I Don’t

Bonjour, cool cats!

I just started reading The Meaning of Wife by Anne Kingston. It is pretty awesome. And, like all good books should, it started me thinking. Even if I were allowed to, I don’t plan on getting married. There’s just too much stigma attached to it for my taste. Marriage was conceived as a way to use women as currency, disguised as a religious commandment. Even with the religious background, though, in its early days, marriage’s ownership overtones wasn’t disguised that heavily.

In our current PC days, though, that would like, so not fly with those feminists. You know, the angry ones with hairy armpits from the 70s? They would be pissed. So how to convince generations of women to keep getting married? Tell them that marriage is the ultimate form of love, because every wants to be loved! And even I have to admit that the idea of getting dressed up in pretty clothes and swearing you’ll love each other until the end of time is honestly sweet. Don’t get me wrong; there are lots (hopefully most!) of married couples that adore each other. And I think commitment is important, especially if you want to have children (nothing against divorce; my mom has been divorced twice and it hasn’t killed me yet). But marriage in and of itself is not the ultimate form of love. And I don’t see the point in continuing a tradition that originally, had nothing to do with love, in the name of love. Does anyone else see why I think this is odd?

In addition to the tradition of wife-as-property, the wedding industry is eeeeviiilllll. *spooky voice* Consumerism is one of the main ways society subverts women. The obsession with having the “perfect wedding” leads to a year-long shopping spree, often with purchases of items that cost exponentially more because they have the word “wedding” tacked to the front. (Wedding Port-a-Potties!) Not to mention the completely exploitative shows like “Bridezilla”.* And (blarrrgggh) the belief that every little girl dreams about her wedding? When I was a little girl, I was fantasizing about having a pet dragon and riding it to school and all the other kids would be soooo jealous. The only thought I ever gave to marriage was being really sad that I’d have to give up my last name, which I was apparently extremely attached to, because I just assumed I was going to get married one day.**

And there is something about “wife” that connotes a certain personality. Type-A, tidy, with it, probably nagging, if not speed freak cheerful frighteningly cheerful about something. For something that is supposed to be able to include all women, that sounds pretty narrow (and unrealistic). In The Meaning of Wife, they mention that women actually try to change to seem more wifely. Er. As in, acting more demure, doing more dishes, etc. etc. Maybe taking some time to purchase a pink frilly apron. Guess what? Their husbands didn’t like this. Yeah, maybe because they married a human being who suddenly MORPHS INTO WIFE-BOT! Transformers, sexists in disguise! While I disdain the genre of humor consisting of middle-aged dudes complaining about how they married some hot lady who is now UGH! Letting herself go! Nagging! Wearing granny panties! Maybe there is a tiny kernel of truth to it. (That sentence hurt to write) If wives feel so much pressure to conform to this 50s, Feminine Mystique-esque stereotype that they’re actually trying to become that, they’re probably losing themselves. And the men who married them probably miss that old self, because you can’t love a stereotype. You can’t love the stress that comes with trying to be someone you’re not. You can love a partner who lives with you and shares chores with you and maybe raises kids with you and keeps house with you and sleeps and cuddles with you. But after all the problems that “husband and wife” have had in the past, it seems that “wife” is having a damn hard time adjusting to being a person who just happens to do all those things with their significant other as well.

And for Pete’s sake, keep your name or hyphenate. Please?

*I have never even seen this show. I would probably puke.

**No, little Rabbit! You don’t have to give up your last name! You can keep it! Or hyphenate! Or even not get up-and-marriaged at all!


Golden Showers

By a show of hands, I’d like to see how many of you think peeing on women is hilarious, clever, and not hateful towards women IN THE SLIGHTEST. I am going to go ahead and assume that none of you raised your hands, because I’m assuming that as you are intelligent enough to be reading this, you are intelligent enough to realize peeing on women is neither hilarious, nor clever, and it is certainly hateful.

So why is it there are so many freaking urinals shaped like women? What kind of assbag frat-boy thought this up? Women are turned into urinals and peed on objectified all. The. Time. And if you don’t believe it, I have proof. Warning: pictures are NSFW.

Oh, I see what you did there! Ha! See, it’s funny because you’re peeing into what looks like an old whore’s vagina. Totally not hateful or misogynistic at all, because sluts aren’t people anyway, so it’s O.K. to pee on them. Well, unless you have a soul, or a heart, or a conscience, but you’ve probably sold all those on the black market by now anyway. But sometimes you aren’t out to indulge in disgusting rape/pee fantasies. Sometimes you just need an ego-boosting. You know what the best way to boost your ego is, men? Have a pretty lady tell you your dick is nice. That’s what I do when I’m feeling a little down on myself, anyway.

So isn’t this convenient? A wide array of passive (cuz, you know, they’re pictures, not real women), conventionally pretty, white ladies to ogle, measure, eye seductively and snap a shot of (to show the grandkids!) your dick. All while you pee on them.

Ah, gee! Y chromosome carriers sure are thoughtful. For these, they’ve helpfully removed any part of the female body not totally pornified by society (so, that leaves only the boobs, ass, and legs, charmingly clad in thongs and garters) so that men don’t have to deal with women as human beings. Because treating people like people is so hard! Why, it’s much simpler to subvert an entire gender and treat them as inanimate sex toys! You know, like dildos and stuff. Woman, vibrator, it’s all pretty much the same, doncha think?

Sometimes, though, you need something classier. Something that doesn’t scream “we chopped some stripper’s heads off and Krazy-Glued them to the wall”. And there is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, that doesn’t scream class like peeing in someone’s mouth. I mean, check out that expertly applied lipstick! This level of class doesn’t come easily. I mean, we’re talking Audrey Hepburn-, Fred Astaire-level shit here, guys.

Honestly, this pisses me off, pun not intended. Don’t say it’s meant to be a joke. Well, obviously it’s meant to be a joke. And it’s funny– you know, in the same way that Holocaust jokes, or racist jokes, or rape jokes are funny. Funny in the kind of way that maybe you laugh at, but if (in this case) you’re a woman, they make you feel a little sick or a little uncomfortable and maybe you’re not sure why.

Until you realize that, “Oh hell. That’s me they’re joking about pissing on.” Because all of the “women” represented (well, they’re fake but you get my drift) are anonymous. They are not specific (not that that would be any better). They are supposed to represent something– someone. Who are they representing?

Women. The joke is merely that pissing on women is funny, and not to be taken seriously, despite the utter disrespect it shows. If you are a woman, all of the above urinals are jokes about peeing you, all of the above urinals are a show that you are, in fact, lesser. That you are something less than human, and because of that, disrespecting you is A-O.K. happy-fun-times.

I am so tempted to glue Lorena Bobbitt’s face over the women in the second picture’s faces. Also, super-glue knives into their hands. That sounds funny to me!

Women: They’re Just Too Sexy

Fun Fact of the Day: Women are just too sexy for the public. It’s true. That seems to be the super-Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung’s point of view, anyway. Violating guidelines explicitly stated on the official White House flickr page, they decided to go ahead and photoshop the only two women (Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason) out of an image of a counterterrorism conference.


Apparently, Hillary Clinton’s yawn or cough or whatever was just too “sexually suggestive” to be seen by the public. Seriously, have you ever seen a picture more pornographic than this? I mean, this is the kind of stuff teenage boys hide under their mattresses. But… what was poor Audrey Tomason doing? Just standing there, looking… like a woman. Come on! You can’t even see their boobs!

The Original Picture

The newspaper eventually printed this crock of shit photoshopped picture instead.

According to the magazine, they don’t believe that pictures of women should ever be printed. I, obviously, have a problem with this.

I understand that many religions have a focus on chastity and modesty. O.K, that’s one thing. But Hillary wasn’t dancing in her skivvies on the table to “Sexyback”. She was not sucking a lollipop and winking seductively at the journalist. NO! She was yawning, or coughing, or something. The fact that merely having women in the picture was too sexually provocative asserts that men are the target demographic (I’m assuming the readers are straight for convenience’s sake. Also, if lesbians ran the world, this would never happen). Out of a group of straight readers, who are the ones who might find Hillary and Audrey provocative? Men. Nobody is complaining that women might get lady-boners from Prez Obama’s intense stare. Because women can’t read! Women aren’t interested in politics! Hahahahaha! What a silly idea. There is a constant double standard in our society; there is one accepted way to be a woman, and myriad different accepted ways to be a man. And guess what? The one way to be a woman? It’s impossible, guys. Nobody can be that thin– but not anorexic. Nobody can be that giggly and sweet– and mean it. Nobody can have perfect hair, or perfect boobs, or always be in a good mood, and nobody WANTS to always defer to men (I hope). And Hillary and Audrey have strayed off that perfect path just by being powerful women in the same room as powerful men. They are just as much a part of history as any of the men in that room. They have just as much of a right to be in that picture. It is the constant portrayal of women as “other” that means people can see a woman as merely a sex symbol, instead of a respected professional. Because if women were truly seen as human beings, then people would see them as politicians, not as constantly sexual.

And there is just something about the whole idea that reeks of rape apologism. The idea that women, just by existing in a room, can incite lust? Can make men lose control? Like I said, Hillary and Audrey weren’t exactly doing a burlesque routine. They were appropriately dressed and behaving just like all the men in the room. But because they are women, they are too sexual. This kind of mindset just furthers that if men are turned on, they lose control of themselves, they aren’t responsible. The newspaper is just perpetuating the myth that it is the woman’s fault for inciting lust, and that she deserves punishment; in this case, being photoshopped out. In a real life situation, being raped. Not only does this hurt women, it just seems downright insulting to men. It seems a little insulting to say that men are all beasts who have no self control. We are all human– women are not sex symbols, but people. Men are not sex-machines, but people.

Can we all start thinking that?

Oh, and by the way– even if Hillary were to come to work in a cardboard box with eye holes she would get bad P.R. If she’s not sexy enough, they say she’s frumpy and letting herself go. If she’s too sexy, they say she’s inappropriate for a politician. Such is the life of a powerful woman. Hey, even if Hillary was in sweatpants and a sweatshirt she’d look better than that guy right behind Obama, and no one’s yelling at him for letting himself go.

Rabbit Does More Than Fume

In my recent post, Rabbit Fumes In the Back Row, I yelled about someone making a “go make me a sandwich” joke during an school council election speech; one that I’m pretty sure has to be approved by teachers. This made me really, really, really angry. Like, time to bring out the feminist adamantium claws angry. (If you didn’t get that, go read Rabbit Fumes in the Back Row). It pissed me off to such an extreme degree, in fact, that I decided to do more than yell on my blog.

Yep! I wrote a letter. I am still communicating with teachers to figure out how to send it to the right people, but I’ve started to figure it out. I’m actually a little shaky because I got this huge adrenaline rush writing it. Talk about a feminism nerd. Then again, I’m the girl who wears her homemade Betty Friedan and Kathleen Hanna pins pretty much every day.

Speaking of Kathleen Hanna, I want to thank Bikini Kill and my mom. Because you know I had on my headphones on and was growling along to “White Boy” as I wrote the letter. And also, my mom is pretty much Awesome Feminist Mom and she helped me figure out who to send it to and such. Seriously, though, my mom is sitcom-mama levels of awesome. You know how on cheesy sitcoms the sidekick will have a parent that represents a minority or “very special issue”? Like the sidekick’s dad will be gay and explain on the show how gays are just like everyone else* or the mom will be a feminist? Yeah, well my mom isn’t a creepy sitcom mom, but she’s pretty great. I would not be a feminist without her. And no, she didn’t brainwash me by reading me The Female Eunuch while I was still in utero or something. She just happens to be a asskicking strong woman who I admire and who is awesomely independent and who even let me play with Barbies and read Seventeen until I went on my walkabout in the Australian bush and met my spirit animal. My spirit animal is Simone de Beauvoir, by the way. I sort of wish it had been a bear or something though. Simone de Beauvoir is much harder to carve into a totem pole than a bear, or fish, or eagle or something.

The text of my letter is below, although I censored some stuff. While normally I am entirely against censorship, I would prefer not to give away anyone’s names or the school I go to, because for all I know you are a creepy stalker. So I will have to settle for writing myself a stern letter about the harms of censorship.

To Whom It May Concern:

During yesterday’s assembly, a comment was presented as humorous; however, I found it to be personally offensive as well as sexist and degrading. In (student name)’s speech, she suggested that we create incentives for students to attend events; she quoted several students, including one who claimed that an incentive for them would be “a woman who would make them a sandwich”. The connotation of this joke is that a woman’s voice is not important, and that their role is to shut up and serve men. This is a pretty common “joke” that is always inappropriate, oppressive, and intended to silence women.

I was surprised and concerned that no (school name) adults made any effort to intervene and that it was passed off as humorous. At (school name), we pride ourselves on our tolerance and I know that no comments that were similarly oppressive, such as a racist joke, would never be allowed. As a young feminist, I was appalled and offended that this was allowed. I don’t feel safe in an environment that would support sexist comments without any reprimand. Jokes that demean my worth as a young woman do not make me want to attend (school name) events, and it is debasing to all the young women at (school name) to hear these kind of misogynistic comments in a supposedly fun environment like an assembly. I hope that this can be addressed soon.




*This would be great, if I didn’t hate sitcoms as a general rule. And the “very special episodes” are always super patronizing.


Rabbit Fumes in the Back Row

If you attended my high school and went to the assembly we had today, and happened to glance into the back row about halfway through, you would have seen me with steam blowing out of my ears and a feminist lecture upon my lips. Because some utter asshole decided it would be a great time to bring up the sandwich thing.

Let’s get this straight. Feminists have nothing against sandwiches. I’m sure there are even feminists who like sandwiches. Hell, I’ve been known to enjoy the occasional peanut-butter-and-chocolate-chip myself. Sandwiches are not the problem here. Sandwiches are an innocent snack or meal.

But feminists will bare their teeth, unsheath their claws*, and shriek a vicious war cry when that tired old, “make me a sandwich” line is pulled out from its dusty place in a closet in Patriarchy HQ. Yes, during the election speeches given during the assembly today, someone actually mentioned the sandwich thing.

A girl whom we shalt call ‘O’ was explaining how she would add incentives for people to attend school events. This is all howdy-doody, but then she proceeded to give examples of what people considered incentive. “So-and-so would go to a game if we gave everyone a bowl of Cheerios, what’s-his-face would attend a play if there was free food. And Sir Asshole Toolster would attend a game if there was a woman to make him a sandwich.”

At this point I turned in my seat and told my friend K, “And Rabbit would go if she got to slap the ass who told a woman to make him a sandwich.”

And yes, I realize: time and time again it has been proven that high school boys are 99% more likely than most other human beings (with some exceptions, mainly for frat boys) to be misogynist sacks of hormones and woman-hate. And I realize someone is probably going to write me an angry comment telling me that is was “just a joke, God, feminists are all so serious, learn to laugh”. But none of the administration thought it was a problem for someone to put such an obnoxiously sexist piece into their speech? The subjugation and degradation of women is not a joke; calling it so is a) further demeaning to women and b) belittles the fight for gender equality. One would think that a group of adults trusted to run a hothouse of teenage hormones should be the most sensible, intelligent people on the planet. The kind of sensible, intelligent people who realize that making jokes at women’s expense is NEVER OK, even if it does make jocks laugh. I have the right to go to school and not have my entire gender insulted by someone who knows nothing about women and girl’s struggles.

I am considering complaining to someone, but if somebody could give me advice on how to continue, that would be great! I am not exactly sure how to bring up that this upset me, who to talk to (the principal?), how to complain, so any help with this (just leave a comment) would be wonderful.

*All feminists have adamantium claws, just like Wolverine. Because feminists are X-(WO)MEN AND WE ALL KNOW IT OK?


Right now in History we’re learning about World War I, and we did a journal today about the draft and how we feel about it. Personally, I am against the draft; I feel war is disgusting, let alone forcing people to kill others. But eventually the topic came around to women being drafted, which I thought was an interesting topic.

The thing is, I’m confused about how I feel on this one. On one hand, I feel that the less people being drafted the better, the draft itself should be eliminated and all wars should be decided through games of Duck Duck Goose*. But on the other hand, I really don’t think the draft is going anywhere anytime soon. It’s probably going to be here for quite a while longer; and because of that I would rather women had the same rights, with some reservations if it’s just not possible, like if she were pregnant or had something else impeding her from joining, just the same as men. The idea of being drafted is a terrifying thought to me, so I would be tempted to just say, “Yup yup, it’s fine as it is,” but honestly my morals would be screaming otherwise at me.

What do you think? Should women be able to be drafted or not? Tell yours truly in the comments.

Oh yeah, and I was listening to “Best Cock on the Block” by Bitch and Animal during this. It’s hard to write a serious blog post when you’re hearing, “From the D to the I to the L to the DO!”.

*I just feel that Obama would be good at Duck Duck Goose. Who’s with me?

Rabbit is Rendered Speechless with Disgust

Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan woman, may face charges for naming four men who raped her and held her hostage for two days, because instead of going to a police station and filing a case, she went to the media and released their names. Now their “honor is tainted”. In my opinion, it’s a hell of lot more than tainted. It is gone, flushed down the toilet, zip, nada, zilch, gone with the wind, over. It is no more. Well, assholes, maybe you should have considered how it would look on your resume before you gang-raped a woman. On Saturday, she entered a hotel full of foreign journalists and told them her story; she was forcibly removed and taken away. Now, she’s being held by the government, and her mother, Aisha Ahmad, has been called by the government who have told them to back down. A reporter for Financial Times, Charles Clover, gave the official misogynistic prickster comment as to her story’s truth: she “behaved very much like someone who had been through the events she was describing and did not contradict herself”.

At least he believes her, but that was an utterly disgusting comment, Charlie boy. I spy with my little eye… four different examples of Rape Culture! So, according to you, there is only one way to act after you’ve been raped, and if you don’t act that way, you’re not to be believed. And can we stop with the pretty-pretty-princess, heavens-forbid-we-offend-anyone-when-talking-about-rape, euphemisms for rape? Why is it so hard for him to say “rape” instead of “the events she was describing”? And any one with half a mind could tell you that women do not report rape just to “get back” at men, or whatever it is dickbags say these days. Reporting rape is not something any woman would take lightly, and 61% of rapes go unreported; believe me, no women are just “pretending” they were raped.

The whole thing is so utterly revolting. I hope Iman is freed quickly and her rapists brought to justice.

Read the original article here.

Today’s post brought to you by “Frat Pig” by Tribe 8. I would attach the audio, but I can’t figure out how, as my computer is acting screwier than a pro-lifer.

Oh Boy, I Would Never Have Guessed

Guess what, guys? Crazy shit is afoot. Turns out having an abortion doesn’t psychologically damage teen girls, leaving them scarred and unlovable sluts for the rest of their lives. Because absolutely nobody would have guessed that beforehand. The study followed 289 pregnant teen girls. The girls who got abortions suffered no more depression or anxiety than their pregnant peers who kept the babies.

What I found insulting about this article was that it was filed under “Weird But True”. I would bet anything it was an anti-choicer or a dude who filed it under that. Since when is deciding not to give up a great deal of freedom or deciding not to give birth (which is kind of a big deal in case nobody realized) in your teen years weird? That seems pretty natural to me, but maybe I’m just a statistical anomaly. Oh boy, I’ve always wanted to be an anomaly!

Auditing Abortions

This is disgusting.

A proposed law, H.R. 3, would force the IRS to audit abortions. That’s right. To make sure that taxpayers (read: WOMEN taxpayers) have followed the law, IRS agents would have to investigate terminated pregnancies; specifically, whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. The law could even end up adding a few new questions to your tax forms, like, “Have you had an abortion?”

Is it any of your freaking business? No, it’s not.

Our screwed up, patriarchal system makes it hard enough for women to accuse and convict their rapists, regardless of the fact that pretty much every rapist ever accused (or not accused, considering the high rate of unreported rape) has been guilty. If this law were passed, women would have to prove that their terminated pregnancy was a result of rape/incest, or whether any tax benefit had been used to pay for their abortion. They would have to prove it preferably through “contemporaneous written documentation”. How many women do you think have “contemporaneous written documentation” of their rape? Who could, in their right mind, believe that it is not outside of a woman’s rights to have to explain to an IRS agent how they were raped, and have them judge whether or not that was the right thing to do? I may be only 14 and not exactly have much experience with taxes, but I sure as hell know that this is a sick law.

What if the woman was a victim of rape or incest and did not use a tax benefit to pay for her abortion (even though you should be able to have a federally-funded abortion regardless of your situation), but the IRS agent happens to be a super-right-wing “pro-life” (read: anti-woman)  asshole and think that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance? Is it not possible that an IRS agent with that much power could let their own personal beliefs affect their decision? If the law is passed, it’s going to happen, and we all know it.

There is no real logic behind this law except to debase women and set up another law that would harass women who’ve had abortions.

I really, really hope this law isn’t passed. It’s revolting.

Read more here.

South Dakota Decides Women Can’t Think For Themselves

So I guess women aren’t smart enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion and need permission from centers that are notoriously anti-abortion (I refuse to say pro-life because shouldn’t the woman’s life be valued above a fertilized egg?). Three days ago, South Dakota signed HB1217 into law, which will require women to get permission from “crisis pregnancy centers” before getting an abortion. There are so many things wrong with this, and I want to cry.

I am all for informed decision; in fact, it is a good idea to make information about abortion more easily available. If the purpose of the centers were to give women information about all of their choices and abortion itself in a supportive and caring environment, then it would actually be a great idea.  But these centers promote information that is likely to be flawed, biased, or simply untruthful. They can spread the false rumors about abortion causing breast cancer and all women having depression issues after an abortion. The centers are not staffed by licensed medical or psychological professionals; you don’t have to have any kind of a license to work there, or prove you are unbiased in any way. Oh, OK, because that makes so much freaking sense– let’s give random people power over women’s decisions and bodies? How is that any different than walking up to a stranger on the street and asking, “Should I have an abortion” and going with whatever they say, regardless of different beliefs or opinions?

Oh yeah, and the centers don’t actually have to see you at all. They can just delay your appointment until it is too late to actually have an abortion. Really, this is just too freaking convenient, isn’t it? After all, now you don’t even have to go to the fake pregnancy “help” clinic to be denied your rights to your own body. This pisses me off so much. I can’t believe that there are still people in this day and age who would value a fertilized egg over another human being. The belief that women are too stupid to know what we’re getting into in an abortion is also prevalent (and completely idiotic); so many people seem to think that women will carry this deep, dark secret at the bottom of their withered little souls forever. Because obviously a dumb woman wouldn’t know what she is getting into when she makes a major decision, right?

It is this kind of condescending, patronizing idiocy that makes me wonder how people can say sexism is nonexistent. Just look at how the government can control women’s bodies through b.s. like this– what parallel is there for men? There is none.