Weekly Digest: February 29, 2008

February 29, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Once a week I publish a weekly digest of my blog posts. You can read previous weekly digests here >>

Recently Posted:

This is the weekly digest for this week.

Feminism:

p1010298.JPG

Animals & Veganism:

Politics:

tipjar.jpg

Big Pharma:

Et Cetera:

Read more:

Share/Save/Bookmark

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under All Digests 
Leave a Comment to "Weekly Digest: February 29, 2008"

Naked, Naked, Naked!

February 29, 2008 | 5 Comments

naked mother’s day demo

I was going to wait to write about this, but since the meat-eating feminists at Feministing are already on it I can’t postpone this blog post.

Vanessa at Feministing says:

“I refuse to post the image of the newest horrific stunt that PETA managed to pull off in London yesterday.”

Did Vanessa refuse because she’d rather not confront the fact that her meat comes from animals confined in exactly this method? Or refused because she’d rather not respect a women’s decision to do with her body what she pleases? Or refused because she hates PETA? It’s hard to tell, really.

gestation crate

The point of the demonstration, in case you don’t know, is to show how female pigs are kept in gestation crates for the sole purpose of breeding piglets for ham. The sows are confined in a method similar to veal crates and they cannot roam, roll in mud, snuggle with loved ones, run about or otherwise live a normal pig life. Here are some links with information about gestation crates:

Here are the links about this particular PETA protest:

I think this comment from Soy Milk Conspiracy is interesting:

“Back when I was a crazy animal rights activist in college, I got naked, painted myself like a tiger, and sat in a cage for 6 hours in front of a circus to protest the inhumane treatment of animals - the idea being that it’s supposed to be horrific and offensive to see a human in the same gross and vulnerable position that we gladly put animals in everyday for profit. Rake me over the coals if you must, but it was one of the most effective protest techniques I participated in. It’s supposed to illicit empathy, but I understand why people take it a completely different way. Naked women seem to bring out the nasties in everybody - even feminists.”

(Related blog posts: Suicide Girls’ PETA Ads, Who Decides What Women’s Bodies Say?, The PETA Porn Debate Craps, Naked PETA Video, State of the Union, More Naked Men of PETA, I’d Rather You Listen To Me With My Clothes On, But Since You Won’t…, Quick Hit: Feministing Still Unbelievably Speciesist, Found In Translation)

Oh, yeah, and “I’d Rather You Listen To Me With My Clothes On, But Since You Won’t…” goes out to Feministing too. The only time they listen animal rights people is when they’re naked. What’s that saying again? If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Animals, Feminism, Philosophy and Guidance, Sexuality, The World, veganism 
5 Comments to "Naked, Naked, Naked!"

Feminists Turned Anti-Feminists

February 29, 2008 | 5 Comments

goat kids

Disliking children = disliking humans. It’s anti-human, anti-feminist, and totally fucking wrong. So, you don’t want kids? Fine. But don’t hate on them or their mothers.

When I said last week that:

“I don’t even think birth control is essential to feminism. Abortion and birth control represents freedom to determine one’s own destiny and not be a slave to one’s biology. But to say birth control is essential to feminism is to say infertile women are not. Girls, post-menopausal women, women unable to conceive, and transwomen are all left out of the Valenti-style feminism that makes abortion and birth control essential to feminism. The thing that birth control represents, the freedom to determine one’s own destiny, is the crux of feminism, not birth control or abortion.”

And in the comments I wrote:

“[M]any feminists tend to treat it like it’s the only issue or like it’s the crucial issue. Some feminists (essentialists) have even said that birth control is THE major feminist issue because it frees women from their biological constraints.

“Well, I find THAT offensive. My body is not my enemy. My body is not something that needs to be fixed with technology. And even if my body is used against me by the patriarchy, it’s the patriarchy at fault and not my body at fault. My body isn’t the thing that needs fixing, the patriarchy is the thing that needs fixing.

“Birth control is a TOOL to escape the patriarchy, but it does NOTHING to end the patriarchy. NOTHING.“

And:

“The technology exists. There’s no putting it back in Pandora’s box. Women will demand it (through feminist action or not) regardless of it’s legal status. There are some things we can do as feminists to ensure access to birth control for all women, but this one type of technology is not all that feminism is. What if tomorrow motherhood wasn’t so detrimental to women’s ability to determine their destiny? What if we really decided that ‘it takes a village’? And what if women didn’t fear pregnancy so much? What if women were respected and valued regardless of whether they were pregnant or mothers? Would birth control be so important then?“

This is similar to what I meant to explain:

” So a lotta feminist blogs are talking about this anti-child nonsense from ‘Reason’ magazine. Which I get–sort of–because sure, a lot of feminists don’t have, and don’t want, children.”

“But that shouldn’t lead you to say things like ‘[Children are] expensive, they’re time constraints, and our fast-paced economy doesn’t have time for the slower lives required to raise children properly.’”[...]

“[I]t’s not funny, feminist, ‘reasonable,’ or acceptable to talk about children as things, or to imply that people who “choose” to have kids are crazy or stupid. When you do those things, you implicitly support the idea that women’s reproductive systems are abnormal, that women with kids are fools, and that children and reproducing women are not part of human society.[...]

“Let me reminds you, once again, that people do not “choose” to have kids. A lot of people choose *not* to have kids–birth control, wealth, and modernity certainly contribute to this decision, which is perfectly irreproachable, by the way–but reproducing is not a conscious decision. It is something that the bodies of living creatures simply DO. It is, in fact, part of the definition of ‘living.’

“[W]omen with kids deserve better than to have childless women support sexism by thinking that if they drink the smug libertarian kool-aid, they’ll somehow get treated as honorary men. I expect feminists like Ann and Amanda to be able to see through the game where we’re asked to turn on each other in order to take the pressure off the folks with the real power–in this case, the power to ‘choose’ whether or not to acknowledge that children are people, too. It’s the same fucking logic that underpins the ‘if I can’t force her to have an abortion, I shouldn’t have to pay child support’ argument: children are someone else’s (read: those bitches’) problem. If you don’t have a uterus–or if you choose not to use yours–then hey, kids are just theoretical abstractions to you.” [emphasis added]

Read the whole post from BitchPhD, it’s great >>

Feminism isn’t centered on Ann Friedman’s, Amanda Marcotte’s, or other prominent feminist’s obsession with birth control and abortion. Feminism is about respecting everyone’s right to autonomy, respect, and opportunity. It’s about ending sexism and patriarchy. It’s not about neglecting a social responsibility to treat children like human beings or about allowing fucked up, anti-poor people comments like this:

“‘Of course, you should feel free to have lots of babies if you like them and they make you happy!’

“…and if YOU can afford them.”

Like I said last week:

Don’t pretend republishing the ads or stories without serious, in-depth commentary is innocent. Republishing offensive stuff without serious commentary is just second-hand offense, not feminist activism.

The fact that Feministing not only allows, but encourages those comments says something very important about the direction of mainstream feminism. It’s not just innocent ‘opinion.’ Feministing is a brand, not a person. And that brand is currently FOR profit (read: for sale). And that brand is currently understood to be THE feminist movement.

It’d be a different story if this came from something called AmandaMarcotte.com or AnnFriedman.com. (And I’m not saying that to absolve myself from criticism. You got criticism? Bring it on!) I’m saying that how you represent yourself FUCKING MATTERS. If you call your blog a feminist blog but you only write about topics that get lots of comments or topics that effect educated, wealthy white women, you’re being disingenuous.

—

PS - I chose baby goats because they’re called “kids.” I like the play on words and the pic is cute. Also, I wanted to highlight how this kid-hate sometimes overlaps into animal-hate. There are some people who think they deserve to live without exposure to kids or dogs. Well, I’d like to live my life without exposure to idiots, but that ain’t going to happen! It’s called REALITY. You just have to suck it up and deal with it. You can’t wish or hate away the people or other living beings you hate. And fuck you very much for trying.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Feminism, Philosophy and Guidance, The World 
5 Comments to "Feminists Turned Anti-Feminists"

Oops, We Killed Them. Eh, They Were Just Going To Die Anyway.

February 29, 2008 | Leave a Comment

“Blood Thinner Might Be Tied to More Deaths“

Well that’s just fucking great. Not shocking though, is it?

“Amid indications that more people may have died or been harmed after being given a brand of the blood thinner heparin, federal drug regulators said Thursday that they had found “potential deficiencies” at a Chinese plant that supplied much of the active ingredient for the drug. [...]

“The Food and Drug Administration said the number of deaths possibly associated with the drug, made from pig intestines, had risen to 21 from 4. But it cautioned that many of those patients were already seriously ill and that the drug might not have caused their deaths.”

Oh, well, since they were just going to die anyway… Jesus Christ! Sounds exactly like the excuse used for the increase in suicidality for anti-depressants. ‘Well, they were just going to kill themselves anyway…” Fuck you, FDA and Big Pharma! Newsflash: we take medicines to prevent death. We don’t like being told it’s OK when your medicines kill people because those people would have died anyway. We know… we’re all going to die eventually. You don’t have to pound it into our heads by killing people, you know?

Next we’ll hear the FDA and USDA telling us that anyone who gets ill from consumption of tainted meat, like say beef, that they were just going to die anyway.

You know what’s a safer blood thinner than pig-intestine-derived, Chinese-plant-poisoned herapin from Baxter International? Water.

Yup. Lots of people who take blood thinning meds are chronically dehydrated. Newsflash: diet soda and only diet soda is inadequate fluid intake for the human body. Same goes for milk, juice, coffee… You need WATER.

I love this chick. She calls herself Vegan Barbie and she’s a nurse:

Share/Save/Bookmark

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Health, Fitness, & Beauty, Lifestyle, The World 
Leave a Comment to "Oops, We Killed Them. Eh, They Were Just Going To Die Anyway."

Spinning The Frames; Cheating The Games

February 29, 2008 | 7 Comments

Ralph Nader

I often find myself agreeing with Nezua at Unapologetic Mexican. Here’s a recent agreement:

Regarding Nader’s entrance into the elections and the reaction from Democrats:

“Framing a legitimate presidential candidate as a ’spoiler’ is muddy thinking and a notion that tears at the soul of democracy. It implies that a particular candidate is entitled to the presidency and that flies in the face of every founding principle guiding this nation.” says Nezua.

Agreed. If this is a democracy, votes should count towards something, not away from something. And I certainly don’t like being told I can’t vote my conscience because that’s a vote away from one of the two lesser evils. Because you know what? If you tell me I can’t vote my conscience, I’m not going to vote. My vote doesn’t BELONG to anyone but ME.

If anyone was shocked that Nader’s running, they haven’t been paying attention. He’s been listed as one of the Green candidates from the beginning. This recent ‘announcement’ is merely the mainstream media finally recognizing the FACTS. This isn’t news that Nader is ‘entering the race’. Notice how the Nader blog uses the word “how” and not the word “that”:

“Ralph told the media today after ‘Meet the Press’ that he will decide within the coming days how he is going to run for President in terms of ballot access.”

That said, I am not big on politics. Honestly, I simply can’t keep up. I have little faith in our democratic system. I have little interest in which corporate political power will rule the world country in years to come. I vote apathetically, hoping that doomsday isn’t right around the corner. But I do still vote. Like I said before, I vote because I like participating in my community’s rituals, not because I think my vote matters. It’s never mattered before so why would it now? They just rig the elections and do whatever they want, anyway.

Would I vote for Nader? Maybe. I just love a man who uses poker analogies ;)

See Nader’s website here >>

Share/Save/Bookmark

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Philosophy and Guidance, Politics, The World 
7 Comments to "Spinning The Frames; Cheating The Games"

Next Page »