War on Women – Yeah, It’s Real

Okay, so I’m not normally quite this rabid, but this is one of those times when I have to get all frothing and foamy.  (In a bad way.)

Opposing Views, which I follow on FB and read sometimes, had an article that I pulled up about a girl in India who got revenge on her rapist.  It was her uncle, and he was a religious doctor (called a tantrik) who claimed he could heal her but instead raped her.  He wanted her to come back for more “treatment.”  She came prepared – she brought a cell phone and a knife.  She recorded their conversation using the cell phone, and then she castrated him with the knife.  Nice and simple, right?

There’s even a nice picture of people standing around holding a sign that says “Stop Crimes on Women.”

But the rest of the page seems to give a totally different message.  There are five different images across the top that are meant to drag the viewer on.  Of these, four of them are of women: one of an attractive woman crying, mascara smeared; one of two women kissing, labeled “Celebrities That Swing Both Ways!”; one of a woman in very tight, very small clothing with a police officer looking on; the last one of a woman in lingerie and heels in a provocative pose, labeled “The 10 Best Butts in Hollywood!”

Seriously, Opposing Views?  Seriously?  This is the shit that you chose to pair with a story about rape?  Four different stories with images (and probably “stories” – if you can call a list of “best butts” a story) that clearly treat women as objects.  The photo of the woman in small, tight clothing doesn’t even show her face – clearly, that’s not an important part of a woman – and the headline is “New Rule in Seabrook, TX,” although I bet that, whatever was the closest town to the viewer would be reflected there.  It’s click bait.  Meaningless crap that shows women off as, well, meaningless crap.

So I’m no longer following them on FB.  And I’m posting up this blog.  Maybe if they lose enough click-thrus and followers, they might learn that women don’t appreciate being treated this way.  Maybe they’re learn that women should be treated with respect and…oh, who am I kidding?  They’ll never learn.  But at least we can stop giving them their clicks.

Rape ‘em and lock ‘em up

Lock 'em up
Image by gwaddell via morgueFile

The latest violation of human rights that caught my eye happened up in Minnesota.  An 89-year-old woman in a nursing home was raped by one of the male “caregivers.”  That, in and of itself, is pretty fucking evil.  The guy was 30, and he overpowered and raped a woman old enough to be his grandmother.  Unfortunately, that isn’t even the worst part of this story.

The woman told her daughter the next morning; her daughter told the police. 

That’s when it got even worse.

The victim (referred to as the survivor in the news article)  was taken to a locked psych ward and held there for three days.  The nurse examiner declared that the room “was dark and cold … and they locked her in at night and all she had was a blanket.” 

This happened, by the way, to determine whether or not she’d been raped.  Not that they ran a rape kit or did a physical exam.  And not that the rapist hadn’t already admitted (the day her daughter called the police) to the police that he had, in fact, had sex with her. 

It took three days of confinement before they finally examined her, and then, the nurse examiner said, “the laceration that resulted from the rape was the “biggest tear” she had ever seen in her six years of work in the field.”

So why did they lock her up in a psych ward?  Why did they ignore her claim?  Oh, the administration of the nursing home claimed that they thought the sex was consensual.  Because, you know, the administration is all knowing, far more than the woman herself who was raped.

And the sad thing is that this was not the first or only time that a victim was locked up.

Literally three days later (Feb 21 – Feb 24), a Washington (state, not D.C.) woman who had been kidnapped and raped was kidnapped by the legal system.  Okay, maybe they didn’t phrase it quite that way, but they arrested her.  The victim.  Because she wasn’t showing up to all her pre-trial meetings with prosecutors. 

Yes, the victim was re-victimized, this time by the state, because she wasn’t overly eager to be part of the case.  Well, let’s be honest here – most victims of kidnappings and rapes aren’t exactly eager to face their accusers in court.  What’s awesome is that she has not been charged with any crime, but they’re holding her to force her to testify. 

Wait, let’s go over that one again.

They are kidnapping a woman to force her to talk about a kidnapping.  They are forcing her to talk about what happened to her.

I won’t argue that the case needs to be tried.  I won’t argue that they need testimony to get the case through.  But I will argue that perhaps, just perhaps, there might be a better way to handle the situation.  Like maybe one that includes support instead of a prison cell.

I think we need to start treating our women – and our victims – like they are victims.  We need to stop making abuse worse.  We need to start helping people heal instead of causing more damage.  And we need to do it now.  Not tomorrow.  Not next week.  Not in the next election.

Now.

All for one and one for all – fuck just being a feminist!

"Just Married" Flip Flops.  They belong on anyone's feet...
Image by Mensatic via morgueFile

I always call myself a feminist, and this is my crazy ass feminist blog, but sometimes we need to realize that there is more than just feminism.  Yes, there are problems that exist just for women, but there are plenty of other groups out there who suffer assumptions and assholes.  And apparently, Kansas has just enough assumptions and assholes to make it on my list of things that need a blog.

In Kansas, the House just passed HB2453, which “explicitly protects religious individuals, groups, and business that refuse service to same-sex couples, particularly those trying to tie the knot.”  (The bill now moves to the Senate…)

What the fuck, Kansas?  And what the fuck, America in general?

Where and when are we that we find it okay to make laws that specifically allow you to discriminate?  Jim Crow laws were wrong, and this is just a rehash of those!  What’s going to happen next?  I can say it’s just a slippery slope when I suggest that if this passes, next up will be laws required separate but equal drinking fountains, bathrooms, and schools, but we’ve done it before in our history, and while we claim to have learned from it, we sure aren’t treating everyone equally yet, so maybe it’s not that far-fetched.  Are we really living in a world that thinks it’s okay to take away rights from individuals?

To counter my own argument – people can and should have the right to refuse service to anyone.  If someone is rude, if someone is violent, if someone is just…well, you don’t like them!...you shouldn’t be forced to do business with them.  You can always take a job or not, based on your feelings.  Don’t agree with animal testing – that’s cool, don’t work for them.  Don’t like companies that use GMO – fine, don’t work for them either.  And feel free to refuse to purchase goods from those companies, too.  But when it comes down to stripping someone of their rights because you have passed judgment on them…that’s different.

You can’t refuse to serve someone in a wheelchair. You can’t refuse to serve someone who is a different race than you.  You can’t refuse to serve a women.  At least, you can’t refuse to serve them because of who they are.  That person in a wheelchair a total dick?  Don’t do business with him.  The person of another race calls you insulting names?  Fine, don’t do business with them, either.  The women throws something at you? Well, call the cops and then refuse to do business with her.  But you can’t say, “You’re a woman – no business for you!”

Why, then, is it okay to do that to a same-sex couple? 

Time for a radical thought.  Are you ready?

We’re all equals when it comes to protection under the law.

Notice I didn’t say we’re all the same or all equal in every way. Because, let’s face it, we’re not.  I can’t play basketball, no matter how much I’d like to.  I will probably never be a race car driver.  I may not turn out to be a bouncer at a bar.  Chances are good that I won’t make a new scientific discovery.  But that’s okay.  I don’t have to do or be any of those things to still be me and to still be considered a full individual who is protected by, instead of restricted by, laws. 

If this bill passes the Senate in Kansas, I think I may have to just go open up a business and then try to pass a new law – one that allows me to refuse service to all the assholes who voted for this one.