« Dog Wagging The Tail | Main | Happy Halloween, Ladies! »
Monday, October 31, 2005
Axlotl Tanks
Sorry gals, you're just organic breeding vats, wholly owned by Husband, Inc. You are commanded to get over it. And fetch me some coffee.
ntodd
[Update: as the Wise and Manly Dr. Norbizness reminds us in comments, you should also be SEXY breeding vats. I turn to his colleague, Dr. Strangelove:
I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Indeed. So get a new hairdo, buy yourself a slinky dress, put on some ravishing perfume and let's get busy breeding! Otherwise you will never truly understand what being a woman is all about.]
['nother update: This is the kind of spontaneous publicity I need! My name in Salon!
And then there's the word from the guys. Linking to a slew of feminist sites, Dohiyi Mir writes, "Sorry gals, you're just organic breeding vats, wholly owned by Husband, Inc. You are commanded to get over it. And fetch me some coffee."
So funny, it hurts.
For the record, I didn't mean to hurt anybody. But then again, you are chattel, so I guess by law I'm not supposed to care.]
October 31, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8345ab34569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Axlotl Tanks:
» Alito on abortion, searches from The QandO blog
Already, this Alito confirmation debate is shaping up to be exceedingly dishonest and hysterical. Remember this post when you encounter the fothcoming "Samuel Alito's America" onslaught. [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 31, 2005 12:52:11 PM
Comments
But that shouldn't stop you from aspiring to be the SEXIEST organic breeding vats you can.
Posted by: norbizness | Oct 31, 2005 9:51:42 AM
RE: Update. I am looking forward to the gender imbalance in the underground bunkers.
Posted by: norbizness | Oct 31, 2005 10:37:54 AM
Thank you. I feel all my ambivalence about my proper place in the world melting away. May I come back here frequently so that I can get updates on what I need to do to more perfectly fulfill my role as a woman -- an American woman?
Posted by: Marcia Brady | Oct 31, 2005 1:33:41 PM
I promise I'll be barefoot.
Posted by: Marcia Brady | Oct 31, 2005 1:35:10 PM
I just love boy fantasies.
They're so......predictable.
Posted by: flory | Oct 31, 2005 3:53:08 PM
I get the impression that we're confusing *notification* of the husband with *permission* of the husband. I'm not sure I reflexively hate a spousal notification requirement. Doesn't the husband have a legitimate interest?
Posted by: Satchel Pooch | Oct 31, 2005 6:44:19 PM
S --
imagine the following scenarios, as to why Scalito is out of touch:
-- battered woman has to notify husband -- whether she has it or not, it gives him a "good reason" to beat the crap out of her
-- woman who knows she's pregnant by another man has to notify husband, and that's how he finds out she's been having sex w/someone else
-- woman legally separated from her husband but not yet divorced has to notify her husband (this actually happened to an ex-leader of NARAL -- she was separated, broke, on welfare, and STILL had to dig up her husband to let him know before she could get an abortion of fetus neither of them wanted)
The women who'd choose NOT to notify their husbands probably have good reason to make that choice...
Posted by: quietann | Oct 31, 2005 7:06:33 PM
Each of those scenarios were addressed by the law at question, quietann.
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 31, 2005 9:04:32 PM
I think every man should have to get permission from his wife to have an orgasm. Obviously a vasectomy or an affair or even masturbation would be against the law. Every sperm is sacred, you know, and she obviously owns every single one of those viable pre-babies. In fact, she can have as many of his babies as she wants. And use his sperm to share with her friends...and he obviously should pay child support for every child he fathers whether he got to participate or not. Sperm should not go to waste! So a guy could father about how many thousands of kids? He could just send his 'donation' via a sperm bank and then he wouldn't even need to leave work! Gotta pay for all those kids!
In fact, so no sacred sperm at all gets lost, when a boy becomes a man, maybe he should be flash frozen. Then he could be thawed out whenever he's needed!
Posted by: ellroon | Oct 31, 2005 11:45:42 PM
Well, ellroon, talk about sliding right off the slippery slope. If you are simply going to make jokes (I assume you are not serious), why even participate in the marketplace of ideas the rest of us call democracy?
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 31, 2005 11:49:40 PM
I thought it was funny.
Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 1, 2005 12:15:47 AM
I'm glad you two are so amused.
Posted by: Charlie | Nov 1, 2005 12:27:22 AM
Other than the obvious "pot 'n' kettle" comment about Charlie and jokes, when your "marketplace of ideas" features an idiot appointing an idealogue, it's time to start shopping somewhere else.
Ooohh...a Dune reference. How nerdly. Looking forward to threads about prescience, spice and the Voice.
Posted by: shpx.ohfu | Nov 1, 2005 6:49:17 AM
Wow, Charlie has no sense of humor when it comes to controlling male sexuality. How surprising.
And yes, Chuckles, the law which was struck down did have exceptions. Yet it was struck down. Wonder why? Maybe because the State has no fucking right to tell married couples how to interact?
If a law is that intrusive and yet needs to consider every reason why a woman might want to not talk to her husband, that should give everybody pause.
Posted by: NTodd | Nov 1, 2005 6:51:20 AM
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law required a woman to sign a statement indicating she had informed her husband of her intent to have an abortion; that was the provision that was struck down. As pointed out, the very women most liable to abuse are the ones who would have been required to sign the statement. Women who are legally minors are not protected by the decision; state legislatures may still require they must notify their parents... even if, for example, a girl's abusive father is the one who got her pregnant. IMHO, Planned Parenthood v. Casey didn't go far enough.
Humorless Charlie, your eyes are turning brown. I believe you need to file a legal document stating that you have notified your wife that you are heading to the bathroom.
Posted by: Steve Bates | Nov 1, 2005 2:31:17 PM
Read the judge's opinion ... you are way off base!
He didn't decide the case based on his like or dislike for the particular law ... The question was if the law was unconstitutional (which one can rationally decide that it wasn't).
Furthermore, per the debate of if the law is "good" or not ... all your points are off base:
1. It was notification, not consent. The husband had no "veto" power.
2. There were plenty of loop holes to let women out of having to inform their husbands including if the pregnancy wasn't from their husband of if informing the husband would put them in harm.
Take some time and do some research before spreading more mis-information, please.
Posted by: Shut up | Nov 2, 2005 8:29:18 PM
1) I know he had no "veto" power. Notification is still a form of control and a violation of privacy.
2) Yes, there were loopholes. How considerate of the State to provide a few options for how a married woman can "choose" to interact with her husband.
My opinion is not misinformation. Buy a clue before being a snot.
Posted by: NTodd | Nov 2, 2005 11:10:12 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
