amaditalks:

On Tuesday, after liveblogging my read-through of Pennsylvania’s HB1077, the bill which would force unwanted endovaginal ultrasounds on most persons seeking an abortion in the state, I sent a scathing email to my state representative, Harry Readshaw, who is a co-sponsor of the bill. To be entirely fair, I dislike my representative a great deal. He’s nominally a democrat, yet he’s entirely anti-choice, he also introduced a copy of the Arizona “papers please” anti-immigrant bill in this legislative session. I don’t know why he calls himself a democrat, but he does, and I hold him accountable. I wrote:

Dear Representative Readshaw:

I know this message will fall on deaf ears as you’re firmly committed to destroying my constitutional right to control my reproductive life, nevertheless, this legislation that you are co-sponsoring is both onerous and offensive and I feel it my responsibility as your constituent to let you know that your support of this bill completely erodes any possibility of my continued support for you.

Fact: there is no evidence, from actual empirical studies, that ultrasounds change people’s minds when they’re seeking an abortion. All that these “educational” ultrasounds do is add unneeded time, expense and delay to the process and, as a consequence, increase the number of medical complications that arise. If the goal is to improve women’s health, this bill is already a failure on its face.

Fact: More than 60% of those seeking an abortion already have had at least one child. they know what pregnancy is, how it works, and what continuing an unwanted pregnancy would mean to their lives and the lives of their families. they don’t need counseling, waiting periods or extra ultrasounds to “know” as per this “right to know” concept.

Women do have independent intellect. We are able to come to decisions about important issues in our lives without being handheld or spoonfed information, and if there’s information that women want or need to know, we are capable of asking for ourselves.

The arrogant overriding of women’s agency and presumption of women’s ignorance inherent in this bill, from its very first line, and the “right to know” language makes me wonder: if women are so dreadfully incapable of independent decision making and learning, how on earth are they meant to parent the end results of the pregnancies that they’re being encouraged not to terminate? Or the children that they already have?

The illogical position that you are espousing by co-sponsoring and, I’m sure, ultimately voting for this repulsive piece of legislation speaks volumes about your inherent disdain and mistrust of women and bigotry against us. Given that, I’m not sure why you think that more than half of the electorate should support you, given that you’ve demonstrated time and again how little you think of us, our abilities and ultimately, our humanity.

Yeah, I was a little bit fired up, because this bill? Is ridiculous. (Yes, I also went to “women” rather than my normal gender neutral language. This dude is a Neanderthal, no way was he going to grasp the point of gender neutrality.)

Today, I received an oversized manilla envelope from Rep. Readshaw. Inside was a printout of HB 1077, a printout of some database’s information about me, indicating where I live, that I’m not the head of the household (why/how it knows this I do not know) and a few other things about me, like ethnicity, that no elected official should or needs to know. I’m going to have to get to the bottom of that.

Also included was a printout of my email, with the phrases “will fall on deaf ears” “destroying my constitutional right” and “my continued support for you” underlined in red ink. Apparently these phrases were exceptionally offensive? I don’t know.

And then there was the letter you see above. Handwritten by the representative himself, in all its chickenscratchy, grammatically questionable glory.

Let’s break it down together, shall we? First, note the black bar? That’s where the letter was addressed to me solely by my first name. (Government name, hence the censoring.) Not Ms. Lastname, not even Dear Firstname, just Firstname, as if he knows me and is writing to a friend. I don’t play that way. I gave him the respect of referring to him by title, he’ll do the same if he ever addresses me again.

He writes:

I know this message will fall on deaf ears but….. I do not choose to debate “intellect” vs. morals. As I believe morals should overwhelmingly be the favorite.

This is obviously a reference to my amazing assertion that “women do have independent intellect.” He disdains that, clearly. And thinks that if we choose abortion, we’re immoral. And I, by extension, am immoral for my stance. The inference is pretty clear to me, how about you? So this is a moral issue, which says to me that it’s not a legal issue. If it’s about morality, that’s not for the state to legislate to me, it’s for me to determine a course of action about, perhaps with the people I trust to discuss moral issues with, and whose guidance I can trust.

Let’s move on, though, shall we?

This blew my socks off. The arrogance and ignorance you’re about to read from a sitting elected official is absolutely breathtaking.

There should be no need to consider “what continuing an unwanted pregnancy would mean to their lives.” This can be controlled by contraception. Why create and kill? Simply, do not create….. Be responsible!

Where do I start? Apparently in whatever fantasy land this man inhabits, everyone has access to contraceptives. We know this is false. We know that this is demonstrably false. Apparently in that same fantasy land, contraception is 100% effective in every case. We know that this is demonstrably false. Apparently in that same fantasy land there is no rape, no coercion, no sexual abuse, no domestic violence, no birth control sabotage. There should be no need to consider. Nothing to think about. Just move along, you irresponsible killer sluts.

How dare he? I’m seething here. Seething.

Seven cosponsors are women of HB1077 and I do not believe any of the cosponsors have a “disdain and mistrust of women or bigotry against them.”

Once again, he misuses quotes to try to paraphrase things I wrote in my email, and does dreadful things to proper English grammatical syntax. Also? I really don’t care what he believes, the evidence contradicts him. This bill says in the very first line that we are too ignorant to understand our own pregnancies. It’s disdainful, it’s brimming with mistrust of our knowledge and our ability to make decisions for ourselves, ask questions for ourselves or understand our needs and those of our families, and I’ll stand by bigotry every day. That’s what underpins this all. And yes, women can be bigoted against other women. I think we’ve all seen and experienced that. It’s evident on its face — if you’re willing to look.

You stated my position is “illogical” and your feeling is no doubt prompted by disagreement with my stance on the subject.

Really? Are you just now getting that, Harry? Also, note that word feeling I don’t have thoughts or positions or stances, I have feelings. Little hypersensitive woman that I am. Yeah, the tone is clear, isn’t it?

Now, prepare to be appalled, if you’re not already, because he’s about to cross a line so broad and so unbelievable it will take your breath away.

I have a daughter that is not biologically capable of having a child due to complications. She cannot bear a child and you want to kill them. She has also experienced 2 miscarriages. Sorry, I disagree with your convictions.

HE JUST DISCLOSED HIS DAUGHTER’S PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION IN AN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY HIS SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AND GENERAL ANTI-CHOICE POSITION.

Sorry for shouting, no, actually, I’m not. I am beyond disbelief that he believes that this woman’s personal pain, her private information, her reproductive status is fair game to be bandied around like this, to be used to score political points, as a gotcha at me. She can’t have babies and I want to KILL THEM! What kind of person am I that I could possibly support other people having autonomy over their own reproduction when she doesn’t have any?

What kills me is that he doesn’t actually know whether I’m pro-choice. My email to him didn’t say. I’m opposed to forced endovaginal ultrasounds before abortions, that doesn’t mean that I necessarily like abortions. For the record, I don’t much care for them. I wish no one ever had to have one. But that isn’t reality. Even with ideal comprehensive sexual education, universal healthcare and unfettered contraceptive access there will still be pregnancies that cannot be sustained. That’s why I’m pro-choice because I recognize reality, and because it’s not my right to interfere in other people’s medical choices.

But it doesn’t matter to him. Anyone who has support for autonomy is some kind of horrible monster who’d kill the precious thing his daughter wants and can’t have.

What he doesn’t know, couldn’t know, in his fantasy land of assumptions and presumptions, is that I too am actually incapable of having much-wanted children. (I’ll give benefit of the doubt that his daughter actually is, that he’s not making that up to justify himself.) And yet, despite the fact that being pregnant would make me incredibly happy, and won’t ever happen, I still recognize that my desire to be pregnant is not universal and I cannot expect other people to continue pregnancies that they do not want, cannot afford, cannot physically or emotionally sustain, just because of my feelings about pregnancy for me. I am not other people. I cannot expect them to live their lives as I would. That’s kind of the cornerstone of what liberty is, isn’t it?

Let’s press on, before I get all maudlin all over this thing.

As of this date, you are the only person other than 2 medical doctors that have contacted me in the negative.

Huh, doctors are opposed to a broadly invasive and overreaching bill that directly interferes with patient care and injects politics into treatment rooms. Is that surprising? Is that extraordinary? I don’t think so. And when this thing blows up, as Texas should have and Virginia has, and it will, I think that this number will change. And now, I’m going to do my best to be sure of it.

One last note, remember when I said that in the envelope with the letter was a printout of some database’s information about me? Check out the last line again:

Congratulations on your voting record it is very good!

I’m going to presume that there is some database that shows how many times I’ve voted since I registered in 1991. (The answer is “twice a year, every year, or 42 times thus far.) But why is he looking that up before sending me a letter in response to me writing to him? Why is it germane? Why is it his business? Why is it legal? Do I not get a letter if I don’t vote or vote often enough for his tastes? I’m going to be looking into this too, I assure you.

Now, the question is: what to do about this. First, I’m definitely writing him back, and calling. I have a few words to say, the first of which will be don’t you ever call me by first name again. Start with basic respect and work from there.

Other than that? I’m not sure. I’m still seething. I’ve been essentially called an immoral baby killer here, by my elected representative, and he’s disclosed information about his daughter that is reprehensible. There should be some consequences for this.

I’d say that you should all email Representative Readshaw and let him know what you think of his letter, but he only accepts email from constituents. But if anyone is inclined to send him postal mail

Representative Harry A. Readshaw
1917 Brownsville Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15210

or
Room 122 Irvis Office Building
House Box 202020
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020

If you’re inclined to call or fax:

Call: 412-881-4208 or 717-783-0411
Fax: 412-886-2077 or 717-705-2007

If you have other suggestions for responses, please share. I don’t think that this should go unaddressed.

Un-fucking-believable.

volatileessence:

Of course, the story’s not that easy or that simple. And, quite possibly, by writing this I may push away people I’ve come to like and care about in this space.

But I’m tired of hiding this thing. Tired of pretending I’m ashamed of this, because I’m not.

I’m also tired of…

siracusa:

I like pasta. I’d like to help people make better pasta. It pains me to think about all the poorly prepared pasta being served and eaten in America. I’m specifically talking about plain old store-bought dried pasta. Nothing fancy. You’ve probably made some yourself.

I’m specifically not talking…

brainmatter:

“Hey Bill, it’s Steve…”

So much has been written and said about Steve Jobs and the success he had bringing Apple back from the brink and making it what it is today. But there’s one element of the turnaround that, on a human level, is maybe as remarkable as the technological vision and…

meeca:

(This list will be forever in-progress. Please add on as you see fit).

• Challenge sexist jokes, such as dumb blonde jokes or jokes about rape.
• Avoid using words such as “bitch”, “ho”, “slut.”
• Recognize when you “zone out” when women are speaking, when you value a man’s opinion more than a woman’s, or when you ask a man for information or advice rather than a woman.
• Recognize times when you “zone out” when a woman is speaking because you are sexualizing her.
• In group efforts, take on tasks such as photocopying, note taking, making phone calls, or providing childcare, which are usually given to women; encourage women to take on male-dominated tasks such as leading meetings, or acting as a spokesperson.
• Use gender-neutral language (ex. Firefighter, chairperson).
• Do not tell a woman how she should understand, express, or conceptualize experiences of discrimination and sexism.
• If a woman is offended by your actions or words, do not use tone arguments. If she does not accept your apology, recognize that she does not owe you anything.
• Check in regularly with your intimate partner(s) to make sure they feel comfortable, fulfilled and empowered by your intimacy.
• Do not make sexist jokes about how your partner (or any woman) drags you to go see chick flicks, forces you to go shopping, has you whipped, or is irritable because she is menstruating. Challenge others when they make these jokes. Avoid playing the role of the long-suffering man who has to hold a woman’s shopping bags and put up with her frivolities and vanity. 
• Be polite, thoughtful, and considerate to women because they are individuals who deserve respect, not because you’re a “gentleman” or because of chauvinistic ideals.
• When a woman is completing a task, refrain from stepping in and telling her or showing her “the best way to do that.” Of course, if she asks for your advice or requires help, feel free to do so. But recognize that women are just as competent and capable as you.
• Apologize if you realize you may have offended someone, whether they mention it or not. Do not say: “If that offended you then I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to.” Instead, frankly tell them: “I’m sorry I did that and I recognize it wasn’t okay. I’ll try harder next time.”
• Do not use expressions such as “grow a pair”, “be a man”, “man up”, or “stop being a bitch.”
• Reject forms of media and entertainment that promote sexism. Don’t excuse sexism and discrimination just because “it’s a really good movie.”
• Recognize that just because you are a feminist or work to challenge sexism does not mean you lose gender privilege.
• Do not be offended if you offer to help a woman and she rejects your help. Although you may genuinely have meant to be a good citizen by offering to help lift heavy objects or holding open a door, accept that the woman does not need your help, and that this does not make her a “bitch.”
• Recognize that while some women do hate men and do discriminate against men, that this sort of discrimination occurs in isolation, while sexism against women is backed by centuries of literature, scientific discourse, power/knowledge, philosophy, media representations, “common sense” discourse, etc.
• Realize that representations of women that you might find positive or fair might not be empowering to women. Notice that the vast majority of “positive” female characters or depictions in the media are highly sexualized to appeal to a male audience.
• Understand that much of what you’ve been taught to take for granted (that you are allowed to have an opinion and to voice it; that you can take up all the space you need; that you can become whoever you want; that you can pursue any career or dream you like) is often painfully untrue for women.
• When anyone tells you to stop, or says “no”, or does not actively give consent during any sort of physical contact or intimacy, immediately stop what you are doing. Do not sulk. Do not interrogate if the person is unwilling to explain. Do not complain or make them feel as though their choice to decide what sort of intimacy they want is not an empowered, safe choice.
• Do not make explanations such as “I didn’t mean anything by it”, “It was a joke, you’re just sensitive”, or “I’m not sexist, I have a lot of female friends.” If you have offended someone, listen carefully and learn from the experience. 
• Do not police women’s bodies by deciding that “women shouldn’t plaster their faces with makeup”, or that “women should stop dressing like sluts to please men.” 

(Thank you to everyone who has been reblogging and adding to this discussion. I recognize that this list is certainly simplistic in that it arguably supports a gender binary, and that it glosses over issues of race, class, sexual orientation, age, and so on. I felt this list wasn’t a sufficient place to properly address those issues, but as many of you have mentioned many of these actions can also be taken by allies looking to challenge racism, homophobia, etc.)

jwisser:

Does it mean the same thing (a) to work to ensure that everyone else shares the same privilege I do, and (b) to work to reduce my own privilege (and the privilege of those like me)?

In what ways are these things different? Is one better than the other? Am I framing this in a way that flatters me…

This will probably be woefully inadequate because it’s late and I need to get to bed, but I’ve been wondering for a while if privilege is the best term for this. It feels to me like saying people with privilege are elevated above a baseline made up of “average” people with little or no privilege; that they’re somehow more special. I feel like maybe it should be the opposite: that what we now call people with privilege should be the baseline, and something that every person is entitled to by virtue of simply being human, and people without privilege should therefore be seen as having something as essential as their right to free speech taken from them.

Note: I have not read that book and I am very open to being proven wrong about this idea (assuming I’ve explained it adequately, of course).

stfuandlistenwhitepeople:

fuckyeahasianmen:

Guys, I NEED you to sign this petition

somewhitenonsense:

thatllbe63fiftynotincludingtip:

On December 13, 2011, Mark Gomes, a school bus driver was getting ready for work when ICE agents banged on his door at 5:30 A.M….

ponypuns:

nikiya:

stormofthunder:

“From what I can tell it’s even LESS known than ACTA. I haven’t even been able to find any YouTube videos on it.

Here are two lovely quotes I think you will find interesting:

“A leaked version of the February 2011 draft U.S. TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter indicates that U.S. negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.”

“The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the U.S. entertainment and pharmaceutical industries, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.”

Yep, more restrictive than ACTA.

Countries will be forced to rewrite their copyright laws and adopt this agreement’s (beyond sucky) laws.

I don’t really know much about this myself, but here are a few points summarized from the article:
-Temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without permission will count as infringement. (So I’m guessing you can’t put your music on an external drive if you’re getting a new computer?)
-Countries can’t import legitimate goods without copyright owner approval. (So basically Japan could say that USA is no longer allowed to import anime.)
-Extend the Life+70 years copyright in individual work, and the 95 years after publication/120 years for corporation stuff.
-Ban circumvention of digital locks. (DMCA is a whole host of issues in and of itself.)
-“Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation.” (Pretty self-explanatory there.)
-“Adopt the U.S. DMCA Internet Intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. This would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently provides for a judicial notice and takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA’s copyright safe harbor regime.” (Couldn’t have said it better myself.)” - WindieDragon

Mother of fucking god, I am seriously getting tired of the fucking US continuously fucking trying to fuck shit up by making so much fucking shit and caring so fucking much about fucking copyright and fucking intellectual fucking properly fucking problems when there are so many other fucking much more fucking important fucking problems that have to be fucking taken fucking care of. Fuck.

I don’t fucking care if this will fucking fill my fucking fuck quota of the fucking month, holy fucking shit balls on a dick.

I don’t fucking even fucking FUCK.

Just spread this shit. Just fucking do it.

ffs

Fun fact - Obama supports it, too!

One word: FUCK

Okay, a few more words: spreading this around is great and all, but what can we do to actually stop it? Because this clearly needs to be stopped.