Comments on: Funhouse mirror world of anti-choicers http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:52:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Jesurgislac http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-268230 Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:55:44 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-268230 The same Gold Plated Witch on Wheels has in fact pretty much admitted, in follow-up discussions, that it doesn't bother her if women have abortions because they can't afford a child (or another child) - she's only actively concerned about women who have abortions because they don't <i>want</i> children. The same Gold Plated Witch on Wheels has in fact pretty much admitted, in follow-up discussions, that it doesn’t bother her if women have abortions because they can’t afford a child (or another child) - she’s only actively concerned about women who have abortions because they don’t want children.

]]> by: helen h http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267569 Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:45:51 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267569 The same government that can deny abortion must then also be able to require it. If it has the authority in the matter of pregnancy, it will always have the authority in all cercomstances. This is just the logical reciprical. Who wants that? The same government that can deny abortion must then also be able to require it. If it has the authority in the matter of pregnancy, it will always have the authority in all cercomstances. This is just the logical reciprical. Who wants that?

]]> by: Norah http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267155 Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:55:37 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267155 <blockquote>I still remember reading in Cujo, about the woman whose husband “didn’t know what happened every time for men could also happen for women�. Crazy old world out there.</blockquote> Yeah, but he got eaten by a rabid dog in the end, so it's all good.

I still remember reading in Cujo, about the woman whose husband “didn’t know what happened every time for men could also happen for women�. Crazy old world out there.

Yeah, but he got eaten by a rabid dog in the end, so it’s all good.

]]> by: Jennifer Cascadia Emphatic http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267063 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:36:24 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-267063 What seems true about the fundamentalist ilk is that they are emotionally undisciplined. I believe that they draw most of their conclusions on the basis of how they happen to feel, a great deal of the time, rather than on the basis of either logic or the capacity to modulate one's own feelings. So, there is this apparent wholesale hostility to women, whereas at the same time, fundies will proclaim that they have no such hatred towards women -- that they actually "respect" women. What seems to be going on, then, (and I draw from my own experiences), is that the fundamentalists -- male and female -- do have a sense of women's power. Actually, because they are such emotional beasts, they don't just think but actually EXPERIENCE women's power as incredibly powerful as well as primarily sexual. To one of a fundamentalist mindset, no matter how little actual political power or control any particular woman has, she already has too much power. This is indicated by her ability to make him lose control of his thoughts whilst she is present to him. This is the source of all the hostility against women and the fundamentalist's sense that women have too much control over things. The practical reality is that women have very little world power and usually we are not socially positioned to have much power even in our local spheres. This is irrelevant to the male fundamentalist in particular -- who still feels that sexual power is the most overwhelming power evvah! So, no matter how little power any woman has, or how much she is suffering, because her legal and practical powers have been taken away, such a woman is still, in the male fundamentalist's sexually oriented view, OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL. In fact, from the view of the most extreme male fundamentalist, this female power of hers is so intense that nothing whatsoever can ever take it away. Equivocating the women herself with her sexual power leads to the unfortunate notion that no amount of hurt nor pain will actually affect "her" just because her sexual power will always have this immense hold over him, even when she is dead. So, there is no such thing as "killing a woman" in the emotional mindset of the fundamentalist. Not when her sexual power (universalised as the sexual power of all women, up until eternity) is still so OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL. From the fundamentalist's point of view, nothing you can do to women can really hurt them or serve to undermine their power! What seems true about the fundamentalist ilk is that they are emotionally undisciplined. I believe that they draw most of their conclusions on the basis of how they happen to feel, a great deal of the time, rather than on the basis of either logic or the capacity to modulate one’s own feelings. So, there is this apparent wholesale hostility to women, whereas at the same time, fundies will proclaim that they have no such hatred towards women — that they actually “respect” women. What seems to be going on, then, (and I draw from my own experiences), is that the fundamentalists — male and female — do have a sense of women’s power. Actually, because they are such emotional beasts, they don’t just think but actually EXPERIENCE women’s power as incredibly powerful as well as primarily sexual. To one of a fundamentalist mindset, no matter how little actual political power or control any particular woman has, she already has too much power. This is indicated by her ability to make him lose control of his thoughts whilst she is present to him. This is the source of all the hostility against women and the fundamentalist’s sense that women have too much control over things. The practical reality is that women have very little world power and usually we are not socially positioned to have much power even in our local spheres. This is irrelevant to the male fundamentalist in particular — who still feels that sexual power is the most overwhelming power evvah! So, no matter how little power any woman has, or how much she is suffering, because her legal and practical powers have been taken away, such a woman is still, in the male fundamentalist’s sexually oriented view, OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL.

In fact, from the view of the most extreme male fundamentalist, this female power of hers is so intense that nothing whatsoever can ever take it away. Equivocating the women herself with her sexual power leads to the unfortunate notion that no amount of hurt nor pain will actually affect “her” just because her sexual power will always have this immense hold over him, even when she is dead.

So, there is no such thing as “killing a woman” in the emotional mindset of the fundamentalist. Not when her sexual power (universalised as the sexual power of all women, up until eternity) is still so OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL.

From the fundamentalist’s point of view, nothing you can do to women can really hurt them or serve to undermine their power!

]]> by: Virgil E. Vickers http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266976 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:20:37 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266976 And from the other end: kids are much better off being raised by people who WANT to be raising kids (regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., etc.). Self-selection, whereby people who don't want to be raising kids choose not to raise kids, on the average works out. (I recently answered a local paper letter from a character who denounced -- as SELFISH -- a gay couple for adopting a child who supposedly would have been better off being returned to his hetero drug-problems-supposedly-all-fixed-now birth mother.) And from the other end: kids are much better off being raised by people who WANT to be raising kids (regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., etc.). Self-selection, whereby people who don’t want to be raising kids choose not to raise kids, on the average works out. (I recently answered a local paper letter from a character who denounced — as SELFISH — a gay couple for adopting a child who supposedly would have been better off being returned to his hetero drug-problems-supposedly-all-fixed-now birth mother.)

]]> by: John Palmer/LongHairedWeirdo http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266950 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:56:41 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266950 <blockquote>OH! See, I was getting worried! If that thingie isn’t a clitoris then what is that thing we’ve been paying such attention to?</blockquote> Great. Now I've got the quote from Jay and Silent Bob Strike back stuck in my head. "No, the C.L.I.T. is real... female orgasm, that's the myth!" I still remember reading in Cujo, about the woman whose husband "didn't know what happened every time for men could also happen for women". Crazy old world out there. What's also really bad is what this lack of belief in female sexual pleasure did for men. I mean, gads, isn't half the fun of sex watching your partners mind be blown? Isn't a good chunk of arousal knowing how badly your partner wants it? I can't even imagine what kind of self-loathing and sex-hating was triggered by bozos who didn't see sex as a joyful coming together. (Er... that's not meant to refer to simultaneous orgasm.) I think that's what gets me about these people. If sex is a source of joy - and it is - then it shouldn't be tied to babymaking, if we've found ways to avoid it. The joy should be present without the risk. And if it's not, can I just say *ew* and *ug* and a whole bunch of other things?

OH! See, I was getting worried! If that thingie isn’t a clitoris then what is that thing we’ve been paying such attention to?

Great. Now I’ve got the quote from Jay and Silent Bob Strike back stuck in my head.

“No, the C.L.I.T. is real… female orgasm, that’s the myth!”

I still remember reading in Cujo, about the woman whose husband “didn’t know what happened every time for men could also happen for women”. Crazy old world out there.

What’s also really bad is what this lack of belief in female sexual pleasure did for men. I mean, gads, isn’t half the fun of sex watching your partners mind be blown? Isn’t a good chunk of arousal knowing how badly your partner wants it? I can’t even imagine what kind of self-loathing and sex-hating was triggered by bozos who didn’t see sex as a joyful coming together. (Er… that’s not meant to refer to simultaneous orgasm.)

I think that’s what gets me about these people. If sex is a source of joy - and it is - then it shouldn’t be tied to babymaking, if we’ve found ways to avoid it. The joy should be present without the risk. And if it’s not, can I just say *ew* and *ug* and a whole bunch of other things?

]]> by: Christina http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266862 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:17:30 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266862 OH! See, I was getting worried! If that thingie isn't a clitoris then what <strong>is</strong> that thing we've been paying such attention to? OH! See, I was getting worried! If that thingie isn’t a clitoris then what is that thing we’ve been paying such attention to?

]]> by: Mezosub http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266783 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:35:22 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266783 It's facetious, Christina. The fundies believe that women are incapable of experiencing solely physical (without emotional) pleasure from sexual relations because women are naturally inferior to men and this distinction is a way to prove that women are subhuman. Fundies also believe that ALL women are uniquely and naturally suited to childcare tasks and unpaid domestic slavery because, again, women are inherently subhuman, without the capacity to choose to do anything other than what biology has programmed them to do. It’s facetious, Christina. The fundies believe that women are incapable of experiencing solely physical (without emotional) pleasure from sexual relations because women are naturally inferior to men and this distinction is a way to prove that women are subhuman.

Fundies also believe that ALL women are uniquely and naturally suited to childcare tasks and unpaid domestic slavery because, again, women are inherently subhuman, without the capacity to choose to do anything other than what biology has programmed them to do.

]]> by: Christina http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266676 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:03:15 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266676 <i>To be fair, there’s the alternate line that sex without babies is pointless for women, because all women love babies and <strong>there’s no such thing as a clitoris.</strong></i> Uhm, excuse me. I'm sorry, but....what? To be fair, there’s the alternate line that sex without babies is pointless for women, because all women love babies and there’s no such thing as a clitoris.

Uhm, excuse me. I’m sorry, but….what?

]]> by: amaz0n http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266653 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:24:30 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/11/21/funhouse-mirror-world-of-anti-choicers/#comment-266653 I love how she quoted my comment <i>from here</i> regarding my abortion experience, as if it somehow proved whatever obscure point is buried under all of her <i>OMG SEX IS WRONG</i> bloviating. I love how she quoted my comment from here regarding my abortion experience, as if it somehow proved whatever obscure point is buried under all of her OMG SEX IS WRONG bloviating.

]]>