Let Me Get Back To You On That Whole "Equality" Thing.
Two quick notes that will make you pull your hair and scream.
First, via Feministing, there's this asshole. Colorado Representative Larry Liston called pregnant teenagers "sluts":
Liston used the derogatory term during a Republican caucus lunch on health care to express his view that unmarried teen parents are sexually promiscuous and to complain that society condones premarital sex.
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Liston said at the lunch. "There was at least a sense of shame.
"There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts."
Liston apologized for his word choice Thursday afternoon.
"I'm definitely sorry that I ever used that word . . . I had no intention of offending anybody. That was not my intent all - never was, never has been."
Why is it I suspect that apology to be of recent anal extraction?
Second, via Women's Health News and Confederacy of Dunces, Senator Doug Henry also pines for days of yore:
Sen. Doug Henry, an 81-year-old Nashville Democrat, explaining to the state Senate his votes surrounding amendments to the abortion resolution: "Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, 'Let's don't go forward with this act.'"
Ah, rape and punishment. It's just not like it used to be when rape was a property crime and all young girls belonged to their daddies.
If you feel the urge to write to either of these inflamed anuses, you can use the following information:
Sen. Doug Henry
226 Capitol Blvd.
Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37219
Or
11 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243-0021
(615) 741-3291
sen.douglas.henry@legislature.state.tn.us
Larry Liston
303-866-2965
Larry.Liston.house@state.co.us
The letters I wrote are below:
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Republican Rep. Larry Liston said during a GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver.
"There was at least a sense of shame."
Liston continued: "There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."
Mr. Liston,
Has it ever occurred to you to investigate the consequences of sending those unmarried teen girls away? I realize that "out of sight, out of mind" comes easily to most people, and I realize it is easier to dismiss someone out of hand as immoral rather than help them deal with the consequences of their behavior, but as a man in a position of authority, I would expect you to show a little more insight.
Has it ever occurred to you that these "sluts" you are so bent on shaming may be victims of rape? Abuse? That they may not have been informed of ways to prevent pregnancy, or may have been lied to about how sex works? Has it occurred to you that many of these "sluts" are in genuine committed relationships, like the one I had at fourteen with a man I married at eighteen, and am still married to at thirty? Is it slutty to be a rape victim? Is it slutty to engage in behavior you don't know is risky? Is it slutty to have sex with someone you love, even if that's the only person you ever have sex with?
What exactly, Mr. Liston, is a "slut?"
Has it ever occurred to you that shunning young women who get pregnant solves nothing, and only creates more hardship for them, their families, and their children?
Has it ever occurred to you that it is not the government's job to define or regulate "slutty" behavior, or punish it? Has it occurred to you that punishing someone for something they were not equipped to avoid is incredibly cruel?
Has it ever occurred to you that society does not condone teen pregnancy, and in fact shames teenage mothers at every turn? Did you ever stop to think that your backwards opinion is entirely typical? Or do you feel that the enormous amounts of disdain heaped upon them are insufficient? How many teenage mothers have you spoken to?
Have you ever bothered to look into the rates of teen and pre-marital pregnancy before birth control and abortion became available? Are you even aware that your backwards, ignorant stance is only serving to make today's figures soar ever-higher?
I think that shame lies with those who would deny young men and women accurate, fact-based sex education so that they can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I think the shame lies with people who would punish young people for making irresponsible decisions or mistakes, instead of helping them to overcome them. I think the shame lies with those who categorize all sexual contact other than that between a married man and woman as "shameful." Our bodies were made to do it, and provided nobody gets hurt and everyone is responsible, there is nothing wrong with that.
Your apparent yearning for the "good old days" when young women were punished for accidents they often did not even know how to prevent betrays you as yet another ignorant misogynist in a position of power. One who does not understand the difference between a stupid mistake and an act that deserves shame, ostracism, and punishment. Crimes, Mr. Liston, deserve punishment, and criminals deserve to be shamed.
If you are so dead set in your belief that it is morally wrong to become pregnant before marriage, perhaps you might like to support bills that would educate our children and teach them to behave responsibly. I doubt you will, though, since you most likely believe that what's really shameful is not the pregnancy, but the fact that a teenaged boy or girl dared to have sex at all. And therein lies the heart of the matter: this stubborn insistence that there is something naturally wicked about sex, that people should not have it. That is a wrong view to take, though I don't imagine you will ever be capable of admitting that every human being deserves to enjoy their sexuality as they see fit, so long as they do not harm another living being in doing so.
But whatever you think of premarital sex and teen pregnancy, shaming children is not the answer. The answer, and your duty, Sir, is to create solutions. Solutions based on fact, not on woolly-headed wishful thinking about "how it used to be" and "how it ought to be" and how young men and women "ought" to act.
If you opened your eyes, you might see that it is the idea that sex is somehow inherently shameful that has done incredible damage, by preventing adults from arming their children with vital information about natural human sexuality. Attitudes like yours have led to young people living in shame and fear, abandoning their children in Wal-Marts and dumpsters, or smothering them, or committing suicide, because they feel they have nowhere to turn.
If you opened your eyes, perhaps you would find that children who are educated about sex, and its attendant risks and responsibilities, are more likely to make responsible choices. If you believed in doing the moral thing, you would see that denying young men and women the ability to control and prevent pregnancy, and then punishing them when it happens, is the height of stupid, short-sighted ignorance. Telling children nothing about sex, keeping it a dirty secret, only makes them more likely to engage in risky behavior and harm themselves and others.
Then again, you don't believe a woman can be trusted to make choices about her own body. You doubtless don't believe that a teenager could possibly behave responsibly, if given the knowledge necessary to do so. Never mind the fact that all of the young men and women I know who were educated about sex, who were given facts, only became parents when they were ready, long after leaving school. Never mind the fact that nearly every teenage mother I have ever met, ever (and in Oklahoma, that's a lot of teenage mothers), was one who was taught that sex is shameful, and who had not been given accurate, truthful, timely information about sex. You would prefer to believe that if you withhold knowledge and demand that all young people refrain from a perfectly natural, healthy behavior, you can force people to conform to your incredibly narrow views of morality; and you would also prefer to send the victims of your spiteful ignorance out to who knows what fate, rather than accept responsibility for the misfortunes your ill-conceived policies have wrought in such alarming numbers.
I strongly suggest that you come to a better, more inclusive and accurate understanding of human sexuality before you make statements about it that betray your utter ignorance.
A truly compassionate, Christian man would see that his responsibility to his fellow human beings does not mean he should punish them for making human mistakes.
I doubt you will change your thinking on this matter, since a man of logic and caring would not have said such a thing in the first place, but I nevertheless tender to you my earnest hopes that you and all of your ilk will be voted out of office promptly. I also hope, for their sake, that the young men and women in your family find a way to educate themselves properly, and stay safe and childless until such time as they are ready, all while getting the most possible joy out of their young bodies -- in defiance of your label of "slut."
Me? I'll be over here, enjoying myself and my sexuality, because I was taught not shame, but responsibility -- and the ideas that when and whether and how to have sex and when and whether and how to have children were and are entirely up to me and my partners, and not up to anyone else.
Sincerely,
A big ol' bisexual, pro-choice, Republican slut, who is giving you the finger on behalf of all women, all unmarried mothers, and all other sluts.
-- Amanda Gannon
"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it's simply, 'Let's don't go forward with this act.' "
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the above statement.
I would expect such boldly ignorant and hateful words from men in third-world countries where women are regarded as nothing more than property, as animals to be beaten or taken advantage of at will. I would expect that level of blind stupidity from a cross-burning Klan member toward black people. I'd certainly expect it from a rapist attempting to justify his hideous actions. I would even expect it from an ignorant, arrogant teenager with no life experience and nothing in the way of compassion.
I would never expect to hear such a thing from an elected official, and the fact that such words left your mouth is indicative of a deep-rooted ignorance about and hatefulness toward women and rape victims.
Rape is many things. Married and unmarried women can be raped. Chaste women can be raped, as can women who are sexually active. Rape can even -- hold on to your hat -- be committed by spouses.
Are you saying that only married women can be raped? Are you saying that only chaste women deserve protection? What, Mr. Henry, are you saying? Because to me, it sounds like you regard all unmarried, sexually active women as "sluts" who are incapable of withholding consent.
I want to know what sort of sick and twisted world you grew up in where a woman, married or unmarried, who was not "chaste" was considered fair game for any wandering jerk with a hard-on and a yen to use it. I want to know what you were taught that you believe a husband has a right to force sex on his wife, whether she wants it or not. I want to know how on earth you managed to survive 81 years on this planet without coming to the realization that women are people, too, and that we have every right to control our sexuality as we see fit.
That, Mr. Henry, includes saying "no" to sex and expecting that the other party will respect our wishes. Even if we have had sex with other men. Even if we have had sex with that person before. Even if that person is our husband.
If you sincerely believe that the only real definition of "rape" is the violent taking by force of a monogamous married woman, if you believe that sexual crimes committed against women who do not fit your definition of "chaste" are somehow less heinous than those committed against the virtuous and married, I suggest that you find some rape victims to talk to.
Victims like a friend of mine, who was abused and raped by her spouse almost nightly for most of a year before she managed to escape. According to you, this is not rape because the rapist was her husband.
Victims like another friend who was raped by an ex-boyfriend who apparently believed that having had her once was a never-expring free-ride pass, despite the fact that she had a restraining order against him. According to you, this was not rape, because my friend was not "chaste" and not married.
Victims like a girl I went to high school with, who went on a date with her boyfriend and, when things got out of hand, asked him to stop. He did not, and forced himself on her, raping her vaginally and anally, and dumping her at the side of the road to find her own way home. According to you, this was not rape, because my friend was not married.
Victims like a girl who, in the middle of sex with her boyfriend, decided that she did not want to perform a particular act; she was forced to do so anyway, said force resulting in physical injury. According to you, she was not raped because she had consented to sex, though not to that particular act.
At what point did you start thinking that it is all right for men to ignore it when a woman says "let's not go through with this act" and indicates that she does not want sex? Did you ever believe that a woman has a right to say no to a man? Do you think that consent, once given, is something that cannot be withdrawn, ever, no matter what the man attempts to do to her? Do you truly believe that husbands have the right to force themselves on their wives?
Mr. Henry, your words have revealed you as a vile, low-down human being, the worst of the worst. Rapists harm individual women, they sow misery and despair in their wake. But people like you spew poison like this unchecked, contributing to the culture of shame that surrounds rape and forces many rape victims to remain silent about their suffering out of fear of being outcast by reprehensible creatures like you. Their silence and suffering can last their entire lives, while their rapists run free.
Rapists cause harm. It is people like you that make it so difficult for women to heal from that harm, and make it so difficult for rapists to be prosecuted as such.
I strongly suggest you think long and hard before opening your mouth to hold forth on matters you quite clearly do not understand in the slightest. I am very sorry for the people you represent, since you apparently regard about half of them as not really people at all.
I would like to think that you would issue a public apology for your stupid, hurtful, hateful, vile words, but I doubt that you are capable of seeing the wrong in what you have done. I imagine it's more comfortable for you to live in bigoted ignorance than it is for you to face up to the fact that you are not only wrong, you are part of the problem.
People like you make me want to retch.
-- Amanda Gannon
A bit hasty, and I doubt they'll really make much of a dent in these morons' skulls, shielded as they are by their iron-clad assholes, but I simply had to say something.
And hey, it gives me a chance to use this icon, which I use too rarely.
First, via Feministing, there's this asshole. Colorado Representative Larry Liston called pregnant teenagers "sluts":
Liston used the derogatory term during a Republican caucus lunch on health care to express his view that unmarried teen parents are sexually promiscuous and to complain that society condones premarital sex.
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Liston said at the lunch. "There was at least a sense of shame.
"There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts."
Liston apologized for his word choice Thursday afternoon.
"I'm definitely sorry that I ever used that word . . . I had no intention of offending anybody. That was not my intent all - never was, never has been."
Why is it I suspect that apology to be of recent anal extraction?
Second, via Women's Health News and Confederacy of Dunces, Senator Doug Henry also pines for days of yore:
Sen. Doug Henry, an 81-year-old Nashville Democrat, explaining to the state Senate his votes surrounding amendments to the abortion resolution: "Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, 'Let's don't go forward with this act.'"
Ah, rape and punishment. It's just not like it used to be when rape was a property crime and all young girls belonged to their daddies.
If you feel the urge to write to either of these inflamed anuses, you can use the following information:
Sen. Doug Henry
226 Capitol Blvd.
Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37219
Or
11 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243-0021
(615) 741-3291
sen.douglas.henry@legislature.state.tn.us
Larry Liston
303-866-2965
Larry.Liston.house@state.co.us
The letters I wrote are below:
"In my parents' day and age, (unmarried teen parents) were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Republican Rep. Larry Liston said during a GOP legislative caucus meeting in Denver.
"There was at least a sense of shame."
Liston continued: "There's no sense of shame today. Society condones it ... I think it's wrong. They're sluts. And I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."
Mr. Liston,
Has it ever occurred to you to investigate the consequences of sending those unmarried teen girls away? I realize that "out of sight, out of mind" comes easily to most people, and I realize it is easier to dismiss someone out of hand as immoral rather than help them deal with the consequences of their behavior, but as a man in a position of authority, I would expect you to show a little more insight.
Has it ever occurred to you that these "sluts" you are so bent on shaming may be victims of rape? Abuse? That they may not have been informed of ways to prevent pregnancy, or may have been lied to about how sex works? Has it occurred to you that many of these "sluts" are in genuine committed relationships, like the one I had at fourteen with a man I married at eighteen, and am still married to at thirty? Is it slutty to be a rape victim? Is it slutty to engage in behavior you don't know is risky? Is it slutty to have sex with someone you love, even if that's the only person you ever have sex with?
What exactly, Mr. Liston, is a "slut?"
Has it ever occurred to you that shunning young women who get pregnant solves nothing, and only creates more hardship for them, their families, and their children?
Has it ever occurred to you that it is not the government's job to define or regulate "slutty" behavior, or punish it? Has it occurred to you that punishing someone for something they were not equipped to avoid is incredibly cruel?
Has it ever occurred to you that society does not condone teen pregnancy, and in fact shames teenage mothers at every turn? Did you ever stop to think that your backwards opinion is entirely typical? Or do you feel that the enormous amounts of disdain heaped upon them are insufficient? How many teenage mothers have you spoken to?
Have you ever bothered to look into the rates of teen and pre-marital pregnancy before birth control and abortion became available? Are you even aware that your backwards, ignorant stance is only serving to make today's figures soar ever-higher?
I think that shame lies with those who would deny young men and women accurate, fact-based sex education so that they can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I think the shame lies with people who would punish young people for making irresponsible decisions or mistakes, instead of helping them to overcome them. I think the shame lies with those who categorize all sexual contact other than that between a married man and woman as "shameful." Our bodies were made to do it, and provided nobody gets hurt and everyone is responsible, there is nothing wrong with that.
Your apparent yearning for the "good old days" when young women were punished for accidents they often did not even know how to prevent betrays you as yet another ignorant misogynist in a position of power. One who does not understand the difference between a stupid mistake and an act that deserves shame, ostracism, and punishment. Crimes, Mr. Liston, deserve punishment, and criminals deserve to be shamed.
If you are so dead set in your belief that it is morally wrong to become pregnant before marriage, perhaps you might like to support bills that would educate our children and teach them to behave responsibly. I doubt you will, though, since you most likely believe that what's really shameful is not the pregnancy, but the fact that a teenaged boy or girl dared to have sex at all. And therein lies the heart of the matter: this stubborn insistence that there is something naturally wicked about sex, that people should not have it. That is a wrong view to take, though I don't imagine you will ever be capable of admitting that every human being deserves to enjoy their sexuality as they see fit, so long as they do not harm another living being in doing so.
But whatever you think of premarital sex and teen pregnancy, shaming children is not the answer. The answer, and your duty, Sir, is to create solutions. Solutions based on fact, not on woolly-headed wishful thinking about "how it used to be" and "how it ought to be" and how young men and women "ought" to act.
If you opened your eyes, you might see that it is the idea that sex is somehow inherently shameful that has done incredible damage, by preventing adults from arming their children with vital information about natural human sexuality. Attitudes like yours have led to young people living in shame and fear, abandoning their children in Wal-Marts and dumpsters, or smothering them, or committing suicide, because they feel they have nowhere to turn.
If you opened your eyes, perhaps you would find that children who are educated about sex, and its attendant risks and responsibilities, are more likely to make responsible choices. If you believed in doing the moral thing, you would see that denying young men and women the ability to control and prevent pregnancy, and then punishing them when it happens, is the height of stupid, short-sighted ignorance. Telling children nothing about sex, keeping it a dirty secret, only makes them more likely to engage in risky behavior and harm themselves and others.
Then again, you don't believe a woman can be trusted to make choices about her own body. You doubtless don't believe that a teenager could possibly behave responsibly, if given the knowledge necessary to do so. Never mind the fact that all of the young men and women I know who were educated about sex, who were given facts, only became parents when they were ready, long after leaving school. Never mind the fact that nearly every teenage mother I have ever met, ever (and in Oklahoma, that's a lot of teenage mothers), was one who was taught that sex is shameful, and who had not been given accurate, truthful, timely information about sex. You would prefer to believe that if you withhold knowledge and demand that all young people refrain from a perfectly natural, healthy behavior, you can force people to conform to your incredibly narrow views of morality; and you would also prefer to send the victims of your spiteful ignorance out to who knows what fate, rather than accept responsibility for the misfortunes your ill-conceived policies have wrought in such alarming numbers.
I strongly suggest that you come to a better, more inclusive and accurate understanding of human sexuality before you make statements about it that betray your utter ignorance.
A truly compassionate, Christian man would see that his responsibility to his fellow human beings does not mean he should punish them for making human mistakes.
I doubt you will change your thinking on this matter, since a man of logic and caring would not have said such a thing in the first place, but I nevertheless tender to you my earnest hopes that you and all of your ilk will be voted out of office promptly. I also hope, for their sake, that the young men and women in your family find a way to educate themselves properly, and stay safe and childless until such time as they are ready, all while getting the most possible joy out of their young bodies -- in defiance of your label of "slut."
Me? I'll be over here, enjoying myself and my sexuality, because I was taught not shame, but responsibility -- and the ideas that when and whether and how to have sex and when and whether and how to have children were and are entirely up to me and my partners, and not up to anyone else.
Sincerely,
A big ol' bisexual, pro-choice, Republican slut, who is giving you the finger on behalf of all women, all unmarried mothers, and all other sluts.
-- Amanda Gannon
"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it's simply, 'Let's don't go forward with this act.' "
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the above statement.
I would expect such boldly ignorant and hateful words from men in third-world countries where women are regarded as nothing more than property, as animals to be beaten or taken advantage of at will. I would expect that level of blind stupidity from a cross-burning Klan member toward black people. I'd certainly expect it from a rapist attempting to justify his hideous actions. I would even expect it from an ignorant, arrogant teenager with no life experience and nothing in the way of compassion.
I would never expect to hear such a thing from an elected official, and the fact that such words left your mouth is indicative of a deep-rooted ignorance about and hatefulness toward women and rape victims.
Rape is many things. Married and unmarried women can be raped. Chaste women can be raped, as can women who are sexually active. Rape can even -- hold on to your hat -- be committed by spouses.
Are you saying that only married women can be raped? Are you saying that only chaste women deserve protection? What, Mr. Henry, are you saying? Because to me, it sounds like you regard all unmarried, sexually active women as "sluts" who are incapable of withholding consent.
I want to know what sort of sick and twisted world you grew up in where a woman, married or unmarried, who was not "chaste" was considered fair game for any wandering jerk with a hard-on and a yen to use it. I want to know what you were taught that you believe a husband has a right to force sex on his wife, whether she wants it or not. I want to know how on earth you managed to survive 81 years on this planet without coming to the realization that women are people, too, and that we have every right to control our sexuality as we see fit.
That, Mr. Henry, includes saying "no" to sex and expecting that the other party will respect our wishes. Even if we have had sex with other men. Even if we have had sex with that person before. Even if that person is our husband.
If you sincerely believe that the only real definition of "rape" is the violent taking by force of a monogamous married woman, if you believe that sexual crimes committed against women who do not fit your definition of "chaste" are somehow less heinous than those committed against the virtuous and married, I suggest that you find some rape victims to talk to.
Victims like a friend of mine, who was abused and raped by her spouse almost nightly for most of a year before she managed to escape. According to you, this is not rape because the rapist was her husband.
Victims like another friend who was raped by an ex-boyfriend who apparently believed that having had her once was a never-expring free-ride pass, despite the fact that she had a restraining order against him. According to you, this was not rape, because my friend was not "chaste" and not married.
Victims like a girl I went to high school with, who went on a date with her boyfriend and, when things got out of hand, asked him to stop. He did not, and forced himself on her, raping her vaginally and anally, and dumping her at the side of the road to find her own way home. According to you, this was not rape, because my friend was not married.
Victims like a girl who, in the middle of sex with her boyfriend, decided that she did not want to perform a particular act; she was forced to do so anyway, said force resulting in physical injury. According to you, she was not raped because she had consented to sex, though not to that particular act.
At what point did you start thinking that it is all right for men to ignore it when a woman says "let's not go through with this act" and indicates that she does not want sex? Did you ever believe that a woman has a right to say no to a man? Do you think that consent, once given, is something that cannot be withdrawn, ever, no matter what the man attempts to do to her? Do you truly believe that husbands have the right to force themselves on their wives?
Mr. Henry, your words have revealed you as a vile, low-down human being, the worst of the worst. Rapists harm individual women, they sow misery and despair in their wake. But people like you spew poison like this unchecked, contributing to the culture of shame that surrounds rape and forces many rape victims to remain silent about their suffering out of fear of being outcast by reprehensible creatures like you. Their silence and suffering can last their entire lives, while their rapists run free.
Rapists cause harm. It is people like you that make it so difficult for women to heal from that harm, and make it so difficult for rapists to be prosecuted as such.
I strongly suggest you think long and hard before opening your mouth to hold forth on matters you quite clearly do not understand in the slightest. I am very sorry for the people you represent, since you apparently regard about half of them as not really people at all.
I would like to think that you would issue a public apology for your stupid, hurtful, hateful, vile words, but I doubt that you are capable of seeing the wrong in what you have done. I imagine it's more comfortable for you to live in bigoted ignorance than it is for you to face up to the fact that you are not only wrong, you are part of the problem.
People like you make me want to retch.
-- Amanda Gannon
A bit hasty, and I doubt they'll really make much of a dent in these morons' skulls, shielded as they are by their iron-clad assholes, but I simply had to say something.
And hey, it gives me a chance to use this icon, which I use too rarely.