Feb 27 2014

Spleenvent Thursday: Arizona guv vetoes godbag bill

I know, I know, I’m phoning it in, but, in the interest of keeping up a blaming head of steam, the Spleenvents are going to be a semi-regular feature until such time as I whip my blaming schedule into something resembling a shape. I’ll probably have a real post up by this afternoon, but until then, please kvetch at will.

I will begin by linking to a NY Times op-ed column on Arizona guv Jan Brewer’s veto of that asshole godbanger anti-gay hate bill masquerading as “religious freedom.” If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, the column begins

Arizona. Wow. How often do you find yourself saying, “Go, entrenched interests of the business community!” Yet here we are.

and ends (spoiler alert!)

[I]n the United States, victory really arrives on the glorious day when the people with money decide discrimination is bad for business.

Thanks, Arizona.

Wouldn’t it be a riot if people with money decided that the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women were bad for business?


Skip to comment form

  1. speedbudget

    I was thinking the same thing, Twisty. The law that was just vetoed is essentially a conscience-clause law. The same kind of thing makes it perfectly legal for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense prescribed medication (or over-the-counter but behind-the-counter medication) if their religion’s fee-fees will be hurt by handing over a box. I am waiting for the day that someone realizes that both laws are essentially the same, but I’m not holding my breath.

    On a related note, I heard some god-bag interview while I was cooking dinner the other night, and the god-bag of course invoked the whole, “What if a priest gets sued because he wouldn’t perform a gay marriage?” And I’m all, “Seriously? What gay couple is going to go to a church that believes their love is an abomination in order to get married? Your shitty, bigoted attitude SAVES YOU THE WORRY. Everyone already knows you’re a bigoted asshole, so nobody is going to bother you.”

  2. quixote

    Whether you’re phoning it in, or even just feeding and watering the horses so they can bring it in later, you’re better than 99.99% of the web. (Yes, this is a request for more horse pictures, not necessarily diseased.)

    “Wouldn’t it be a riot if people with money decided that the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women were bad for business?”

    This. Exactly.

  3. KmtBERRY

    Speedbudget: You didn’t understand the difference: the anti-homo law could cause MEN to face discrimination. Well, yeah, GAY men, but they are still human BEINGS!!

  4. emilybites

    Lip-curling moment yesterday when one of my law professors (a practising lawyer) encouraged my class to focus on the victim’s short black skirt when defending a guy against a sexual assault charge. Worst line: ‘I’m not saying she was asking for it, but this is unfortunately the way the world is.’


  5. Wilted Lettuce

    @emilybites, I don’t even understand the logic there. What the heck does “the way the world is” really mean? Is he saying he personally feels a very nearly uncontrollable lustful impulse to sexually assault every short black skirt wearing woman he sees? If he actually had such an overwhelming sex/aggression drive how would he even function day to day?

    Or is he saying he doesn’t feel that way but he just assumes other men feel that way? And if so how can he not question that? I mean I really really like ice cream but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go berserk and grab the ice cream from any place but my own freezer. As much as I don’t like equating rape to property theft, I still can’t understand why such an analogy doesn’t occur to anyone who thinks about drives and self control and the law for a minute.

  6. Cyberwulf

    @emilybites – ugh. Yes, this is the way the world is, so let’s keep it that way and exploit it to keep a dangerous scumbag on the streets.

  7. emilybites

    Oh…I didn’t use a pronoun at any point. [Sad fact following] The professor is a young woman. I could have cried.

    She didn’t say ‘This is what I think,’ it was more cynical than that. But pretty fucken depressing either way. It seemed like the statement was intended to be a comment on the way the legal system works, based on the way most people think. So, yes, Cyberwulf – let’s exploit the revolting double standard that exists to set more rapists free!

  8. Wilted Lettuce

    Yikes. Sad that a female law professor is resigned to that attitude, and also sad that I jumped to the conclusion that law professor = male :-P

  9. Lab Rat

    @emilybites: The professor could have at least used the emphasis on the skirt to springboard a discussion on why that is a bad way to argue a case and poor justice. Sounds more like she was recommending it as a line of argument since, gee, that’s the way the world works. DOUBLE DOG BLAME!

    @speedbudget: I also wish the Christian godbags could see how it sets a dangerous legal precedent and will also allow Muslims to make similar discriminations. I think it was in Minnesota a few years ago that a Muslim cabdriver wanted to be free to refuse service to people carrying alcohol based on the idea that it offended his religious beliefs. I think someone had bought a bottle of wine (uncorked), and he told them he would not take the fare. If I recall, the state said, no can do bro. Don’t have all the facts though. This comes from some deep recess in my brain.

  10. Owly

    Let’s not forget what our beloved Greg Abbott said about the decision to strike down Texas’ anti- gay marriage law: “This is an issue on which there are good, well-meaning people on both side.”

    There are good, well-meaning people on both sides, eh? Do tell.

  11. Bushfire

    I wish the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women were bad for business. They’re actually really good for business, because women keep buying all the crap they keep spewing out.

  12. Twisty

    Precisely, Bushfire; the Global Accords are, unfortunately, enormously profitable for the dude-based interests already in place. At home dudes get free childcare, free maid service, and free access to sex, and in the public sphere women drive the entire dudely economy with their constant shopping, not just for girly beauty crap, but for necessary family supplies. Choosy mothers choose JIF!

    If’s true that anti-discrimination follows the money, it’s unlikely that women’s liberation will succeed without an overhaul of the entire economic system.

  13. Ashley

    Yeah, and as long as they keep touting liberation as the accumulation of MORE. PINK. SHIT. it’s going to be a while.

  14. Linda

    Their economic system is based on our ongoing oppression and conformity to the feminine role, on every level; as consumers of poisons that make us more fuckable and thereby more breedable; then as consumers that make us more pregnancy-worthy; then as consumers of products that sustain the family that we have bred based on our high fuckability/pregnancy-worthiness, both traits we must maintain apparently until forever. Then there is the philanthropic sell to get us to pay to support causes that supposedly help us. Then the MRAs take the stats about women doing all the family food shopping/all the beautyshit consuming, and twist them to argue that it is women who actually have control of all the money. LOL if you don’t laugh you’re gonna cry.

  15. Cyberwulf

    What the ha-yell is up with privileged (white, straight, cisgendered, often writing for media outlets) feminists whining about “bullying” and “toxicity” when they’re called out for saying racist, phobic shit lately? Is it anti-feminist of me to want to whack them all on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and yell “This is not how we ally”?

  16. finemess

    Help! Here’s my Spleenvent. I find myself in one of those situations again and I have some ‘splainin to do but fast.

    Venue: “Liberal-ish” Christian Church = Sole source of other humans that I don’t hate (IMPORTANTE)

    Finemess: Closeted spinster aunt of the het variety, radical feminist like whoa, and holding down a universe of one.

    “The Sitiation”:

    About a year ago I witnessed a young woman (20’s) being hit on by a male (late teens) in the church. She said no, very politely, several times. He continued to pursue. Finemess’ blood began to boil with full adrenaline rush but just before I went to her aid she was able to repell the young man. After he’d gone I told the young woman jokingly that I was about to come to her aid and she laughed and said “I keep telling these youngsters I can’t date them”.

    Months later I had been getting a ride to church from a lady for a long time. We had great conversations on these trips and I enjoyed them. We became friendly and have been greeting each other fondly ever since. On this particular day on the way home from church we joined her husband in his car to go to a potluck after service. We talked and visited and got on well. They saw a young woman in the parking lot and mentioned that she was their daughter. The same young woman. So I charmingly told the story about the young man, thinking we’d all laugh but the dad did not laugh. He appeared to be angry. Asked if the young man was at the function we’d left. I said no.

    Months passed. The next time I was in a room with the daughter she avoided eye contact. Did not speak to me. About a week ago I was at another function where she entered the room, saw me, then turned around and went to another room. I knew something was up but I didn’t worry too much about it.

    On Friday it rained here and my car is unsafe for wet weather so I called the ride lady to see if she could pick me up for church. Her demeanor was cool. I thought I had called at a bad time.

    When she came to pick me up she did not come in her own car as per usual, she came with her husband in his car (not normal. they usually arrive and depart church at different hours). There was no conversation on this ride, not with me. Sometimes they whispered to each other. We went on to a function after church. I was directed to sit next to the husband. Later we left and went back to church where it was made very clear that I was not allowed to sit near the women folk. I naturally left a big space between me and her. The daughter showed up and made her mom move fractionally closer to me so she the younger didn’t have to sit next to me. At one point during the service I leaned across the large space to ask mom a question about the service. Shortly thereafter husband shows up and sits between me and mom. Before he showed up there were purses strategically placed so I could not sit too close even though I was not trying to sit close. It was a very strange, hostile, and othering experience. So much so that that night I couldn’t sleep because I felt so bad about how I was treated. So bad about how my long association made no positive impression on her at all. I feel completely erased by this.

    What I have deduced is that these people have decided I am lesbian. Now out here in reality, we know that’s not a bad thing but these people have been taught all their lives that gay = evil/sin so while we know this is utter nonsense, this false rumor can have very serious consequences to my reputation in a place where I am trying to create community. I want to stay. I want to serve. Therefore I have to squash this with the truth. But…. the truth won’t be received well either. So I’m thinking I need to schedule a sit down this week. This is so sad to say in f*ing 2014, but these educated people won’t know anything about either gay rights or feminism or apparently Christianity. How do I tell the truth without telling TMI?
    I hope this is OK for the community to tackle.

  17. Lab Rat

    @Cyberwulf: it’s important to remember that women calling each other out and not being allies and being divisive is a form of patriarchy compliance. As long as we’re all squabbling with each other, there’s no united front to steamroll over the oppression. The P has every interest in keeping us arguing with each other. It’s a bummer that the toxicity debate pretty much plays right into the P’s hand. And what I know about compliance is that we all practice it in one form or another. While it sucks when some white, straight, cisgendered feminists react with defensiveness, this is what we’ve learned. Women are trained to take each other out, be passive agressive and to hate on each other from an early age. Another thing we’re often trained is to be uncomfortable with argument and debate (i.e. it’s not ladylike). Instead of an objection to something you said or did being simply a disagreement, due to enculturation, that objection instead escalates to DefCon 5.

  18. Lab Rat

    Or maybe it’s DefCon 1. I can never get that one straight.

  19. Cyberwulf

    I’m with you on “not being allies” and maybe, depending on what you mean, on “being divisive”. However, calling out other women when they say heinous shit is absolutely necessary. Shutting up so men won’t gloat about how divided feminists are allows racist/phobic/just plain ignorant stuff to stand, and alienates other women. If feminism isn’t welcoming to and inclusive of all women, then we’re just exchanging one hierarchical system for another.

  20. ew_nc

    I think dealing with and understanding women who are patriarchy defenders makes me more sad and frustrated than anything else. For me, it feels like more of a betrayal when women throw each other under the P bus. And yet I know that Global Accords Governing the Fair Use of Women are cause of it, and this is just the way some women have decided to cope with it.

    I Blame the Patriarchy.

  21. Linda

    Cyberwulf: “I’m with you on “not being allies” and maybe, depending on what you mean, on “being divisive”. However, calling out other women when they say heinous shit is absolutely necessary. Shutting up so men won’t gloat about how divided feminists are allows racist/phobic/just plain ignorant stuff to stand, and alienates other women. If feminism isn’t welcoming to and inclusive of all women, then we’re just exchanging one hierarchical system for another.”

    I would choose a less than perfect feminism over patriarchy any day, and expecting women to take responsibility for the racist and the phobic, which is fundamentally patriarchal, really does distract us from our common goal. I personally do not believe that, outside of patriarchal systems, women would create violent and oppressive hierarchies such as we know today. It actually buys heavily into patriarchal, anti-feminist propaganda, to believe that feminism could in any way replicate patriarchy.

  22. Cyberwulf

    Are you seriously suggesting that it’s totally cool for women to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, just because we’re women? You do realise white, mainstream feminism has already alienated women of colour, right?

    There can be no “common goal” if we tell other women that oh we can’t help being racist/phobic, it’s patriarchy’s fault so shut up and stop distracting us with the petty details of your oppression that we conveniently don’t experience. That’s playing into the hands of the patriarchy. We white, straight, cis, able-bodied women damn well need to do better than behaving like Liberal Dudes.

  23. ew_nc

    In other news, Ashley Judd does some pretty awesome blaming of her own.


  24. au naturel

    ew_nc, that was a good article written by Ashley Judd. I always liked her as an actress and it’s hard to see her have to respond to her tormentors.

    This is a clip from someone I always admired.


    As a child, she wanted no part of Patriarchy (which in her case amounted to ornamenting herself when she was in public) and she accurately shows a world dominated and ravaged by the P. What I always loved about her is that she is able to illustrate that the world we see today is a result of that imbalance. When one gender dominates and accepts no criticism or challenge to itself, global warming, contrived wars and the murdering of millions to control resources, the daily brutality and butchering of women to mask their fear of them are the putrid by-products of the tyrant P. I can’t help but wonder how things would have been with an even balance of M to go along with the P.

  25. tmi

    I think Linda was suggesting that women are only racist, etc. because they’ve been warped by living in the patriarchy. (We all hate the P here, so I figure that does not imply “totally cool.”) If you believe that*, you wouldn’t believe that you’d be exchanging one hierarchy for another, but that you’d be getting rid of the basic idea of hierarchies.

    Whether you believe that or not, though, it’s important to realize that not everyone is starting from the same place, even if we have the same destination. And if I (white) am going to ask black women to fight with me for “reproductive rights,” for example, I really need to listen when they tell me that it might not mean the same thing to them, and I need to have their backs if I’m asking them to watch mine.

    * I don’t, necessarily, and even it is true, that doesn’t mean that the rest of hierarchies aren’t stable enough at this point to maintain themselves even if we took out the man/woman one.

    @ew-nc I used to feel that way. Sometimes I still do, but I remind myself that it’s because I’ve been taught to hold women to a higher moral standard in this as in all things. If anything, we should expect more of men, because they have more power, even if it’s only over their own behavior.

  26. finemess

    *not for publication* Never mind. I guess it wasn’t OK. Too bad.

Comments have been disabled.