Fomenting A Rebellion

“If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” ::Abigail Adams

Flirting Her Way to Victory October 3, 2008

Filed under: feminism,social issues — ldgafford @ 7:30 pm

The U.K. publication The Guardian published a very interesting article today about Sarah Palin’s performance in last night’s debate. Here’s part of what it said:

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

I have to say that I absolutely agree with everything said in this article. Somehow, in between gender politics and political correctness, it has become unacceptable to make an intelligent argument and use words that are longer than one syllable (“maverick” doesn’t count). Although Joe Biden won the debate by every major news outlet’s standards (with the widest margin of victory being from Fox News, go figure), disparaging remarks are still being made about how he doesn’t know how to communicate with “us normal folk.” Yet Sarah Palin, with all her winking and inability to answer the simplest of questions, is being lauded for “relating” to the middle class. You know, Debbie Homemaker and Joe Sixpack.

How are people not offended by this? Is the collective morale of the American people so low that we can’t see ourselves as intelligent human beings who can understand phrases more complicated than “You betcha!”?

I don’t know about you, but I want the leaders of my country to be MORE INTELLIGENT than I am. Relatability is all well and good, but at the end of the day that’s not how policy is put into action. That is apparently, however, how you get to be the VP pick for the GOP. Nevermind being able to formulate a sentence that can actually be diagrammed – Sarah Palin is a former beauty queen who knows how to work the camera and that’s good enough!

November 4th is fast approaching. God help us.


That’s What She Said. July 21, 2008

Filed under: feminism,social issues,women's rights — ldgafford @ 4:23 pm

So you remember Hulk Hogan? If you’re of my generation, of course you do. For some unknown reason, he was an integral part of my generation’s childhood. But I digress. So did you know that Hulk Hogan has a daughter named Brooke who’s trying to be famous? Well, he does. And she’s just managed to set women back 100 years.

“You know what? I am actually not that much into voting. I think it’s kinda crazy that a woman is running, because I think that women deal with a lot of emotions and menopause and PMS and stuff. Like, I’m so moody all the time, I know I couldn’t be able to run a country, ‘cause I’d be crying one day and yelling at people the next day, ya know?”

Awesome, Brooke Hogan. Did you even graduate from high school? Is there ever a time that you do not look like a man trying to imitate a woman? Are you SERIOUS?!

Maybe it would be better if people like her didn’t vote, anyway. Just sayin’.


I’m Voting Republican June 13, 2008

Filed under: feminism,for fun,pacifism,random,social issues,women's rights — ldgafford @ 8:06 am

… because women just can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never, ever, ever.

HAH. Now that I have your attention, you should watch this video. Thanks to Kristen for passing it along to me.

Satire is funny.


What Needs To Go is the Phallus February 19, 2008

Filed under: feminism,social issues,women's rights — ldgafford @ 10:52 pm

Disclaimer: This post may offend some people, though that is not it’s purpose. If you know me, you’ll understand.

These days, more often than not, I find myself in the darkest depths of my mind, trying to figure out what to do with all the information I’ve accumulated on the use of rape as a weapon of war. However, sometimes in the midst of my research something will catch my eye and make me smile, whether it was intended to work that way or not.

The latest instance of this happening came when I was re-reading through Claudia Card’s article titled “Rape as a Weapon of War.” If I had to guess, I’d say she’s one of those women who has the tendency to be a scary feminist … something I generally try to avoid. However, I couldn’t help but smile to myself when I read her fantasy punishment for men who commit the act of rape – and I’ll admit, there is some appeal to it. It’s just so out there … let me just show you:

My fantasy penalty is what for lack of a better term I will call compulsory transsexual surgery, that is, removal of the penis and testicles and construction of a vagina-like canal, accompanied by whatever hormone treatments may be advisable for the sake only of bodily health. I do not have in mind transgender training, such as sometimes accompanies currently voluntary applications for transsexual surgery. Part of the point is to impact social conceptions of gender. The resulting she-males–as Janice Raymond (1979) has called male-to-female transsexuals–would tend to be recognizable as unnatural females, as male bodies tend to differ from female bodies structurally throughout (consider the bone structures of hands, hips, and jaws, for example), and the surgery would leave most body structures intact. Where recognition was not easy, we might devise ways of distinguishing she-males from natural females in certain contexts.8 There might be reasons to segregate them in prisons, for example, and all-female organizations might have reasons to want to exclude them. No doubt voluntary she-males would also want to distinguish themselves from compulsory she-males, a matter I leave to them.

Castration is an old feminist fantasy penalty for rape. In that fantasy, castration has been thought a more dramatic piece of surgery than it often is (as in Freud’s castration complex fantasies and in the case of the Amazons and their double-axes). Castration for sterilization need remove only the testes. That is not enough for present purposes. It would prevent impregnation but not rape nor the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The message of domination is communicated not only by the ability to impregnate but by the ability to penetrate forcibly. Penis removal would not, of course, prevent rape with other phallic physical instruments. But it would attack the primary symbol of male dominance (which is what suggests the use of such other weapons) with which a rapist or potential rapist is most likely to identify intimately. What needs to go is the phallus.

Amen, sister.


OH. MY. GOD. October 20, 2007

Filed under: feminism,random — ldgafford @ 10:13 pm

I don’t mean the title to be offensive or sacreligious. I truly mean that sentiment. Why, you ask, do I make this statement?

Here’s why.

I’m pretty sure my whole body tensed up as I read this article. Here are a few gems of quotes found within (remember – none of these are ironic or in jest):

“Men make decisions. Women make dinner.”

“If we love the Scripture, we must do it,” said Smith, who gave up her dreams of a career when her husband said it was time to have children. “We must fit into this role. It’s so much more important than our own personal happiness.”

“The whole point of taking college-level homemaking, she said, is to ensure that her husband won’t ever feel that he has to darn a sock or do the laundry. Those are her jobs.”

“She’s sewing a pink-and-brown polka-dot dress for herself. She dusts, mops and vacuums. She often makes dinner for her family: Noodles from scratch, or quiche with a homemade crust. Does she enjoy these tasks? Except for vacuuming, absolutely, Felts said. And if she didn’t? ‘It really doesn’t matter what I think,’ Felts said. ‘It matters what the Bible says.'”

Really? I mean, really? I need to make a quick list so I don’t completely lose my head.

1. I don’t recall the Bible ever saying that women were required to darn socks, make homemade pastries, and vacuum the house.
2. I also don’t recall the Bible saying that women (or men, for that matter) are supposed to give up their callings and happiness for the other spouse.
3. Since when does the husband get to decide when it’s time to have children?! Men can decide as soon as they have ovaries and a uterus.
4. More than anything, I feel sorry for these women who believe that this is any kind of way to live a life. We are valuable human beings, worth far more than the life that these women are advocating. I’m not saying every woman has to be a scholar or business person, but don’t deny yourself the opportunity because a man told you to! And guess what? God didn’t tell you to either.

I’ll leave you with the wise words of my dear friend Chris Ellis: “God gets blamed for a lot of shit that God has nothing to do with.”


One of Those? October 13, 2007

Filed under: feminism,welcome — ldgafford @ 3:26 pm

Well, I’m back. I’ve been a wayward blogger for quite some time now, and I think it’s time to remedy that situation. I’m not saying that I’ll be blogging everyday or always have incredibly insightful things to say … but I’m back nonetheless.

You may think the title and description of my blog implies that I am some sort of radical, feminist, or radical feminist. Well, you’re right.

I’m not one of those scary feminists who thinks women should be the only ones allowed to run the world and all men are bastards. I like men. A lot, actually. Especially when they smell good. I digress. However, I am one of those women who believes that all people – no matter gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. – should be treated equally and fairly. After all, that’s what is at the heart of true feminism – equality.

I won’t beat you over the head with feminist rants, though they will come up from time to time simply because I am one. It is not the only thing that defines who I am, though. I am a radical egalitarian, Christian, pragmatic pacifist, Baptist, classic liberal, activist, student, and friend (among other things). So my guess is that all of those things are bound to eventually pop up when I post on this blog. Deal with it. It is my blog, after all.

So that’s me. You should come back and visit soon.