When wars are declared, everyone involved in the declaration assumes women will be raped. Invading soldiers do not necessarily rape women to hurt us, per se. Women are raped to stymie the moral of husbands, fathers, and sons. Women’s bodies are considered solely in regard to how they affect men. In the context of war, rape literally plants the seed of the invader in the body of a people. The secret weapon of war is spiritually crippling an entire nation of human beings and generations to come by sexually assaulting as many women and girls as possible.

Reblogged from and another thing ...

Schools have classes called “women’s studies,” and “African-American literature” because the standard for existence set by white men has yet to be rescinded in this age. “Normal” history is the history of a certain class of white people, from the perspective of men. All the other histories are precisely that: other.

Reblogged from and another thing ...

vruz: “Pro-life” means anybody’s life but a woman’s life. It’s about time the term should be co-opted, subverted or disposed.

—via jhnbrssndn:

There are actual fucking physicians in this world who won’t treat ectopic pregnancies.

I want to cry.

….pretty sure this is actually illegal. Like, if someone comes in to the ER, no matter who they are, what they need, if they are in immediate danger, you have to treat them. It’s problematic from an economic/insurance standpoint (like, logistically, sometimes it is hard to figure out how to pay/who can pay for services), but ultimately, you will get treated.

Actually, most states have conscience clauses that protect doctors who would rather let a woman die from an ectopic pregnancy or hemorrhage to death because of a miscarriage and they are fully within their rights to refuse treatment because of these clauses. AND, depending on the hospital you go to (whether it is affiliated with a church like many hospitals are) they have to refuse to treat you because they aren’t allowed to do certain procedures by the board of directors/ethics committee.

The nun who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to take place to save a dying woman is a prime example of an ethics committee allowing an abortion in a hospital where they are not allowed to be performed without permission. The church excommunicated the nun because they didn’t think saving the life of the mother justified terminating the 11 week fetus….which would have died with the mother a few weeks later if the abortion had not been allowed. So two deaths, according to the church, would have been better than the one. The 27-year old woman who needed the abortion due to pulmonary hypertension already had four children, too.

Now, doctors can refuse to treat patients due to these conscience clauses without any legal ramifications, but the odds of another doctor being called in to take care of the patient is high. The problem with this, though, is that women end up waiting while in the process of a miscarriage for the doctor to arrive and treat them. I posted a story about a woman who went through a miscarriage and another doctor had to be called that wasn’t affiliated with the hospital she went to because it was a Catholic hospital and none of the doctors would treat her. I’m having trouble finding the link, but this woman was literally bleeding to death in front of these doctors while waiting for the other doctor to arrive and no one even offered her pain medication. Instead they kept talking about how interesting of a case study she was while she was dying. She survived because the doctor finally showed up and performed the D&C she needed but she could have died while waiting for it. AND THIS IS COMPLETELY LEGAL BECAUSE OF ANTI-CHOICE LEGISLATION.

In any other case, a person bleeding to death would be treated immediately, but because it happens to be a pregnant woman (whose fetus, I might add, was already dead) there are laws in place to protect doctors who would rather let her die because they want to “preserve their conscience”. Personally, I don’t see how letting someone die in front of you preserves one’s conscience when you have all the tools available to save that person’s life, but I guess you aren’t a person if you’re pregnant, only the fetus has any sort of value, not the mother of four who is going to die.



I yield to noone in my hatred of the country of my birth. But to live in a country where doctors can and do refuse to treat ectopic pregnancies, where free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare is beyond the political pale, and where presidential candidates boast about not believing in evolution? Nein danke.

Reblogged from jhn brssndn

Let no one think of me that I am humble or weak or passive; let them understand that I am of a different kind: dangerous to my enemies, loyal to my friends. To such a life glory belongs.


You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film. … There is something very distorted about this reality that they’ve created, which is that it is OK to torture women on screen. Any kind of violence towards women in a sexual scenario is fine. But give a woman pleasure? No way. Not a chance. That’s pornography.