’s wrong with you, which means another opportunity for you to make yourself more attractive for your man. Score! Turns out, the color of your vagina is gross and everyone hates it. So bleach that motherfucker. Bleach it right now!
***Sigh***
The agonizing ecstasies
by Susie
Of male contraception!
Your turn, fellas.
Hmm. Well!
I have to agree: The guys whose wives stay home do seem to have a bit of what we would call in Philadelphia an “attytude” problem. And as the study says, it’s not overt hostility toward women – it’s more of a paternalistic upper-management mentality:
By insisting on staying the breadwinners for their families, men seem to also be subconsciously buying into the idea that their wives shouldn’t work. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2010 (as cited in the study), there are more than 11 million men in such arrangements, contributing to a culture opposed to women working. The study suggests that these men might be characterized as “benevolent sexists,” but clarifies they are not likely to be overtly hostile towards women.
There is an age-old problem with being a woman at home, and it has to do with distribution and claiming of power. The woman’s opinions are too frequently seen as advisory-only (except in the areas traditionally designated to women: children, decor, schools, etc.) and it’s been my observation through the years that women then indulge in covert strategies to assert their power. In other words, “what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.” So purchases are made in secret and smuggled into the home, much like an “I Love Lucy” episode.
You see a lot of hostage-like negotiation in which the financial hostage (wife) isn’t even aware that she’s conceded her right to partnership power. Instead, she’s focused on wheedling, nagging, cajoling and subterfuge. No way for grownups to act!
A lot of guys like it, though. After all, it’s familiar to them. Their mothers did it (or their mothers didn’t do it, and the sons preferred they had), it seemed to keep the family together, what’s the big deal? The big deal is, one “partner” in this sort of relationship is accepting inferior status. The other partner is agreeing.
Over the past few years, I’ve had male friends mention how much they wished their wives would go to work. “But not a real job,” they’re quick to add. “Just something to help out.” Because if women insist on career jobs, it’s a lot more threatening than a part-time gig at a convenience store, I suppose.
I’ve also known couples where both partners have careers, but the husband makes a lot more money. That person seems to retain the same paternal mindset as if she wasn’t working at all, which is interesting.
The marriages in which both partners earn a comparable amount of money seem to me to be a lot happier, I suppose because they’re not fighting about money – or at least, not from the power perspective.
I’m interested in hearing about your own experiences, both men and women. What do you think?