NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, March 24, 2017

No quarter will be given!

The Quartering Acts--first of which passed March 24, 1765--were egregious enough to be referenced in our Declaration of Independence:

[King George III{ has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

And 15 years later we got the Third Amendment protecting us from forced billeting of soldiers in our private homes, which probably isn't the biggest worry most people have right now.  F'rinstance, here's Griswold:

[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

With the defeat of TrumpCare2.0, women at least don't have to worry about Republican Men quartering in their uteri or mammaries for now...

ntodd

March 24, 2017 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Show And Tell

Jenny Boylan:

I’m so over defending my own humanity. I’m so over providing a power-point presentation about the fact that I exist. And I’m completely done with engaging with anyone who has a clever theory explaining why they actually understand my soul better than I do.

To be blunt: if your crazy-ass theory of the world doesn’t ease the suffering of people whom you do not understand, maybe what you actually need is a new theory.

Look, I’m going to continue all of the work I’ve been doing these last 15 years talking about identity and story and love. I’m going to try to support other people in the community whose work I admire, or find challenging or engaging.

But in creative writing circles we have a saying: Show, Don’t Tell. [ed. note: she drilled that into us in class] In writing, that means that a scene — with dialogue and texture and character — is much more convincing than narration — explaining and lecturing. And it strikes me that this is true of our movement now as well.

To exist is to resist.

ntodd

February 19, 2017 in Conscience, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (1)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, November 25, 2016

Give us a reading on the 1202


As you can see, there are no chicks landing on the Moon.

ntodd

November 25, 2016 in Mars, Bitches!, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Patriarchy In Space

Just catching up on this week's news:

President Obama awarded his last Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest US honor given to a civilian — in a packed ceremony on Tuesday, according to The New York Times. Margaret Hamilton, the woman behind the onboard flight software for NASA Apollo lunar modules and command modules, was among the 21 recipients.

Hamilton, who invented the term “software engineer,” began her career as a computer programmer at MIT in the 1960s. In August 1961, NASA issued a contract to MIT to design the spacecraft’s guidance and navigational system. Hamilton presided over the in-flight software group, which included overseeing the alarm system that would give a warning when the computer was overloaded, but at the same time allowed it to switch its focus to critical tasks and stop doing non-critical tasks.

This alarm system proved to be crucial in the moments leading up to Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong’s Moon landing when it rang due to a faulty radar. But it allowed Aldrin and Armstrong to continue with the landing as the computer informed the crew that it was shedding its less-important functions to focus on steering the engine during the spacecraft’s descent.

During the award ceremony, Obama said Hamilton represents “that generation of unsung women who helped send humankind into space.”

Unsung is an understatement.  In popular culture and history about the Apollo program, women are relegated to the Wives, some nurses...men are the heroes.  And I admit I didn't even realize that until recently.

ntodd

November 25, 2016 in Mars, Bitches!, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

For There Is No Power But Of Trump

Cesspool seems to be a well-researched name:

James Edwards, host of The Political Cesspool, reflected on Chelsea Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention and opined that Hillary Clinton could “not be the mother God wants you to be” because she was an “extremist radical, feminist.”

“So I’m sure that there is love between Hillary Clinton and her daughter, but I did not see the family and familial bonds out of the Clinton family that I saw from the Trump family,” he explained. “Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton sleep in the same room? Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton even sleeps with men?”

“Should Hillary Clinton be president of the United States?” Edwards asked his listeners, adding that “under God’s law, a woman should not even have dominion over her household.”

“There are natural roles and abilities that men and women have that are God-ordained and together, they are complementary of one another, and together, a man and a woman can raise a family,” the radio host insisted. “The husband is the ruler of the house under God’s law, and that’s the law that I abide by,”

Edwards went on to assert that the country would be “better” if women did not have the right to vote.

I'm sure when Hillary wins, these folks will all follow the higher powers ordained by G-d instead of, you know, fomenting rebellion.

ntodd

August 2, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Religious Accommodations For Plan B, But Not For Peyote

Conservatives legitimately ask Why Can't I Discriminate If I Really, Really Hate Something?

[I]n 2007, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy issued new regulations declaring that a pharmacy may not “refuse to deliver a drug or device to a patient because its owner objects to delivery on religious, moral, or other personal grounds.” Quite reasonably, the board felt Washington pharmacies should not be permitted to deny patients safe, legal drugs—which was a growing problem within the state: In addition to Plan B, religious pharmacists had refused to give patients diabetic syringes, insulin, HIV-related medications, and Valium. That, the board decided, was unacceptable. Pharmacists have every right to believe whatever they wish, but when those beliefs are manifested in the form of brazen discrimination against customers, they cannot be sanctioned by the law. In 2015, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of Washington’s regulation.

Alito, along with Thomas and Roberts, seesStormans differently. “There are strong reasons to doubt,” Alito writes, “whether the regulations … actually serve … any legitimate purpose.”

There are strong reasons to doubt whether Justice Alito serves any legitimate purpose.

ntodd

June 28, 2016 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (1)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Monday, June 27, 2016

It's A Trap!

And Dead Tony couldn't have stopped it:

In a huge victory for the pro-choice movement, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 Monday to strike down two major anti-abortion provisions that were part of an omnibus anti-abortion law Texas passed in 2013.

The court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt also strikes a blow to a strategy by the pro-life movement to limit abortion access incrementally, through state laws.

To provide abortions at any stage of pregnancy, the provisions forced doctors to have"admitting privileges" with a nearby hospital (which are difficult to get for abortion providers specifically), and forced clinics to undergo often expensive renovations to become "ambulatory surgical centers," which haven't been demonstrated to make abortion safer (though abortion is already quite a safe medical procedure.)

While pro-life advocates said these laws made abortion safer for women, their most significant effect was forcing roughly half of the state's abortion clinics to close. The overwhelming consensus from doctors is that the laws had no medical benefit, and actually made abortion less safe because they forced quality clinics to close for no compelling medical reason.

The central constitutional question was: Did the policies put an "undue burden" on women when they are forced to drive hundreds of miles because their nearest clinic has closed due to regulatory hurdles?

The Court found that it did.

"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," read the decision.

No fucking shit.  I mean, TRAP laws are no threat to liberty like background checks and smaller magazines and/or clips, of course, but this is still pretty good news, if you're into that sort of thing.

ntodd

June 27, 2016 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Soon National Right To Life Will Become Anti-drone

This is nice:

Existing Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rules had meant commercial [drone] operators needed a pilot's licence in order to fly even small drones - a stipulation industry advocates said was unnecessarily restrictive.

In addition to the licence, commercial drone operators had to apply to the FAA on a case-by-case basis to gain permission. To date, only 5,300 commercial applicants were successful in gaining permission from the FAA, a tiny fraction of drones owned in the US.

Critics of the old system said the process was too cumbersome and expensive.

From August, commercial drone operators will be able to fly by meeting much simpler criteria.

Because we'll probably need this to help women trapped in TRAP states:

Tuesday morning, something flew into the airspace of Northern Ireland. It wasn’t a bird, it wasn’t a plane — it was an abortion drone, carrying the means for safe pregnancy termination for women in protest of the strict abortion laws governing Ireland.

The drone carried abortion pills containing mifepristone and misoprostol, which together are considered the gold standard for medical abortion. The drugs are safe for women to use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. It set off from the Republic of Ireland and flew to Northern Ireland, where it landed and two women took the pills, according to a press release.

The women who took the pills didn’t say whether they were pregnant or not, according to theTelegraph, arguing that was private medical information. While police officers were present at the landing site, they didn’t confiscate the medication, which had been prescribed by doctors. Although abortions are illegal in both parts of Ireland, the differing laws in the two countries allow for a drone to fly the pills between them.

Let's just make sure the delivery drones are armed so nobody will be able to regulate them...

ntodd

* Lucky Thirteenth Blegiversary Fundraiser: Donate today, or I'll not forget to ask you tomorrow! *

June 22, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Dedicated To Sansa Stark

Chiyorozu no:

Though you faced a foe
A thousand myriads in strength
You are such a man
As without lifting up words
Could bring them captive back.

Motoori Norinaga.

ntodd

* Lucky Thirteenth Blegiversary Fundraiser: Donate today, or I'll not forget to ask you tomorrow! *

June 21, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Now there was a time when they used to say

Behind every great woman:

[Sansa] proves she’s absolutely right: Jon and his foolish honor fall victim to Ramsay’s games just as Sansa warned him not to, and he abandons his carefully laid plans. He charges, alone, at a superior force and allows his army to be surrounded and nearly overwhelmed. He himself loses his horse and nearly suffocates. Sansa, meanwhile, enlists the help of Littlefinger and rides in with the Knights of the Vale to save the day. The Starks retake Winterfell — largely because of Sansa. At the end, when Jon overtakes Ramsay, he looks to her — acknowledging that especially with this enemy, she deserves to call the shots.

In the ending scene, she gets the ultimate revenge on her rapist and torturer. “Your words will disappear. Your house will disappear. Your name will disappear. All memory of you will disappear,” she tells him. Having lived with him, she knows his greatest fear. And then she sets him up for the most karmic piece of brutality yet...

Probably the most satisfying episode in six seasons.  I just hope it doesn't, you know, give any of my lady readers dangerous ideas...

ntodd


* Lucky Thirteenth Blegiversary Fundraiser: Donate today, or I'll not forget to ask you tomorrow! *

June 21, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, June 16, 2016

The Best Gun Control Is Cock Control

Perhaps we should do what Benjamin Franklin suggested Britain try on some violent North Americans: all the Males there be castrated.

The English, whose Humanity is celebrated by all the World, but particularly by themselves, do not desire the Death of the Delinquent, but his Reformation. The Advantages arising from this Scheme being carried into Execution are obvious. In the Course of fifty Years it is probable we shall not have one rebellious Subject in North America. This will be laying the Axe to the Root of the Tree. 

In the course of 50 years it is probable that we shall have not one mass shooting...

ntodd

June 16, 2016 in RKBA, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, May 20, 2016

Stopped Oklahoman Clocks

A Constitutional Conservative speaks:

Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Mary Fallin on Friday vetoed a bill that called for prison terms of up the three years for doctors who performed abortions, saying the legislation “would not withstand a criminal constitutional legal challenge.”

The bill, which was approved a day earlier in the Republican-dominated legislature, would have made performing an abortion a felony and also called for revoking the licenses of any doctor who conducted one.

The bill allowed an exemption for an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother.

“The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,’” Fallin said, in a statement from her office, where she was described as “the most pro-life governor in the nation.”

If Trump's SCOTUS nominees change the constitutional landscape, Gov Fallin would be able to sign the next iteration and set the clock back on reproductive rights.  Think on that, Busters...

ntodd

May 20, 2016 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (1)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Here's Another Woman We Could Put On Some Money

Ride, Sybil, ride:

Sybil Ludington was born on April 5, 1761 in Patterson, New York, the daughter of Abigail and Colonel Henry Ludington. He had fought in the French and Indian War and was an influential community leader. He volunteered to head the local militia during the American Revolution. In 1777, Sybil was sixteen years old and the oldest of twelve children. Being the oldest, Sybil was often in charge of caring for her eleven younger siblings.

On the night of April 26, 1777, Colonel Ludington received word that the British were attacking Danbury, Connecticut, which was 25 miles from Ludington's home in New York State. Sybil Ludington went out to gather her father's troops and warn the countryside of the British troops’ incoming attack. She took a forty-mile route by horse, and riding through the pouring rain, shouted that the British were burning Danbury, and called for the militia to assemble at the home of Colonel Ludington. By the time Sybil had returned home from her ride, around four hundred men were assembled, ready to stop the British army.

Sybil Ludington was recognized for her heroic ride by the man who would become the first American President, General George Washington. She continued to help throughout the rest of the Revolutionary War as a messenger.

Bonus: she's white, so I'm sure no rightwingers would complain about having her replace...dunno, Jefferson?  Grant?

ntodd

April 26, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

The fear of man bringeth a snare

Ignoring today's terrorism snare, let's revisit my favorite Jezebel, Anne Hutchinson:

Mrs. Hutchinson held a "double weekly lecture," to which a large number of persons constantly resorted, "to the number of fifty, sixty, or eighty at once." * At these lectures she was able to repeat from memory the sermons that she had heard preached, and as she went along would make her own commentaries upon them. In this manner she brought great numbers to her way of thinking.

As soon as there was an organized opposition to the "new doctrines," measures began to be talked of, by which a stop might be put to them, and the Commonwealth saved from ruin; for it was said that the difference between the doctrines maintained by either party was "as great as between Heaven and Hell."

The religious controversies sprung from differences of opinion ("covenant of grace" vs "covenant of works") eventually resulted in trials for Hutchinson, her brother-in-law John Wheelwright, and several other men who were disenfranchised:

"All these," says Winthrop, "except Mr. Wheelwright, were but young branches, sprung out of an old root. The Court had now to do with the head of all this faction.f A woman had been the breeder and nourisher of all these distempers, one Mistris Hutchison, the wife of Mr. William Hutchison of Boston, a very honest and peaceable man, of good estate, and the daughter of Mr. Marvary [Marbury] sometimes a preacher in Lincolnshire, after of London; a woman of haughty and fierce carriage, of a nimble wit and active spirit, a very voluble tongue, more bold than a man, though in understanding and judgment inferior to many women.

This woman had learned her skill in England, and had discovered some of her opinions in the ship, as she came over, which had caused some jealousie of her, which gave occasion of some delay of her admission, when she first desired fellowship with the Church of Boston, but she cunningly dissembled and coloured her opinions, as she soon got over the1 block, and was admitted into the church; then she began to go to work, and being a woman very helpful in the time of child-birth, and other occasions of bodily infirmities, and well furnished with means for those purposes, she easily insinuated herself into the affections of many; and the rather, because she was much inquisitive of them about their spiritual estates."

The Court having disposed of several of the men, as is above summarily stated, proceeded to " confute and confound " Mrs. Hutchinson...

Which brings us to March 22, 1638:

[T]he articles being again read to her, and her answer required, she delivered it in writing. wherein she made a retmctation of near all, but with such explanations and circumstances as gave no satisfaction to the church; so as she was required to speak further to them. Then she declared, that it was just with God to leave her to herself, as he had done, for her slighting his ordinances, both magistracy and ministry; and confessed that what she had spoken against the magistrates at the court (by way of revelation) was rash and ungrounded; and desired the church to pray for her.

This gave the church good hope of her repentance; but when she was examined about some particulars, as that she had denied inherent righteousness, etc., she affirmed that it was never her judgment; and though it was proved by many testimonies, that she had been of that judgment, and so had persisted, and maintained it by argument against divers, yet she impudently persisted in her affirmation, to the astonishment of all the assembly. So that, after much time and many arguments had been spent to bring her to see her sin, but all in vain, the church, with one consent, cast her out. Some moved to have her admonished once more; but, it being for manifest evil in matter of conversation, it was agreed otherwise; and for that reason also the sentence was denounced by the pastor, matter of manners belonging properly to his place.

After she was excommunicated, her spirits, which seemed before to be somewhat dejected, revived again, and she gloried in her sufferings, saying, that it was the greatest happiness, next to Christ, that ever befel her. Indeed, it was a happy day to the churches of Christ here, and to many poor souls, who had been seduced by her, who, by what they heard and saw that day, were‘ (through the grace of God) brought off quite from her errors, and settled again in the truth.

Trump and his psycho party are nothing new under the sun...

ntodd

March 22, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Stunts Never Work

From a few years back:

When Woodrow Wilson arrived in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 1913, he expected to be met by crowds of people welcoming him for his inauguration as United States President the next day.

But very few people came to meet his train. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people were lining Pennsylvania Avenue, watching a Woman Suffrage Parade.

Organizers of the parade, led by suffragists Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, planned the parade for the day prior to Wilson's first inauguration in hopes that it would turn attention to their cause: winning a federal suffrage amendment, gaining the vote for women.
...
Of the estimated half million onlookers watching the parade instead of greeting the President-elect, not all were supporters of woman suffrage. Many were angry opponents of suffrage, or were upset at the march's timing. Some hurled insults; others hurled lighted cigar butts. Some spit at the women marchers; others slapped them, mobbed them, or beat them.

The parade organizers had obtained the necessary police permit for the march, but the police did nothing to protect them from their attackers. Army troops from Fort Myer were called in to stop the violence. Two hundred marchers were injured.

The next day, the inauguration proceeded. But public outcry against the police and their failure resulted in an investigation by the District of Columbia Commissioners and the ousting of the police chief.

More than that, the sympathy generated even more support for the cause of woman suffrage and women's rights. In New York, the annual woman suffrage parade in 1913, held on May 10, drew 10,000 marchers, one in twenty of whom were men. Between 150,000 and 500,000 watched the parade down Fifth Avenue.

Stunts like this are why chicks still can't vote to this day...

ntodd

March 3, 2016 in Pax Americana, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, February 12, 2016

Speaking Of Clinton's Indiscretions

Digging through the archives, found that time when Senator Snowe gave a fairly reasonable statement on the last day of President Clinton's impeachment trial, February 12, 1999:

Here is the precise point of our challenge—to give particular meaning to the elusive phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors.” This task is critical, because impeachment is not so much a definition, as it is a judgment in a particular case—a judgment based not upon an exact or universal moral standard—but upon a contemporary and historical assessment of interest and need.

"High crimes and misdemeanors” speak to offenses that go to the heart of matters of governance, social authority, and institutional power—offenses that, in Hamilton's words, “relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

And these crimes must be of such magnitude that the American people need protection, not by the traditional means of civil or criminal law—but by the extraordinary act of removing their duly elected President.

For removal is not intended simply to be a remedy; it is intended to be the remedy. The only remedy by which the people—whose core interests are mean- ingfully threatened by the President's conduct—can be effectively protected.
...
[A]s a woman who has fought long and hard for sexual harassment laws, I resent that the President has undermined our progress. No matter how consensual this relationship was, it involved a man in a position of tremendous power, with authority over a 21-year-old female subordinate, in the workplace—and not just any workplace. He has shaken the principles of these laws to their core and it saddens me deeply.

But as I work my way through my distaste, my dismay, and my disappointment, I return to the discipline that the Constitution imposes upon us as triers of fact. My job here is to review the evidence, and to measure that evidence against my standard of proof, and the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
...
If I were a supporter, I would abandon him. If I were a newspaper editor, I would denounce him. If I were an historian, I would condemn him. If I were a criminal prosecutor, I would charge him. If I were a grand juror, I would indict him. And if I were a juror in a standard criminal case, I would convict him of attempting to unlawfully influ- ence a potential witness under title 18 of the United States Code.

However, I stand here today as a U.S. Senator, in an impeachment trial, with but one decision—does the President's misconduct, even if deplorable, rep- resent such an egregious and immediate threat to the very structure of our Government that the Constitution requires his removal?

To answer this broad question, we need to ask several finer questions. Do the people believe that their liberties are so threatened that he should not serve his remaining 23 months? Is the President's violation on par with treason and bribery? What are the ines- capable and unprecedented effects of removing a duly elected President?
...
In this case, I understand how reasonable minds could differ, for I have struggled long and hard with my own decision.

But the Constitution tempers our passion and measures our judgment. And the Constitution requires each of us to determine not just whether the President violated a statute. For had the Framers intended the offenses charged in this case to require removal in any and all circumstances, they would have specifically included them in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution.

Because they did not, we are compelled to ask ourselves whether the nature and circumstances of his conduct are such that we have no choice but to inflict upon him what one of the House managers called “the political equivalent of the death penalty."

If I could conclude that this President's conduct is of that nature, I would vote to remove him. Because if there is one thing I’ve learned throughout my 25 years in elective office, it is that the really tough decisions leave us with but one choice—doing what we know to be right and true.
...
The President's behavior has damaged the Office of the Presidency, the Nation, and everyone involved in this matter. There are only two potential victims left—the Senate and the Constitution—and I am firmly resolved to allow neither to join the ranks of the a%rieved.

From the day I swore my oath of impartiality, I determined that the only way I could approach this case was to ask myself one question, “if I were the deciding vote in this case, could I remove this President under these circumstances?” The answer, I have concluded, is “no”—and therefore, I will vote against both articles of impeachment

Despite her disaste, Snowe did indeed vote Not Guilty along with 54 other Senators on Article I, and Not Guilty along with 49 other Senators on Article II.  Those poor House managers couldn't even get enough Republicans on board for a majority on either charge, let alone come close to the necessary supermajority.  And the Republic was saved from GOP idiocy.  A little bit, anyway.

ntodd

February 12, 2016 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Hell Is Other Feminists

Hecate reframes the Special Place In Hell for us:

When Ms. Clinton ran the first time, Geraldine Ferraro, who ran as Walter Mondale’s Vice President and was considered, by many, to be the first realistic female candidate for Vice President, got caught up in Patriarchy’s game.  Ms. Ferraro said that now-President Obama benefitted from being an African American man in his contest with Ms. Clinton.  The media jumped and Ms. Clinton’s campaign suffered.

This time around, Patriarchy’s been playing the game just as effectively.   Former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, who is pushing 80 and quivering when she holds a microphone, admonished younger women (who think that “it’s already been done”) that there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” and this, as was intended, was played as old women v. young women.  Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, allowed Patriarchy’s beloved bad boy, Bill Maher, to trap her in this game.  When Mr. Maher asked why Ms. Clinton isn’t doing better with young women, Steinem bought into his assumption and said that young women will get more radical as they age, because women lose power as they get older.

Dear My (Older) Sisters:  Please Stop Letting Them Do This To Us.

Look there is a simple answer to every question that attempts to pit Ms. Clinton’s supporters against other (often younger) women.  Take notes because here it is:

“I support Ms. Clinton.  Almost never has America had such an experienced, tested, and well-rounded candidate for president.  If you want to see her perform under fire, go watch the eleven-hour grilling that she took from hostile Republicans, determined to destroy her candidacy, concerning Benghazi.  Ms. Clinton brings exceptional credentials to the Oval Office, credentials that NO other candidate, Republican or Democrat, can match. I know many young women who are excited to see a woman finally, after more than two hundred years, make a serious run for the White House.  And I know many women who, regardless of Ms. Clinton’s gender, believe Ms. Clinton to be the best, most experienced, most realistic candidate for the White House.  And why is it, Questioner, that you need older women and younger women to engage in a dispute over this?”

Period.  The end.  Move on.

Don't let the bastards grind you down...

ntodd

February 9, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Yuge Assholes

We don't need 'em:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had a terse message for any of his supporters who engage in online harassment: “We don’t want that crap.” He told CNN on Sunday that the so-called “Berniebro” phenomenon is “disgusting” and that “anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things — we don’t want them.”

The “Berniebro” phenomenon, where a mob of online Sanders supporters attack politicians and writers who express views critical of the Vermont senator or supportive of his Democratic rival Secretary Hilary Clinton, launched numerous thinkpieces from journalists unfortunate enough to encounter them online. At their worst, Berniebros have accused Clinton supporters of voting “based on who had the vagina” and have invented novel sexist terms such as “clitrash.”

Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign has engaged in an escalating series of tactics trying to convince the Berniebros to cut it out.

But why doesn't he tell all the socialists to cut the crap?

ntodd

February 7, 2016 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Guest Post: Monkey Brain Is A Dick

I think we have a lost generation of women who are diagnosed with ADHD later in life, who have had to manage the condition on their own and deal with it on their own for the majority of their lives. The diagnosis is a blessing and a curse: it’s a great relief, but they wonder what could have been different if they had only known.

- Michelle Frank, a clinical psychologist specializing in ADHD

In May of 2015, at age 41, I was diagnosed with ADHD. And I do wonder what my life would have been like had I been diagnosed as early as my son, Sam.

The coping mechanisms I’ve developed over my whole life, organized and fairly “high-functioning”, according to my doctor, masked the hallmark symptoms of ADHD. Inwardly, though, I was in constant destructive self-talk mode. For as long as I can remember, my days ended with recollections of what I’d not accomplished, or how I’d interrupted someone and/or said something stupid, conversations in which I’d completely blanked on what I was saying mid-sentence. I felt stupid and wrong and bad all of the time. I blamed myself for everything. (Low self-esteem? CHECK.)

Because no parent, teacher, doctor is trained to see girls'/women's symptoms as ADHD (the medical establishment emphasizes boys' hyperactivity symptoms and because girls are conditioned by society to conform and adapt), I suffered in silence, shaming myself to be more organized, hold my tongue, not procrastinate and be more responsible, so it would be get better.

An outside referral or evaluation recommendation would never materialize for me. Instead, I was able to put the pieces together. In 2014, after I began to suspect it, did some research, and talked with my doctor about a referral. The “drug-seeking” stigma of ADHD creates an additional barrier between primary care physicians and specialists. So, I was referred to a nurse (not trained or specialized in ADHD) who would determine whether I could receive a referral to an ADHD specialist.

A diagnosis would elude me for another year, ironically:

"hi, my doc gave me the number for the ADHD screening person, and i've lost it, can you give it to me again?" #nailedit
ericka @ergVT · 11:26 AM - 23 Jul 2014

(The referral nurse never returned my call, by the way.)

The social stigma of ADHD is another barrier to sharing my experience. I am fearful to admit to people I have it. I’ve not told my boss. I’ve told my mom and a few friends. That’s it. Most people don’t even know. I think more people on Twitter know than IRL.

I've heard that it’s a made up disorder; it’s the pharmaceutical industry’s ploy to drug us; that it’s a public school failure. Can you imagine telling a person with epilepsy that?

ADHD is a neurological disorder. Simply put, there is a lack of dopamine received by my brain. There are defects in “dopamine transporters” and the transporters take up too much dopamine before it can be passed from one brain cell to another. 

People with ADHD cannot trust their perceptions - executive functions like working memory, flexibility, metacognition, and sustained attention are impaired – and miscommunication will often trigger a negative internal response. We call this “Monkey Brain” in our household.

Case in point, this morning: I refilled my coffee, put the coffee pot back and Todd walked into the kitchen to do the same.

Todd: Did you get enough coffee?

Monkey Brain: What did you do wrong? Did you take all the coffee? What is going on? Why is he mad?

Me: I left you enough for you to have a cup!

Todd: *blink blink* I know. Did. You. Get. Enough. Coffee?

Me: I see what just happened there. I didn't hear your question; I thought I did something wrong. Felt bad. Then guilty. Monkey brain is a dick.

Ericka

January 24, 2016 in Family Life, Monkey Brain, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (3)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Memoirs And Healing

Jenny Boylan on writing about her life:

On the page, I’m a much more entertaining and buoyant person. In private, there is definitely a lot of sorrows and troubles that I carry around. I’ve held back a little bit about some of the melancholy I felt.

But the story of the transgender person who’s miserable and sad has been told. The story of someone who’s lived a full life and triumphed has not been told.
...
When I was 18 or 19 and in my freshman year at Wesleyan University, I went into the library to find books on people like me, and there was nothing or worse than nothing, these books that were completely wrong. I saw a cartoon once that someone reading a book. The title says “All About You,” and the credit line says “By Not You.”

Sometimes I wish I had my privacy and I was seen as an unextraordinary soccer mom from northern New England. But now, the 2015 version of that young version of me can go into a library and find a book by me or the other transgender writers and know they exist in the world, and they’re not alone. That does good in the world and balances out the loss of privacy.

In my experience, she's always been entertaining and buoyant not just on the page but also IRL.  That said, I understand how this cannot possibly show all that she's gone through in her life, including being on the public stage fighting the good fight.  I'm very glad she's done all that--I've certainly learned so much from her over the last couple decades.

ntodd

December 30, 2015 in Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)