Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Well said, Chris!

NatPo has a pair of columns today on abortion. (I hadn't noticed that it was a slow news day.) Babs does her usual hand-wringing that I won't bother linking to, but Chris Selley makes an interesting point about the value of the fetus versus that of the woman.
In June, Gallup asked Americans to identify themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, and then ran some scenarios by them. Among the pro-lifers, nearly 70% think abortion should be legal when a woman’s health or life is in danger — meaning, logically, that they value an adult life over one in utero. Even more interestingly, 35% of self-professed pro-lifers think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, 59% think it should be legal in cases of rape or incest, and about a quarter think it should be legal when the baby might be physically or mentally impaired. Abortion equals murder? Not for these “pro-lifers.”

A majority of fetus fetishists agree that so-called fetal rights are subordinate to women's rights.

He then draws the inescapable conclusion.
The law is far too blunt an instrument to impart any wisdom on this endlessly complex and emotional issue. When the vast majority of people believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, the only legal demarcation between medical procedure and murder that makes any sense is the one we have now: Birth.

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

What a dame!

#DameEzra, that is.

Shown below is Dame Edna Everage.





Theme of the Day: Beauty Salons



Do your days have themes? Mine do sometimes. OK, maybe not themes, maybe more like minor sub-plots. Or something. One day, I saw three fat people eating red licorice at various points on my perambulations. Weird.

Today's theme is Beauty Salons. (Seriously, that's what they're still called in the Yellow Pages in this year of grace [and beauty] 2011.)

This afternoon I was stopped on the street by a stylish and clearly frustrated young woman asking for directions. She had a smart phone in her hand that wasn't working for her. She asked me if I knew where a specific salon was. Nope. I didn't say, but tweeted later, that she'd no doubt fare better if she asked someone who looked like she had actually been inside such an establishment in the last decade.

Later, cruising the toobz, I found this at LifeShite.
A new approach to get information about the high abortion rate among black women in the U.S. to thousands of people was launched at a trade show for barbers and hair stylists in Atlanta over the weekend, reports Christina Martin of Bound4Life.

Over a thousand hairdressers told organizers of The Samson Project that they would talk about abortion in their shops.

According to the organizers of the “Samson Project” - named for the long-haired Nazirite of the Old Testament - over 1,000 people committed to watching their DVD, and talking about abortion’s tragic impact on the black community in their shops.

Genius, eh? What more captive audience than people with partly completed hair-dos who can't escape until the job's done?

I'm thinking there are about to be 1,000 hairdressers who lose some serious business.

Later a tweet from Antonia Zerbisias: 'Hair salon ad depicting battered woman sparks online furor', which sent me here. There's a photo of the ad there.
A two-year-old ad for an Edmonton hair salon uncovered by a New York advertising executive has unleashed a ferocious debate on abuse versus art.

The ad, one in a series of six, shows a stylish young woman in heels and big hair with a huge black eye sitting on a couch. A young man in a suit stands behind the couch holding a diamond necklace.

“Look good in all you do,” the tagline reads.

The salon's owner is Sarah Cameron, who tries to defend it.
“The ads were our interpretation of a particular ‘art form,’” she wrote. “Is it cutting edge advertising? Yes. Is it intended to be a satirical look at real life situations that ignites conversation and debate? Of course.

“Is it to everyone’s taste? Probably not.”

'Look good in all you do' includes:
Other photographs in the “Look Good In All You Do” series on Facebook depict a woman smoking a cigarette on a mattress in an alley; a stylish young woman dragging well-shod female legs from a white hearse; and an Amy Winehouse-lookalike.

Am I turning into a humourless old feminazi? Go look at the ad. The couch is ugly, the room is barren, the hair-do is weird, the model looks stunned. The shiner is MASSIVE.

The gal is NOT looking particularly good.

So, I'm thinking that if someone wants to try to co-opt beauty parlour employees into proselytizing captive customers, information on violence against women might be a more productive topic than bullshit about abortion equalling genocide and/or slavery.

Mostly, I'm reaffirmed in my desire to stay the fuck outta Beauty Salons.

Image source.

*Ethical* Snuff

Go read Alison at Creekside: Most Canadians totally cool with Canada-US security perimeter deal. Now.

If you sense that Canada is being *ethically* snuffed out, you're probably correct.

Monday, 29 August 2011

Hudork: 'Keep My Family Out of It Except for This Humongous Image of Her and Our Adorable Daughter'

Back in November, Tim Hudak warned others to lay off his wife, Deb Hutton.

So, are families fair game in politics?
Just last month [October 2010], the Liberals issued a release under the headline “Tories at the Trough,” which singled out four Conservatives, including Hutton, for “living the good life” at taxpayers’ expense.

“After landing at Hydro One to collect a $200,000 per year salary, the former Harris aide forced taxpayers to cover over $5,000 in restaurant bills,” said the Liberal release.

Professor Henry Jacek of McMaster University in Hamilton said Wednesday that Hutton may indeed be considered fair game by the Liberals because of her political background.

“I think this is a special case,” Jacek said.

“It’s not that they’re trying to be mean to a spouse because she’s a spouse. They’re going to try to use her as evidence that her husband has close ties to Mike Harris.”

Now, however, there's this.



I'd say that Hudork himself has just involved his family in the campaign.

So how about those ties to Mike Harris? There are many, but Torontoist puts it best: 'Hudak loved the Common Sense Revolution so much he married it'.

Deb Hutton was Harris's aide and one of the architects of his political platform, the notorious Common Sense Revolution, which in many ways Ontario is still reeling from.

But you won't find that out from her Wikipedia page. It has been deleted.

Hmm.

Deb Hutton, Deb Hutton, why does that name ring a bell?

Oh, yeah. Ipperwash.

From Nov. 21, 2005:
Deb Hutton, who had been an aide to Premier Mike Harris, testifies at the Ipperwash Inquiry. Hutton was a member of Harris's inner circle who had represented the premier at several meetings during the standoff. She says allegations that Harris favoured armed force to resolve the occupation at Ipperwash are false.

On the other hand:
Other testimony has further put the Harris government in a bad light. In particular, former Harris aide, Deb Hutton repeatedly testified in November, 2005, that she couldn't remember any specific conversations, leading one cross-examiner to pointedly remark that she had used phrases such as "I don't recall" or "I don't specifically recall" on 134 separate occasions. Also former Ontario Provincial Attorney General Charles Harnick testified that Harris used profanity while shouting, "I want the fucking Indians out of the park.". Later witnesses denied Harnick's evidence.

Well, heck, she's just a wife, albeit with an interesting political past.

Or is she?
What’s not as clear is how much say Hudak’s wife, former Harris chief of staff Deb Hutton, a stay-at-home mom these days, will have on the political affairs of the Tory party now that her husband’s king. If Hutton’s rep for being hands-on holds (not-so-lovingly referred to by her critics as the most hated person at Queen’s Park when she was there), then things can get ugly real fast under Hudak.

And there is that little matter of the deleted Wiki page.

I think we need to know a little more about Ms Hutton's involvement in Hudork's plans for Ontario, don't you? Especially as so many of us believe it's going to be the Common Sense ReRevolution.

h/t gritchik who speculates:
With a double digit lead having evaporated over the summer because a lot of people, particularly women, don’t care for Hudak all that much, it appears the Tory brain trust wants to reassure voters that Tim really is a nice guy. Really.


Sunday, 28 August 2011

Damned if you do. . .

. . . damned if you don't.

On the one hand, late-term abortions!11!!!!! SHRIEEEEK!!!

On the other, early abortions!!!1!!! SHRIEEEK!!!

From the UK:
“Abortion has become a factory-efficient process that denies women the right to independent, professional counselling,” argues Mrs Dorries. “Many women who are given the opportunity to talk through their situation in a calm environment cease to panic and begin to consider other options. It is every woman’s right to be given the choice of access to professional help at the time of a crisis pregnancy.

We remember Nadine Dorries, don't we? She who is somewhat truth-challenged?

So, it's the same old schtick. Organizations providing abortion services coerce women into having them for filthy lucre. Dorries is proposing an amendment that would 'allow' women to seek lying liars' independent counselling.

Except, of course, that that is totally unnecessary, not to mention patronizing.
BPAS [British Pregnancy Advisory Service] point out that theirs is a charity, makes no profit but simply believes it offers women the best service, and wishes women to use BPAS rather than go elsewhere.

It points out that 15 per cent – about one in seven – of women who come to them decide not to go ahead with a termination. Evidence, it says, that its counselling and advice-giving is patently independent. After all, women booking an appointment with an abortion clinic are doing so because – by definition – they have mistakenly got pregnant and now wish to abort.

Its chief executive, Ann Furedi, is angered by the attack launched by Mrs Dorries – Mrs Furedi has threatened libel action against Mrs Dorries over some of her comments – and by the support she appears to have from health ministers.

“Counselling and advice is integral to what we do,” says Mrs Furedi. “If we cannot provide advice, counselling and information then you cannot properly consent somebody for treatment. If we cannot provide women with information about the treatment they are about to have… that would be stupid.

“They [our staff] are not salesmen. They are doctors who want to make sure people are making the right decision for them. The last thing anybody who works for BPAS wants is somebody to regret the decision they have made. We have no vested interest in somebody ending a pregnancy.”

Abortion charities claim that encouraging women to seek out independent counsellors will simply force abortions to take place later in the pregnancy, making the medical procedure more difficult and more stressful for the woman. The amendment’s supporters say that with a proper, independent counselling service in place there would be no need for a delay.

I can't find out much about the probably astroturf organization behind the proposed amendment, Right to Know.

But a sharp-eyed science blogger found a tell.

But what caught my eye was a claim on the Right to Know website that “women who have an abortion are 30 per cent more likely to develop mental health problems”.

Ah, yes, the old 'abortion = insanity' claim that we sane people have to debunk over and fucking over again.

One would have thought this was clear enough:
Abortion trauma syndrome is a fabricated mental disorder conceived by anti-abortion activists to advance their cause and is not a scientifically based psychiatric disorder.

The UK science blogger links to two more mega-analyses. One by the Harvard Review of Pscyhiatry and another by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Keep up the lies, fetus fetishists. We'll keep providing the facty-sciencey stuff.

But lord we get bored.




UPDATE
The government has caved in to calls from anti-abortionists to overhaul existing protocols and strip charities of their responsibility to counsel women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

The Department of Health confirmed that it would change the rules to ensure abortion counselling was offered "independently" of clinics that conduct terminations. Its announcement was made in advance of an attempt next week led by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries to amend the health and social care bill to force such a requirement.
And that astroturf group?
Dorries said she did not know how the Right to Know campaign was being funded, claiming that it represented "hundreds" of people and was run by a lobbyist. She would not reveal the lobbyist's name, or the other organisations the lobbyist represents but did say that she was receiving advice from Dr Peter Saunders, the head of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

Saturday, 27 August 2011

We Know It: Canada Is Progressive

This


puts the lie to this.
[Harper] said it was "a sign that Canadians of all regions and backgrounds have found a home in our Conservative party, that Conservative values are Canadian values and that the Conservative party is Canada's party."

There are insightful and appreciative tributes coming from all corners.

Check out Montreal Simon and Alison at Creekside.

Here's my fave photo*, also from Alison's, titled 'And After They Ran Out of Room on the Wall'.



Canada is progressive and compassionate and inclusive. I, and millions of others, know it in our hearts. Organs sadly lacking in the minority of Canadians in charge.

At. The. Moment.


*photo is bigger at Alison's

Friday, 26 August 2011

"Just a total reflex."


That is the justification provided by Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser when he recognized that he did indeed put his hands around his colleague Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck during a confrontation that took place in the office of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.From the investigation into his action, here.

Women who encounter enraged, out-of-control irrational and violent men like Prosser (essentially, most if not all women) should master a defense move: a brutal kick to the 'nads - to borrow an expression from Canadian Cynic.

Just as a *total reflex* of course.

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

On Those 'Missing Girls'

Joe Biden has stepped in it. Again. (What a dork that guy is.)
Under fire from angry Republicans, US Vice President Joe Biden's office has said that he firmly opposes "repugnant" Chinese population control practices like "forced abortion and sterilization."

"The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization," Biden spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff told AFP by email.

"The vice president believes such practices are repugnant," she said after Republican White House candidates blasted Biden for recent comments he made about Beijing's "one-child" population control policy during a visit to China.

Biden told an audience at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, Sunday that "your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family."

(Go to the link to read the hyperventilations of the ReThugs.)

Fetus fetishists were already stoked about one of their perennial faves because a couple of months ago a book by Mara Hvistendahl called 'Unnatural Selection' was published. Which got further ramped up by the release of census stats from India.
In the world's largest democracy a massive crisis of missing girls is unfolding, according to India's 2011 census. The latest census shows that the gap between the number of girls per 1,000 boys up to the age of six has widened to 914, a decrease from 927 a decade ago, at the 2001 census.

With the SHRIEEEEKfest came, of course, the mandatory 'Where are the feminists?!!?' jab lament. Because, you see, we feminists should be outraged because half of all abortions are done on 'pre-born women' (that's their phrase), and with sex-selective abortion, 'pre-born women' are actively targeted. Their (idiotic) question is: 'If you claim to be about women's rights, what about pre-born women's rights?'

Sigh. So I thought about writing about it. We at DJ! have taken on the subject at least twice. Once when wingnuts in BC proposed that if the gender of a fetus is known through an ultrasound, the results should not be revealed. (You know, to put an end to that rampant Canadian practice of sex-selective abortion.) And once when Ujjal Dosanjh stepped in it from the reverse direction as Biden. First, he was against sex-selective abortion, then he hadda walk it back by adding: 'But I am totally absolutely pro-choice'.

DJ! argued and argues that this is not a problem in Canada. The communities that prefer boys to girls are small, and besides, they'll get their comeuppance when their sons can't find partners of the 'right' sort and maybe bring home sweeties of the 'wrong' sort. Or 'wrong' gender. Or both. *evilgrin*

But, yes. Sex-selective abortion has created a ginormous problem in the benighted countries where it is practised.

I was going to argue this time that back in the 1960s overpopulation was the big bugaboo. We hadn't yet realized that that was too simplistic. It's not sheer overpopulation, we now know, it's overconsumption plus growing population that's going to kill the planet.

But that's when China and India began to try to grapple with their poverty problems by trying to slow population growth. China, because it could, instituted the infamous One Child Policy. India, being a democracy, couldn't be quite so draconian and tried kinder, more innovative policies.

Besides, both countries were fucking sick of being poor.

And I was going to argue that the best way to lower population growth is to promote women's rights and in particular to educate women.
Ultimately, though, this shouldn't be seen as a medical dilemma, but as a social one. The way to prevent sex-selective abortion isn't to legislate against it or attack the women who seek it – it's to create cultural changes that transform the place of women. By offering girls education, training and opportunities for employment, femicidal traditions can be uprooted, and a world that values women and fully recognises their right to exist created instead. To get there, though, we must first accept that women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, on their own terms. Because if no one gives them autonomy in their own skin, why should they believe that their potential daughters deserve it either?

Aside: I really liked one of the comments there by hillbillyzombie:
Q: In what language is religion an anagram of misogyny?
A: All of them.

What Joe Biden stepped in is the relatively new contention that the developed West promoted the practice in China and India.
Much of the literature on sex selection has suggested that cultural patterns explain the phenomenon. But Hvistendahl lays the blame squarely on western governments and businesses that have exported technology and pro-abortion practices without considering the consequences. Amniocentesis and ultrasound scans have had largely positive applications in the west, where they have been used to detect foetal abnormalities. But exported to Asia and eastern Europe they have been intricately linked to an explosion of sex selection and a mushrooming of female abortions.

Hvistendahl claims western governments actively promoted abortion and sex selection in the developing world, encouraging the liberalisation of abortion laws and subsidising sales of ultrasounds as a form of population control.

"It took millions of dollars in funding from US organisations for sex determination and abortion to catch on in the developing world," she writes."

Roll out that whole 'feminist secularist Culture of Death' meme thingy!!!!!!

But again, it's a bit more subtle than your average fetus fetishist can cope with.

While it's true that the West did promote contraception and abortion, the purpose was ^NOT women's rights but population control. If they'd promoted women's rights with the same enthusiasm and money way back then, perhaps the problem of devalued and now missing women wouldn't have happened.
No one combating sex selection in China or India now argues that the appropriate reaction to decades of violating women's rights is to swing in the other direction and violate them further. Just as a woman should not be forced to abort a wanted pregnancy, she should not be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Yet more subtlety. Yes, it's a cultural thing, but more than that it's a 'rising expectations' thing.
In the mid-1970s, amniocentesis, which reveals the sex of a baby in utero, became available in developing countries. Originally meant to test for fetal abnormalities, by the 1980s it was known as the "sex test" in India and other places where parents put a premium on sons. When amnio was replaced by the cheaper and less invasive ultrasound, it meant that most couples who wanted a baby boy could know ahead of time if they were going to have one and, if they were not, do something about it. "Better 500 rupees now than 5,000 later," reads one ad put out by an Indian clinic, a reference to the price of a sex test versus the cost of a dowry.

But oddly enough, Ms. Hvistendahl notes, it is usually a country's rich, not its poor, who lead the way in choosing against girls. "Sex selection typically starts with the urban, well-educated stratum of society," she writes. "Elites are the first to gain access to a new technology, whether MRI scanners, smart phones—or ultrasound machines." The behavior of elites then filters down until it becomes part of the broader culture. Even more unexpectedly, the decision to abort baby girls is usually made by women—either by the mother or, sometimes, the mother-in-law.

They don't want girls, yes. But more than that they want to live like us in the West. Simply put: girls cost money, boys make money. (And just as importantly, operating an ultrasound clinic is a nice little earner too.)

Yes, the developed West deserves some blame for the missing girls. But it is the capitalist West and its values that provided the technology and the profit for its operators that deserves the much bigger blame.

Feminism is not to blame for this. If feminists had been in charge of the Club of Rome, I daresay the outcome would have been quite different.

Commenter Ngoho at the MoJo link sums it up nicely.
It's possible that, since men steered culture into valuing their sex above females, perhaps a generation of lonely men will change that culture into one which values women.

Payback is a bitch, isn't she?