A Blog of Epic Proportions


Toolbag writes ill-thought out article on abortion for my alma mater’s newspaper


Aside from being a demonstration of how little research some dudes feel they need to do before becoming experts on issues that primarily affect women, it’s also an example of how the dictionary really shouldn’t be your primary source of proof or thought when it comes to deeply complicated social and moral issues (affirmative action/racism being good examples of other issues in which the dictionary really doesn’t go deep enough). I mean, really, would it be so hard to consult a sociological text?

It’s like these people are so pompous they think that no one has ever thought to look in the dictionary before. So they take a gander, see whatever they want to see, stop thinking, and then lay it down and type QED thinking they’ve just saved humanity and their ego all in one brilliant rhetorical maneuver.

It’s a big ol’ fail.

The comments are even worse. We’ve got the old “But remember when everybody thought slavery was ok?” in the facebook comments section. Unfortunately, this person who is appealing to history didn’t learn it very well, since she forgets to recognize that abortion was illegal before women had to fight to decriminalize it. So, in her metaphor, it’s the folks with HER position that may as well have been proponents of slavery, especially since the pro-life position is geared toward extracting free labors from the bodies of those deemed less worthy of agency.

Anyway, I am going to repost my swift and comprehensive smack-down of this article here, because I think it needs to be seen by more folks than just those who go to my little school newspaper’s measly website. In case you didn’t go to the link and you’re wondering what the creative writing references are, the dude who wrote the original article is listed as a creative writing major. Oh, and yeah, I am a snarky, condescending asshole.

Creative writing, huh? Guess you weren’t kidding.

“Abortion advocates probably wouldn’t say they like the procedure but argue that abortions should be available for extreme cases, like rape, incest or when the life of the child or mother is in serious danger.”

Um, what? Actually, I’m pretty sure I think abortion should be offered on demand and without apology. Women shouldn’t have to skulk in dark corners just because dudes don’t think they deserve the right to bodily autonomy, or just because dudes think that if they’re gracious enough to grant it, it should still be legal but salaciously clandestine. As if enough self flagellation will somehow justify the grasp that patriarchy has had to loosen on women’s wombs.

“Biologically, of course, an unborn child is a living person, but some would argue that the child is a human, but not a person. However, the difference between them is semantic. According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, the two words are synonyms. It is only in the legal sense that an unborn child does not qualify as a person deserving the right to life that we all enjoy.”

Wow, you really got in depth on this issue, huh? All it took was a simple dictionary look-up by some dude who figured folks had never thought of that before and hard-fought battles get wiped away along with any hope women might have for respected rights to bodily autonomy and self determination? Well golly. Alert National Right to Life. It’s like this argument has never been demolished before by the simple assertion that maybe dictionaries don’t define our philosophical discussions. You know, because the dictionary hasn’t caused us to hold funerals for miscarriages, count fetuses in the census, give pregnant women ample use of the carpool lane, or require police investigation of every late period.

Golly, maybe the question is bigger than what you chalk up to semantics.

“It is purely arbitrary to say that humanity, or even life, begins at birth, which is why so many anti-abortion lawmakers continue to push for stricter abortion laws, despite the fixity of a Supreme Court decision, in an effort to stop the very real deaths of more than one million children per year.”

You know, you might be right. But you know what? Saying that life begins at conception is arbitrary, too. Just as arbitrary. Well, maybe not JUST as arbitrary, considering the politics of conception are just as dripping with misogyny as abortion politics. So personhood begins at conception, huh? You know what the implications of that are? That the only action necessary to create human life, more people, is ejaculation – and that’s crap. You know what it actually takes to make a person? The bodily organs, life functions, consumed calories, 9 months incubation time – of a woman. This whole conception battle is extremely reminiscent of when “scientists” decided that the egg waited patiently for sperm to fertilize it. That’s something we all know now to be untrue, but when someone desperately wants women to remain socially defined as passive receptacles, it becomes an issue of contention. The fact of the matter is that the assertion that personhood begins only after ejaculation is almost as misogynistically dismissive of women’s contributions to society as the stifling of that contribution via abortion restrictions themselves.

“Should it make a difference if the child is dismembered first, then delivered, or delivered first, then dismembered?”

This is something you should ask the group of exclusively dudes who stood around Bush as he banned the D&X procedure via the “Partial-birth abortion ban”. D&X procedures are actually safer for women (Who don’t exactly obtain late-term abortions willy-nilly, but what’s a little hydrocephalus along with your forced gestation and birth, huh?), but since women’s safety is hardly tantamount for those who seek to ban abortion procedures at all, it doesn’t surprise anyone that they would still ban the procedure outright even if late-term procedures aren’t banned completely through such legislation.

“Reducing abortion rates should be something everyone can agree upon, regardless of whether one believes it is murder. Legislation can only go so far, so anti-abortion advocates like those marching in Washington should continue fighting to change minds, so human life can be given the value it deserves.”

Hey, you know, if they put half as much of that effort into not lying about the efficacy of condoms and other forms of contraceptives, they might get somewhere. Fetal worship gets the state of women, the adoption process, anti-poverty efforts, or anything that might contribute to a lower abortion rate nowhere. It’s an enactment of extreme callousness and lack of nuance (let alone ability to focus on practicality) to continue this woebegone quest to “inform” people that these anti-abortion folks have a belief just as arbitrary as placing personhood post-vaginal canal.

Abortion foes either can’t see the forest for the trees, or their goals are not as heroic as they try to make them sound. You cannot ban abortion without accepting/asserting that the reproductive subjugation of women is morally sound. Not to mention, even proving fetal personhood doesn’t put you past argument about the merit of bodily autonomy and integrity, so all in the all the conclusion of this article is shaky at best.

Nice try, but it would behoove you to write creatively about another subject, I think.



Watch and learn, Yahoo!

Here is how this article should have been written:

What do the guys think of your fashion?

Ladies, we’ve all asked ourselves these questions before. Well, we writers at Yahoo! have finally figured out the answer! Are you ready for it? Here goes!


So there you have it ladies. Next time you’re wondering whether or not you should wear big sunglasses, just fucking do it if you want to. Stop giving a shit about what men think about you, because it really doesn’t matter! Besides, the guys we would have gotten for this article are undoubtedly big toolbags not worth your time anyway since they seem to think they have stock in what you wear! So, ladies, wear whatever the fuck you want – miniskirts, sweatpants with letters on them, and any kind of obnoxious slogan t-shirt that tickles your fancy- and just stop giving a fuck about the opinions of self-important dudes.

How Dominant Groups Work

So, this is how it seems dominant groups are prone to work.

If an underrepresented or undervalued group makes any kind of progress, it is an assault. An assault! For some reason, actually being made to face the fact that not everyone follows the same life path, or not everyone makes the same decisions, or not everyone IS the same nor SHOULD they be, dominant groups pretend as if they’ve been slapped in the face.

It happens all the time. When women make gains for equality, we have to wonder things like “Are they out for dominance over men?”, “How equal is too equal?” or even “Will there ever be another male nominated to the Supreme Court?”. When LGBT folks get the basic right to serve in the military, suddenly everyone gets concerned about sexual assaults and harassment. When people of color attain civil rights victories, words like “reverse racism” are conjured and laws are created to make sure those foreign brown people don’t feel welcome in our “melting pot” of a country.

And, of course, when a network that has run shows called “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom” happens to air one 30-minute special that takes an unbiased view of abortion at the oh-so-primetime hour of 11:30 PM, Christian anti-choice groups flip their shit.

An assault! An assault, they say! A plague o’er just your house!

I mean, it’s like MTV actually decided to put on responsible programming and to talk to teenagers as if they might have brains, a capacity for understanding and thinking about complex issues, and moral compasses! And they used. . .shudder the thought. . .facts! They must be stopped.

At least, according to the “Youth pro-life leadership” which tilts their hand a bit too much by the end of that post, revealing how much their opposition to abortion is rooted less in caring about the lives and well-being of women and children and more in being incensed that something isn’t in line with their religious dogma. Again, the existence of these women and their story being told in a 30-minute television show is an attack on the rights of pro-forced birthers to make sure you can’t make decisions about your viewing pleasure any more than you can your own uterus.

Really, it’s a shame how much oppression Christian anti-choicers face in a country in which the Speaker of the House is meeting with anti-choice domestic terrorists. Will they ever get to be equally heard? Excuse me while I wipe away John Boehner’s tears.

In other somewhat relevant news, if you would like a good, but disturbing, laugh, read this. I really wish they would make that commercial. . .as a Digital Short on SNL.

Time for a Quickie?: Hall of Famery Edition

In keeping with my motto of <3'ing being Insufferable, I'm proud to announce that I've been. . .wait for it. . .banned! From a feminist blog! Nooooes! D-:

Allow me to come clean about my crimes:

– Pointing out flaws with the whole “you broke feminism” deal going on here (no credit goes to me for that phrase, btw, you can find it here).
– Not thinking it’s awesome for dudes to mansplain to people or make sexist comments
– Not thinking it’s cool (or at all legitimate) for people to spread rape apologist misinformation
– “Derailing” a thread about Julian Assange with not letting said rape apologism go unaddressed. How that’s derailing when the entire feminist blogosphere is up in arms about that going on in conjunction with everything Assange related, well, that’ll just have to be a question that goes unanswered – sorta like “In what country is ‘sex by surprise’ a legal term?”.
– Calling a spade a spade
– Pompous assholery (lol, welcome to blogs)

So yeah, ladies and gents – Think before you Insufferable, or you just might get a special place in someone’s heart (or blag, whichever). It’s something I’ll gladly take if sheltering rape apologetic misinformation and dudes who use the term “neo-feminist” as if it’s legitimate is the alternative.

And yeah, sometimes I am petty, but just remember that I’m ALWAYS a pompous jackass.

On sarcasm and satire, and why yours isn’t funny


Dudes. They’re all around and all over the internet. They’re even on feminist blogs sometimes. Some of them do their thing and do it well. They understand that maybe feminism isn’t about them and that maybe when women are talking about patriarchy and the real pain and real oppression it can cause, that they’re speaking truth. They get the fact that they have privilege, and they even put forth the effort to keep it in check at all times. Then there are dudes who just don’t get it. They go on blathering “Dear god, what about the MEN?!” rants and derail feminist discussions like it’s their job. Some even legitimately DO consider it their job, but that’s beside the point. They’re irritating, but generally you can laugh them off.

But then there are dudes that think they get it, and they want you to know that they get it by correcting you when THEY think that YOU are feminisming wrong. They are DUDES, and they KNOW WHAT’S UP. They took a philosophy course once, and they read about other dudes who know what’s up, and they might have even read “The Second Sex” or something. They may have even taken a sociology course, or ventured into the women’s studies department for a quick jaunt, you know, just so they could vary their vast knowledge.

So then, this expertise under their belt, they go about cavorting on the interwebs, often reading feminist blogs as a means to keep their Awesome Openminded Progressiveness intact. It’s also awesome if that can show how much they know about how bad you are at feminism. Whichever, you know how that goes.

So here you are, you’re a feminist, you’re trying to kick the patriarchy’s ass. You do this on the regular, you kinda make it your thing, and bein’ a woman and all, you have a vested interest in seeing the end of this oppressive social construction. You’re reading some stuff, possibly a blog post regarding two different viewpoints by two different feminists on an issue, and then a dude thinks he’s going to be fucking hilarious. Get ready. Socks will be knocked off. You might pee. This is really going to be epically funny and original.


Fucking Brilliant

Since Jezebel wants to post really lame, wishy-washy “we’ll make an effort as if we’re sorry we published a rape apologist article” counterpoint piece (as well as this even more insulting “apology”), it looks like someone else is going to have to ovary-up and write a really amazing, really scathing critique of Edward Pasteck’s douchebaggery.

Enter “An American Doctor in Paris” over at femonomics. Read it. Love it. Be amazed.

I think Jezebel should absolutely run this piece as a means of retracting that bullshit mansplarticle. If they can post something as absurd as Pasteck’s article in the first place, this really should be a shoo-in to pass their journalistic standards.

In France, men grab you – and that should be ok

American Guy In Paris Freed from the Idea of “Consent”.

No, that’s not the caption for this fabulous Privilege Denying Dude, that’s the actual title of this craptastic Jezebel article.

For some reason, because this dude spent some time in France and wrote an unpublished “book about love”, he’s letting us know that we would all be more empowerful if we just “turned the volume down on consent”. The way to do this is apparently to emulate the way that Parisians go about initiating sexytiems, which is to say that men grab women’s bodies and the women either go make out with them or they walk away. Think of it like street harassment, except now with more touching and violating!

I think the terribleness of this article can be revealed in one awful quote:

Parisian women seem to derive a feminist power from this chauvinism that makes them come across as strong, self-determining, and completely aware of themselves as permanent objects of desire.

Golly, you ladies, don’t you know that your constant ability to cause dicks to harden is super empowerful? I think that’s the same argument that Girls Gone Wild pornulation apologists use to make sure drunk underage girls keep showing their boobs so men can get rich off of other men getting off.

For some reason, this guy can’t even recognize the problematic nature of the way he speaks about women. He describes his experience of being in love at some poor unsuspecting Parisian gal, and how his friend suggested he ply her with alcohol to seduce her. Well, suddenly the question becomes – hmm, would that be so bad? Why do feminists get angry when people suggest that might be bad?

Mr. Pasteck, if that was all you were going to get out of spending a bunch of money to go to a European country, you would have been better served by just joining a fraternity in college – same mentality, less of a price tag. I guess the only thing you’d lack is the ability to be pretentious.

Here’s the deal – it IS a bad idea, it’s what leads to this hoopla of “grey rape”. Without implicitly defined consent, rape victims will get less justice than the measly amount they do now. We have enough problems without privileged guys pontificating about whether or not it’s “so bad” to be plied by alcohol and then seduced by some dude who has the major jones for you. I’m glad it’s a philosophical question for you (aside from the real experience of you not getting the French pussy you’d like, no one feels sorry for you) , but for a lot of women who did not give consent, who do not think of sex as “just a decision” or whose decision making abilities about sex were stolen from them, the absolute answer is YES, IT IS BAD TO PLY WOMEN WITH ALCOHOL TO FUCK THEM.

I mean, if you can’t find the right time to kiss a girl, obviously the correct answer is to find the right alcohol to fuck her.

By the way, if you can’t make it through this rapey, creepy, pretentious article, just read the comments section. It’s amazing so far.