Antoine Dodson on the GOP

We Are Woman Rally

After a week of organizing pictures and video (not to mention getting sidetracked by the many "knowledge" bombs dropped on us this week by various members of the GOP), I finally have some coverage of the 8/18/12 We Are Woman Rally in Washington, DC. 

The mission of the rally was simple: demand an Equal Rights Amendment for women in the Constitution. The proposed ERA, first written in 1923, is the following:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Before you look at all the awesome pictures and videos from the rally, here is some history on the ERA, provided by equalrightsamendment.org:

"The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.

In the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008), the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced as S.J. Res. 10 (Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA, lead sponsor) and H.J. Res. 40 (Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY, lead sponsor). These bills impose no deadline on the ratification process in their proposing clauses. The ERA Task Force of the National Council of Women's Organizations supports these bills and urges groups and individuals to advocate for more co-sponsors and passage."

This history should humiliate each and every American who is not actively working toward the passage of such a fair, simple, and common-sense amendment. This is not politically divisive, or at least, it shouldn't be. It does not propose an increase in taxes. It does not declare gender or class or religious war. It does not proclaim women superior to men, nor does it promote the supposed goals of feminism declared by Pat Robertson, who described the feminist movement as "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." That little gem will never cease to make me chuckle, and the delusions of an out of touch, over the hill, megalomaniac somehow do not seem to appear in the ERA. For all the success Pat Robertson has had in making predictions, maybe he should join the psychic hotline. Sorry, Pat, better luck next time. 

Can we all please pause for just a second to imagine Pat Robertson on a late night infomercial with Miss Cleo? If only I had paid more attention in my witchcraft class at the Hogwarts School of Feminism, maybe I would be able to magic such a delight upon us. 

Back to the ERA. As I explained in my last post, only 35 states have ratified the ERA, while the male version was passed 12 amendments and 142 years ago. I am not sure what we are still waiting for, and I welcome a rational explanation from anyone who can offer one. By failing to ratify the ERA, we are directly failing 50.7% of the population and indirectly failing the other 49.3%.

Now, for the fun stuff. Below are my pictures from the rally as well as 2 videos of speakers: Soraya Chemaly (feminist blogger for the Huffington Post) and Rev. Charles McKenzie (from the Rainbow PUSH Coalition). I highly recommend watching both--Ms. Chemaly delivered the same thoughtful, intelligent take on women and feminism that we have come to expect from her writing. Rev. McKenzie literally gave me goosebumps and made me wonder if I was watching the reincarnation of Dr. King. Enjoy!

Photo Gallery:

Rev. McKenzie:

Soraya Chemaly:

We are on Twitter!

i can haz rights now? is on Twitter! Handle is @icanhazrights
Special thanks to my little sister and my favorite HuffPost feminist blogger for the push into the 21st century!

The Abortion Manifesto

The country (including me) is currently in an uproar over the remarks of Rep. Todd Akin and the resulting river of misinformation and propaganda. Excuse me, tidal wave may be a more suitable metaphor. We have learned that the Republican Party is endorsing a "personhood" amendment in its national platform, and that women who get pregnant from rape are lying, are blessed by God, or may not exist. Some fascinating new hypotheses have emerged on the biological mechanisms that would prevent a woman from becoming impregnated via rape semen: ovulation is prevented through "a hormonal response," that "the juices don't flow," or (my personal favorite) they "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm. Never mind the utter lack of any shred of scientific evidence backing any of these opinions, I personally find it amusing that they directly contradict each other. Which is it? Are my normal vaginal secretions interrupted by the terror of rape, thereby preventing semen transmission, or is my vagina (this time activated by said rape terror) able to produce magical spermicidal secretions?

This seems to indicate laziness just as much as it does sheer stupidity, in my opinion. Come on, right-wingers. Get it together. Don't you all gather around the local abortion clinic to strategize? I know you aren't too busy, because you somehow bring your photo-shopped dead baby pictures to my college, my little sister's high school, and every single feminist gathering I have ever attended (they don't seem to care whether or not it has anything to do with abortion).

All in all, it has been a pretty crappy week to be a victim of rape (male or female), anyone who owns or cares about someone who owns a vagina, or a person who appreciates critical thinking.

The thing I am most upset about, however, is how the conversation has already shifted.

As a nation, we frequently discuss abortion in politics. I will bet a million dollars that I will never see a governing body attempt to legislate how men can and can't use their penises or deposit their sperm, much less inform them that their sinful behavior requires an anal probe for no purpose other than to shame them into docility. Oh, and to have these decisions made almost exclusively by women without even allowing men to testify at the hearings? What a hilarious joke!

For half the population it is a very distinctly unfunny reality. Where is MY personhood amendment? Why am I attending a rally in the year 2012 to try and convince this country that women deserve an Equal Rights Amendment, something nonwhite men were given in 1870 (and white men, presumably, since they found the bigger stick when Homo erectus migrated out of Africa)? Would you like to know how many years separated the ratification of the right to vote and the assertion of equality for nonwhite men? Less than two years. Women gained the right to vote in 1920, more than fifty years after minority men. We are still waiting on that Equal Rights Amendment. Only 35 states have ratified the ERA. What's wrong, Florida? Or you, Nevada, are you worried your prostitutes will run off and find better ways to earn a living? I know, Utah, commitment is hard. Only 70% of the states in the most powerful country on Earth feel that women deserve the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men. Feeling embarrassed yet?

Now here is how this all ties back to abortion and some rather brilliant machinations by the Republican party.  The conversation this week has focused on rape and abortion. Whether rape victims should be permitted to seek abortions, what "type" of rape victims this applies to, whether rape victims can even become impregnated, and if women even know when they have been raped. Hey Chuck Winder, maybe while you are sleeping some angry women will surprise you with a 7-inch dildo in your anus. Let me know if you knew you were raped, or if you were confused on whether you were experiencing "normal relations" with your wife. I'll make sure to comment on what you were wearing and my suspicions that you are trying to swindle some sympathy and money out of the taxpayers. Deal?

As we get caught up in the media firestorm surrounding this issue, we shift the abortion focus from women to rape victims. How can we not? The thought of women being forced to carry their rapists' babies is so appalling that it is difficult to ignore elected officials suggesting this very nightmare. Along with this come all the usual accusations about women, including that they invent rape as an excuse to obtain abortions. As though women are running around, having unprotected sex with anything that moves, just so they can go get abortions as an enjoyable recreational activity. It's like a big slumber party!!

The Republicans have cleverly framed the debate in a way that moves all of us a big step to the right. A really big one. Should Democrats lose a few seats in the Senate and/or the Presidential election, we are looking at a situation in which Roe v Wade could be quickly overturned. The right already has us bargaining and pleading about the rape victims, so it's a logical step that progressives would then agree to just about any abortion deal so long as the victims (including those of incest) are excluded.

Now imagine an America in which abortion is illegal for everyone except rape victims. Every time a woman is raped, she needs to swiftly and skillfully collect evidence as though she is a prosecutor in case she gets pregnant and needs to prove she was in fact raped. Women will be jailed for miscarriages and forced to become government-mandated incubation centers. Eventually (and it can't take long), some poor girl will be in an untenable situation and will claim she was raped in order to obtain a safe, medical abortion rather than risk dying in a back alley like so many others. She will be caught, and there will be a media circus.

What conservatives claimed would happen--women falsely claiming rape in order to obtain an abortion--will happen. Because they made it happen. Then the country can say goodbye to the exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and hello to a country in which women are literally livestock and the cluster of rapidly dividing cells inside them is more valuable than they are. Mark my words, this is how this will play out if we let it.

Key word being "if". So while it is extraordinarily difficult to wrench ourselves from the rape narrative, we must. We, a coalition of forward thinkers, must demand legal, safe, affordable, accessible abortions without compromise. We will abide by the original mandate to regulate after viability, but nothing more. We must not give an inch and we must not allow them to dictate the conversation. This is a call to action not just for women, but for the men who will not stand to see their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters become dehumanized political pawns used to constantly one-up religious extremism. We must not fear the labels the right will use to brand us--let them shout Baby Killer, Whore, Feminazi; at least you will have your life. At the end of the day, I would rather be a "slut" who controls her own body than a "good girl" who has rights equivalent to those of a sow. I predict you agree.

Todd Akin's understanding of cervical function

The Romney/Ryan Economic Policy

"Rape" is a bit harsh. Let's call it "unrestrained love" instead.

As most of you have seen by now, MacArthur Genius Grant Recipient Missouri Senate candidate and Member of the House Science and Technology Committee Todd Akin made some very insightful comments on why we should not allow abortion exceptions for victims of rape. He demonstrated his impressive command of scientific and medical knowledge when he said, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Now ladies, before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain what Mr. Akin (resident expert of OB/GYN for the state of Missouri) is talking about. According to a 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina, "an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year." This study is quite misleading (what else would we expect from the radical feminist and pro-abortion agendas of the state of South Carolina?), as it fails to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape. Let's break it down to better understand Rep. Akin's comments:

-The study claims that "the majority" of rape pregnancies "occurred among adolescents." Obviously, teenagers who claim to have been "raped" are simply attempting to pass off blame for their pre-marital fornication. Even the non-consenting teen girls cannot be characterized as "legitimate" rape victims, as this group is notorious for dressing promiscuously and inciting "unwanted" male attentions. This is just common sense, a trait clearly linked to the Y chromosome.

-The study continues to report that most of the pregnancies "resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator." I will defer to leading psychiatrist Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder to explain why this automatically excludes such pregnancies from the "legitimate rape" category. He feels that women are not able to determine whether or not they have been raped: "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape." This clears things up considerably. If you are married, you cannot be raped. This has already been established by law in progressive countries. Additionally, our pre-Constitution proclaims that father-daughter sex is not rape if the father really wants it to happen. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude this entire group is rape-free.

-Most of the women who believed they were raped did not receive any medical attention after the incident. This is very damning evidence, as the US health system's wide accessibility and affordability provide victims many resources to go and ask their doctor if they were really raped, or were just having sex with their husband/dad. If the doctor is unsure, he can re-create the experience for her to be certain. There can only be one reason a woman would not seek such care: illegitimate rape.

-Finally, back to the science that Rep. Akin was trying to teach us before we got all PMSy and controlling. The study finds that 11.8% of the pregnant women experienced "spontaneous abortion" AKA miscarriage. The uteri of the legitimate rape victims were able to "shut that whole thing down," as Akin eloquently explained. As we have demonstrated, all other sources of pregnancy were not as rapey as these conniving women would have us believe, so we can assume that this final group is the only one experiencing legitimate rape.

A few brave men, including VP Candidate Paul Ryan and our dear Rep. Akin, tried to clarify the legitimate vs illegitimate issue last year by re-naming it "forcible rape." I propose they have not gone far enough. What is rape, really, but a man trying to show a woman the strength of his affections for her? It may even be good for her! Therefore, I believe we should re-title rape "unrestrained love" to help women better understand what is happening to them when men simply cannot hold back their exuberant joy to be with them.

Author's Note:
Please understand that I felt the only way I could address such an utterly ridiculous view was with an equally ridiculous response. This is a difficult topic and the sarcasm is employed to make it easier to discuss.

Welcome!

Welcome to "i can haz rights now?", a site dedicated to protecting and upholding the rights of all. We are currently in a culture that overwhelmingly supports the rights enshrined in our Constitution, yet does not understand their application or notice when they are being taken away. According to years of polling data, most Americans cannot name the rights they are granted in the Bill of Rights and even more have never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document the US not only signed but helped co-author (Eleanor Roosevelt was the US delegate).

With the advent of the internet and the 24-hour news cycle we should be more informed than ever, yet this does not appear to be the case. The addition of more voices seems only to have added to the noise, not the discussion, with disastrous consequences. Thomas Jefferson warned us of such a scenario when he said, "liberty and ignorance cannot coexist," yet here we are with more information and less knowledge than ever before. We are all attention deficient from smart phones, tabloids, cable news, and DVRs. We read the headline, but can't bother to read the article. We hear a 5-second sound bite and accept it as fact. We turn off the documentary on climate change and turn on the Kardashians. We text a friend while ignoring the one sitting next to us. We question if we really need to exert the time and effort to keep our bodies healthy or expand our minds; can't someone or something else just do it for us?

The answer, for most things in life, but especially for the maintenance of our free society, is a resounding no. To allow someone else to dictate the terms of our freedom is to surrender not only the control of, but access to said freedom. When we become spectators rather than active participants in our democracy, we hand over agency to whomever decides to take it, and that someone may not be the person we really want to have unregulated power over us.

To remain a free people, we must be an educated, engaged populace. Otherwise, we must be prepared to face the type of Orwellian dystopia we have always feared. Or are we there already?