So wait... my rights are dessert?

I wonder if this conceited little fuck Googles himself when no one is looking. If he does, I certainly hope that this blog comes up, cause I've got a lot to say to Benjamin Ledford of the Idaho Argonaut who wrote this trivial little piece about why the rights of "humanity in general" are more important than the rights of a full half of the human species.

After comparing women's rights to dessert, and proving once again that conservative and conservative leaning men are horrible with analogies (sorry, sexism sucks doesn't it guys?), Ledford goes on to say,

"Of course, I will say it is better to have women’s rights than not to have women’s rights, but the only way to put women’s rights first is if we are willing to say — which I am not — that women are better and more important than humanity as a whole."

Hm... wait, don't women make up 51% of the species homo sapien?

Our irrelevant little idiot goes on to say

"If we agree human rights are actually better, then what does it mean for how we think about current issues? Well, there is one major implication which comes to mind immediately: abortion."

Okay. I'll bite, why is that?

"Whether we want to call them people or not, embryos are human, and they are a separate organism from their mother, not a part of her body. From its conception, an embryo is alive, has a different DNA structure than its mother and is of the species Homo sapiens."

Alright Ben, I've got a quick little quiz for you.

1. True or False: the meaning of separate in this instance is, as used in the adjective, "unconnected; distinct; unique: two separate questions. "
2. True or False: the process of pregnancy fits the dictionary definition, as above, for incubator and incubatee being "separate".
3. True or False: prior to the third trimester, a fetus can survive outside the womb.
4. True or False: women aren't part of humanity and therefore don't deserve as many rights as men, who are part of humanity.

You have the audacity to talk about human rights and then start off on a Logical Fallacy of the Year award winning diatribe about how women don't deserve their rights because they... what? aren't human? Please. Human rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and legally only apply to humans that are breathing. Do dead people have rights? No, they don't. Rights cease after the heart stops and respiration comes to an end, and the rights of the corpse are conferred upon the executor of their estate who provides for whatever care needs to be taken. The corpse is thereafter treated as property, which itself does not have rights.

Fetuses don't breath either. They just don't. Ergo, they do not have rights, and the rights they would have are conferred upon their incubator, whose own rights supersede the rights of the not-yet-born-human.

And for fuck's sake, the skin that just flaked off of my ass while I was untwisting my panties after your retarded argument (no offense to the mentally impaired), that skin can also be classified as biologically human. Does that mean that I am violating the rights of my Skin by scratching myself? Hey, you wanted fallible arguments -- as a student of Logic and Reason, I've got a million arguments that can be tailored to match your "women's rights are equitable to dessert: great, but totally not necessary and it makes you fat" argument; the difference being that I make stupid, fallible arguments on purpose to weed out the hoi moroi like yourself, Ben.

Back to the question at hand: are human rights more important than women's rights? Gee, well, in order to answer that question, which Ben mind-bogglingly answers in the affirmative, you have to make an extremely illogical leap in reality and decree that the rights of humans and the rights of women are mutually exclusive because women aren't, in fact, human. Which brings out one more little detail in the "fetuses are human" argument: what about girl fetuses?

Since we're discussing the pre-born, and it's a well known fact of biology that during development those with XX and XY pairings being their development the same: as gendered females. Later on during the development of the endocrine system, the ovaries drop to become testicles and the vagina folds itself inside-out to become a penis, but only when there is an influx of testosterone as determined by the programming set in motion by the determination of XX or XY.

Ergo, since women aren't humans, that means that fetuses aren't humans until after their endocrine system has decided that they are male. Right? That is what you mean right? Cause that's what you fucking wrote.

So, since women aren't human, and fetuses aren't human until about the middle of the second trimester when gender begins to appear, abortion prior to this time is not a violation of human rights. This deduction is made using your "logic", Ben. Generally accepted logic proves that womne are, in fact, human, and that her rights as a sentient, autonomous being trump those of the not-yet-born, not-yet-sentient, not-yet-autonomous being within her womb. Of course, sentience is no measure of rights, but being born and becoming able to survive outside the womb is a measure of rights.

Infants have rights, I agree. But it's not an infant, not a child, and does not have rights until after it has passed through the birth canal (or been otherwise extracted from the uterus) and takes a breath. Still born infants, as sad as they are, do not have rights, and no court in this country, nay the world, would confer rights upon it.

You want to talk about human rights? Let's talk about them, but make sure you're talking about the rights of those who are capable of having rights conferred upon them. There's on criteria for being able to have basic human rights: respiration.

Finally, in the words of the Immortal George Carlin

"If you think that fetuses are more important than women, you try to get a fetus to scrub the shit stains out of your underwear."

Don't forget your hat.

On the Formation of Opinions

A person with whom I am familiar recently posited a two-part hypothesis:

• that all opinions are based on emotion
• any opinion that is not based on personal experience is "stupid"

Poppycock.

By this so-called logic (and I use the term incredibly loosely), those who have not been in war, or more specifically, the Iraq War, are not entitled to their opinions about said war in Iraq -- or at least, those opinions are not as valued as those who have been in war. The opinions of Vincent Bugliosi (whose book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is a very informed and informative critique of the Iraq war and its lead up), Randi Rhodes, and even the venerable Rush Limbaugh are stupid, regardless of the facts that inform these opinions because none of them has ever been in war. (Randi Rhodes served in the Air Force, but not during war time. Limbaugh got out of Vietnam because he had a cyst on his ass, and I am not sure of Bugliosi's military experience, but I believe he was in law school during Korea, and putting Charles Manson in prison during Vietnam.)

By this so-called logic, the opinions of Supreme Court Justices are not based on intellectual interpretation of the Constitution; not based on precedent, but on the emotional whims of 9 quite fallible human beings and our very livelihoods as Americans are based on the emotionality of these 9 people who were chosen for their intestinal fortitude rather than their legal experience and expertise; who were confirmed by Senators who asked them emotional questions rather than legal ones, deciding whether to confirm them based on some emotionality rather than the actual answers to actual legal questions. By this logic, 8 of the 9 Justices are not qualified and ergo should not be forming legal opinions on such vulgar things as women's sovereignty over their own bodies for lack of any experience as being women. By this logic, 8 of the 9 Justices have no standing to form legal opinions and thereby set precedent on such things as race and class discrimination for lack of experience as racial minorities or having been poor.

Why, I'm amazed we ever get a goddamn thing done in this country!

Contrary to what certain zealots might have us believe when they are feeding their emotionally based opinions to us; a good, solid, informed, respectable opinions, be it political, legal, social or what have you, are based upon FACTS not emotions and simply having experience with a given subject does not automatically make one's opinion more important or right than someone who is forming their opinion on the basis of facts. Claiming otherwise is an intellectually lazy and dishonest non sequitur debate tactic and all those whom employ it should be locked in a library so as to inform their opinions with reason and facts.

Throwing out the non sequitur, for instance "well how many times have you been raped?" into a debate about rape in our current culture is not an adequate debate technique, and you will never see such a thing said by any reasonable or rational human being. (Full disclosure: I said this once in an internet chat room while discussing this very subject. The moment I had typed the statement, however, I was so disgusted with myself I immediately apologized to all participants begging them to forget I had written such a thing.) Such tactics would never be employed, as my relative claimed, in a law school setting as utilizing the "I know more about this than you because I have an unverifiable, un-emperical life experience with this subject" (in lieu of actual facts that is) strategy is likely to get a person laughed out of the debate and possibly the room. It is the intellectual equivalent of a three year old sticking out her tongue and screaming "NU-UH!!!".

Opinions, my friends, are based on facts, influenced by theory and ideas of others, and conviction (the emotional bit) is maintained by personal experiences. Those who take the time to research their facts, drawing conclusions after the facts have been analyzed (using additional facts as well as the opinions of others); it is they whose opinions are, or at least should be, held in higher regard and despite whatever right-wing screaming match is currently in the public light, it is those with the FACTS who win debates, often because they are right and prove with FACTS to others that they are, in fact, right. A person is not automatically right because of their conviction. A person is not automatically right based on their personal experiences. Human conviction and personal experience are subjective and therefore subject to interpretation and fallible.

A person is right when facts and emperically verifiable evidence (if there is any to be had) agrees with her opinions.

Period.

A note on conventional beauty and feminism (and assholes)

Originally posted sometime last week.

Wow.

A number of respected (and beautiful) feminist bloggers have responded to this diatribe today, and I'd like to add my name to the list. For those of you who don't really want to read the "article" (I don't blame you, it's long and awful), Feminist Anonymous has taken it upon her(?)self to declare that all physically attractive feminists are not actually feminists. She cites specifically The Apostate (for daring to wear a bikini top!), Jill at Feministe ("the original Fake Pretty Feminist"), Natalia Antanova (who is "pretty for a feminist"), and Renegade Evolution (a sex-worker and feminist whom everyone hates because "she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face"). All of these women are well-spoken, thoughtful feminists who also happen to be blessed with convetional beauty. However, FemAnon failed to mention the other bajillion feminists who are also pretty and therefore not feminists.

We can't can't a break can we? First we're not pretty enough. Then we're too pretty and allowing ourselves to be objectified and calling it empowering. Then feminism is just a means of allowing "ugly women access to the mainstream" (Drug-Addled Gas Bag, Rush Limbaugh's infamous quote). Then, it turms out that those of us who either a)care about our appearances, b)are blessed with genes that allow us to be "conventionally attractive", and/or c)post pictures of ourselves so that readers can put a face with the words; we're not really feminists at all!!!
Wait... what? FemAnon's version of subverting the male gaze is to the Patriarchy what Satanism is to Christianity. She still acknowledges that all the important tenets of the Patriarchy stand and must be upheld, but in her twisted view of subverting it, she's merely turning all those things on their heads. She still worships the Patriarchy, just backwards.

Women, and feminists in particular are always too much or not enough of something. We're too pretty, not pretty enough. Too athletic, not athletic enough. Too smart, not smart enough. The list goes on and on, but the one thing that all of these criticisms have in common is that they are made from the point of view of the male gaze. By stating "UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON'T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN ." you acknowledge and promote that a woman's worth lies entirely in her looks and that in order to be taken seriously we have to be ugly or merely "presentable" (but only if you work in an office). As a feminist, you are not allowed to wear lipstick, tight jeans, have boobs, or own any makeup or high heels because by virtue of doing or having any of those things you are not adequately subverting the dominant paradigm.

No ifs, no ands, no butts either.

FemAnon's philosophy is:

If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive. But
a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite action.
If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't call
yourself a feminist.

This is me. I like to think that I'm pretty. I put a lot of effort into my physical appearance, but contrary to what some people might think, I'm not doing it for the benefit of the male gaze. While my boyfriend appreciates my red hair, I've had it for longer than I've known him and I keep it because I like what it says about me: I'm loud, confrontational, powerful, and sexy.

It's been insisted in the past that the reason I look the way I do is because I want to put on make-up and pretty shoes and allow myself to be objectified, then call it empowerment (by someone whose Feminist library consists of one book and only one book, you guessed it Female Chauvinist Pigs -- a fine work, but one's entire feminist philosophy cannot come from derriding other women who want to be pretty). I was told that because I do that, I'm not really a feminist, but rather someone who wants to look pretty but also believes in equal pay for equal work -- you know, cause since I spend time on my appearance, I'm automatically doing it because men like it and my entire worth and personhood is based on what I look like. I've also been accused of beign a bad feminist because I wear and sell Mary Kay products, but excuse me, if you've ever read anything about Mary Kay Ash, it is undeniable that she was a feminist. (The whole reason she started Mary Kay Cosmetics is beause she wanted women to have an opportunity to define themselves financially. You don't get much more feminist than that! Moreover, Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants are strong, beautiful women who believe that they can support themselves and their families and bring some sunshine into the lives of other women in doing so. I just want to give a shout out to all my MK gals! You ROCK!)

People like to put each other into boxes. We're either A or B, and there is no C. This kind of binary viewpoint is what makes sexism, racism, ableism, sizeism, and any other anti-person-ism you can think of so powerful. You are either beautiful or a feminist. You are either successful or a woman. You are either polite or black. You are either smart or in a wheel chair. You're either in control of yourself or overweight. False dictomies like these are created and enforced and prejudices are maintained. And when people try to insist, for instance, that there are no pretty feminists the only thing being accomplished is the continued reinforcement of this prejudice.

For your information, FemAnon, and anyone who agrees with her, a woman's worth is not entirely in her appearance. In fact, most people have several layers to themselves that include their appearance, personality, intelligence, work eithic, personal honor and integrity, and a number of other things by which they define themselves . I am a feminist because I seek to define myself as feminine, successful, strong, and beautiful and any attempt to subvert my definition of myself by redefining me according to the male gaze is anti-feminist. Period.

Good day to you, FemAnon. Don't forget your hat.