Doing the right thing is often difficult.

Former President Jimmy Carter has a lot of attributes to recommend him – his Southern accent, his wood-working mastery, his being generally likable enough to be elected to the Presidency (though not enough to be elected twice) – but his authored op-ed piece in The Guardian isn’t one of them.

His piece, titled The words of God do not justify cruelty to women (oh really? you don’t say!), details the reasons for his split from the Southern Baptist Convention after 60-some odd years (apparently, the SBC is a bit hostile to women’s rights. i know, i know. hold. the. phone., blah blah blah). I think this is too late of a realization to be applauded too heartily, but that isn’t even it. About midway through, he writes:

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.

But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

Now, what you should have read is this: I didn’t want to stand up for the oppressed and call out injustice when I was THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD AND WHERE MY WORDS WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE because I didn’t want to to suffer the negative effects of controversy, i.e., I didn’t want to lose the power I had, but now that I’m retired and have nothing to lose, oh yeah! I’ll speak out!

I very much do not wish to live in a world in which more people have his courage to not say the difficult, unpopular things.

What a hero.


Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?

WaPo’s long, rambling, long-on-details-short-on-insight piece on Randall Terry, founder of Operation Resuce and BFF of Jesus, opens thus:

Randall Terry has a thing for fake blood. He buys it by the jug ($31.95 a gallon from a costume store in South Bend, Ind.) and splatters it over baby dolls to represent aborted fetuses or smears it on copies of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.

That’s misleading.  What they meant to write was, “R.T. has a thing for terrorism.  A huge thing for terrorism.  In fact, the only thing he likes more than hating women is terrorism.  He is a domestic terrorist with a very long history of encouraging and inciting violence against abortion providers, and should be prosecuted and sent to jail.  For a long time.”

It depends on what the definition of is, is.

The NYTimes is reporting that the Obama administration is now opening the way for women who are (sexually, physically) abused to seek asylum in the US, reversing the (implicit) policy under the Bush administration.

While I obviously applaud the change, I’m a little confused by the reporting. Consider [emphases mine]:

In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country.

What the fuck, NYTimes? Isn’t the fact that the women were abused proof enough that their abuser considered them subordinate and little better than property? And show me a country in which domestic abuse isn’t widely tolerated, and I’ll show you some statistics that shut you up quick and make you feel ashamed.

Hair Down There

I wish to blog about an issue that is on my mind constantly!  Well, maybe not constantly, but often enough.  It is the issue of pubic hair and WHY it is considered appropriate and even “sexy” in Western societies for women to get rid of theirs.   We Western women go to great lengths to shave, wax, laser, and pluck (yes, pluck…can someone say ouch?) it off regularly.  Clearly not all of us do it, but it is undeniably a trend that has amassed quite a following within the last decade or so.  Historically, a lack of pubic hair on a women indicated an absence of sexual maturity to those who happened to gaze upon her in the buff, and the absence of pubic hair on an adult woman, as depicted in paintings for example, was a symbol of purity, asexuality, and similarly, a lack of her sexual desire and agency.  It seems so odd and pretty disturbing to me that a marker of sexual immaturity, pre-pubescence, and a lack of sexual power and desire in women is now widely viewed as erotic.

The following is an excerpt from a humurous and yet thought-provoking conversation that a female friend of mine had with her male friend as some more food for thought:

Dan: I’m dating a girl and I don’t like her um… “natural” genitalia.
Sally: I don’t want to hear about your girlfriend’s poon. It’s a little too kinky for me at 12pm.
Dan: Please. I have to tell somebody.
Sally: I wouldn’t get me started on the poon.
Dan: I’d like to hear your views.
Sally: My views are let her do whatever the fuck she wants with her own goddamn poon. It’s HER fucking poon. Christ. Does she tell you what to do with your pubes? I didn’t think so. If you want to keep tapping the poon, don’t make disparaging comments about the poon. You will get yourself cut off from the poon. Getting and keeping the poon are very delicate operations.
Dan: Christ.
Sally: I just want to make sure that you get as much poon as you want. If you want less poon, by all means, say something to her along the lines of disliking hers.
Dan: Isn’t it unhygienic?
Sally: It’s actually unhygienic to have no pubes. They’ve evolved for a reason. They’re there to protect the poon. They love the poon. You should embrace all forms of poon. I’m serious. Your life would be a lot easier if you did not discriminate based on the poon. All poon is good poon. Complimenting the poon is also a practice that I endorse full-heartedly.
Dan: Stop saying poon. It’s making me mad uncomfortable.
Sally: I feel passionately about the poon. Everybody always gotta put down the institution of the poon. Men have perpetual problems with it, women are constantly unhappy with theirs. Did you know that numerous women are now undergoing vaginoplasties, they dislike their poons so much? Like, young fucking women. Who are getting reconstructive surgeries to make their poons more “aesthetically pleasing.” IT’S A POON PEOPLE! It’s not supposed to look like Angelina Jolie’s long lost twin sister. It’s not a fucking beauty contest called “Who Has the Most Stunning Poon.” It’s an organ. It has two functions: to bring pleasure to its owner and to bring little bastards into the world. These women are like 18-22. I’m not talking about Britney spears post-3 sets of twins kind of poon. I’ve actually never seen her poon. On second thought I don’t know why I am putting down her poon. That poon has gone through multiple births. It deserves a fucking purple heart. Poon-Surgery is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I feel bad for the poon. I have a lot of sympathy for the poon. Why you gotta hate?
Dan: I think it looks weird sometimes.
Sally: I think you should try putting from the rough. I am also disturbed that you are a fan of poon that looks like it belongs to a 9 year old. Most women upwards from the age of 12 have pubes on their poons. It’s a fact of life. Just like small and/or pencil dicks. Both are facts of life. Both represent the natural variation in human sexuality. Both are perfectly fine.
Dan: I would like to forget that we ever had this conversation.