Yes. That amazing life and liberty experienced by Mexican immigrants, documented or otherwise, who on crossing the border into the US are immediately welcomed with open arms, given all the rights and freedoms of white Americans, and not at all oppressed with racist, punitive legal systems and scary fucking vigilantes.
Or maybe they’re referring to Americans travelling south, and “life and liberty” is antichoice rhyming slang for tequila?
On a more serious note: gosh, it’s almost like NZ antichoicers have copied-and-pasted rhetoric from US antichoicers. That won’t end badly at all
unless you’re a healthcare worker.
Metiria Turei out-geeks John Banks. It’s not difficult, but it is funny.
Alison McCulloch again pool-shots it out of the park on Policing Pregnancy.
Manboobz on Seth MacFarlane’s beyond-obnoxious Oscars hosting. Trigger warnings for racism, sexual assault, sexism, and Seth MacFarlane.
Family First can’t even get their own polling to come out against marriage equality. H/T Russell Brown. And of course FF’s press release on the topic fails to trumpet that anti-equality feeling is dominant in the male/over 60 demographics.
Chris Rock on minimum wage, via Atheist Pinko Sluts Monthly.
Smile, Sizeist! is a new Tumblr documenting the very real, very violent shit that fat people are subjected to.
Rape culture is when the police coerce rape victims into withdrawing complaints to make their stats look better. And I’ve only just finished watching season 3 of The Wire.
So, I’m just nodding furiously and occasionally throwing horns at Alison McCulloch’s latest post on the abortion debate in New Zealand (where “debate” = someone accurately describes the tactics of antichoice douchebags and Karl du Fresne whinges about it) when suddenly my brain hits the brakes:
Or how about this curious classic from the RTL site: “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. No one has the right to choose to kill another human being.” (That first part about the ice cream and the Porsche is actually a quote from a U.S. anti-abortion activist. I don’t know if it says what RTL wants it to say, but then again I don’t really know exactly what it’s trying to say. Pregnant women as trapped animals? Porsches? Murder?)
The reason for my confusion was thus: I am instinctively loath to question McCulloch’s word on anything when it comes to the history of the abortion debate, because she’s a badass prochoice historian of awesomeness.
But … isn’t that a pro-choice quote?
Isn’t it a refutation of the common antichoice line that people “just” have abortions for “casual” reasons? Isn’t it saying “when a woman says she wants an abortion, she doesn’t mean it casually”?
Yet then I hit the Google, and lo and behold. That’s a quote from Frederica Mathewes-Green, past vice-president of (eyeroll, I always do) Feminists for Life America.
According to this antichoice site, Mathewes-Green is talking about “the despair which leads [people] to abort”. Um … and that isn’t meant to make us sympathize with them? And their situation?
Returning to Mathewes-Green’s analogy of an animal gnawing its leg off to escape a trap, we see that abortion is actually an act of self-destruction. When pro-abortionists view a [person] in this desperate situation, their solution is to offer the [person] a clean, legal way of cutting off the offending leg — after all, they believe there are too many unfit “legs” in the world already.
I don’t think antichoicers know how to construct an analogy. Because … yes. If I saw an animal with its leg caught in a trap, desperate to get out, I would consider surgically and safely removing the broken leg a completely valid choice, hell, the most compassionate choice, because for the vast majority of animals likely to get caught in traps, if the stress and shock of me trying to pry open the trap didn’t kill them, they wouldn’t survive very long in the wild on a broken leg. Infection, starvation or predators would get them pretty fucking quickly.
Apparently this is because, unlike antichoicers, I have rejected hope and turned to “one of Satan’s greatest weapons”, despair.
Oh, and also I automatically think there are too many “unfit” babies in the world, or something. I’m all about the baby-hating.
… yeah. I’m just confused. And yet, somewhat enlightened about how antichoicers view pregnant people, and how fucking clueless they insist on being about the harsh realities of life.
A lot of things get compared, usually by privileged dudebros, to rape. Usually something which completely isn’t rape but at least has an element of violence and degradation to it … like getting your ass handed to you in Halo.
And that’s a bit fucking offensive.
But you know what’s even worse?
When a white, rich, influential dudebro decides to apply it to a mild, nay labelled-as-a-complete-sell-out, party-dividing coalition agreement in which a rich white man’s party gets to keep shitting on Maori while the Maori Party get some nice ministerial positions and also a flag on the Harbour Bridge.
Yes, being a tad facetious there. But even the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which, oh look, not resulting in Pakeha being taken to the beaches and shot at dawn, in return for National being able to give tax cuts to the very-rich, raise GST, cut funding to early childhood education and refuge services, divert money for Pasifika development to its mates, make Gerry Brownlee a fully-operational battle station … no, John Ansell. Not actually anything at all like “opening the door and saying come rape us.”
Remember this wonderfully shite piece of publicity-stunt-gone-wrong with side order of gee-who-would-have-thought-we-had-a-bad/oblivious-police-rape-culture? Well, it turns out we were all wrong and actually it was a total success.
AnneE has the goods over at The Hand Mirror:
First sentence: “A sexist police recruitment advertisement which was quickly axed has been wildly successful – attracting record numbers of potential recruits.” Notice the addition of the word “potential” - not quite the same thing as actual recruits.
Near the end of the report it turns out that this “success” claim is based on a briefing from police public affairs general manager Michael Player to Judith Collins.
You see, they ran a campaign which caused significant online outrage and quite coincidentally a lot of people visited the relevant website, obviously to sign up, and not for any seeing-what-all-the-fuss-was-about looking-for-contact-details-to-write-complaint-emails reasons. At all.
And if you believe that, they have a whole “no more culture of raping vulnerable young women” bridge to sell you.
[TW for child abuse and Bob McCoskrie]
… now apparently include tying a child to your wrist and washing his or her mouth out with soap.
Thus speaketh Bob McCoskrie, defender of families if by “families” we mean “the right of men to use violence to control their partners and children”. [ETA: updated link because Stuff doesn't believe in archiving]
The lesson to take home from here? This is why we do not fucking compromise. We do not fucking say “this law is wrong and we will repeal it, full stop”, and when faced with a barrage of patriarchal and religious fundamentalist abuse, say “okay then, let’s make it a bit softer so the mainstream [who have been convinced by fucking liars like Bob McCoskrie] think it’s okay.”
Because all you get is a law under which this shit continues to fucking happen.
Just to round out the fuckwittery, Bob added this to a media release exported directly from his basement:
Family First NZ* says that parenting is being put on trial as a result of the anti-smacking law, and that it is being used as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ in custody battles
Ignoring the really shitty grammar which seems to imply that parenting is the WMD … what the fuck.
Bob, this may come as a surprise to you since your entire life is focused on your own navel and complaining that bitches need to get back in the kitchen and kids need to be seen and not heard … but WMDs are fucking awful things with a capacity to kill and maim millions of people.
Not, in fact, in any way comparable to “shit that your ex might bring up in a custody battle”.
And frankly, if I had an ex who had forcibly shaved my child’s head as a punishment (there are absolutely no bad connotations there at all) and washed his mouth out with soap you fucking bet I would raise that shit in a custody case.
… And since the parent was fucking acquitted anyway, why the fuck are YOU complaining?
Oh, right. Because this has never actually been about ensuring that actual child abuse get investigated properly. It’s about investigating child abuse except when the parents doling it out are good, white, middle-class people who sometimes like to punch their kids in the face, in which case the police and CYF should just assume that nothing could have happened because to even check that shit out is a horrific abuse of power or something.
*Membership: Bob McCoskrie and his boner.
I came across this utter fucking gem while googling prochoice images for potential future shit-stirring:
Black text: “EVERYONE who supported slavery was free. EVERYONE who supports abortion was born. That’s how oppression works. “They’re not really people” – We’ve heard that before! email@example.com
And let me tell you, people, I just spent a good five minutes staring at it in wonder. Like, really? This is really an analogy we’re going to make? Ickle babby embwyos are an oppressed class of human being completely and fully analogous to [of course African-American because everyone on the internet is American, you know] slaves?
I mean, I know I just snarked Ken Orr making basically that argument a few days ago, but to have it there in wonderfully stark text bluntly stating that being born is equivalent to supporting slavery in the US … I think it broke something in my brain.
One thing is pretty fucking certain though: the people who conceived of* and made this image? Yeah, probably white.**
Me too. So here’s where I shut up.
Ta-Nehisi Coates: The Unbearable Whiteness of Pro-Lifers and Pundits and Personhood
*And were lucky enough to have safe implantation and hassle-free gestation, OH SNAP
Hat tip to LudditeJourno for this one. Trigger warnings for sexual assault, misogyny and NZ Police continued cluelessness.
The NZ Police have a new recruitment drive going. Apparently they’re aiming to
to attract intelligent, balanced, non-judgmental young people, … using a tongue-in-cheek sense of humour
(Just to show how cool and edgy they are, one ad references Justin Bieber. Topical!)
And apparently they decided this would be a good idea:
LudditeJourno neatly sums up the issues around “cougar” (ie LOL OLDER WOMEN WITH SEX DRIVES ARE HILARIOUS AND ALSO ICKY) but there’s a much bigger, more specific problem with this.
And I’m just not sure how the fuck someone paid to take care of Police PR managed to miss it.
(Oh wait, misogyny and ego probably answer that one.)
And now some genius has decided that the way to entice Kiwi kids to join the force is to use sexually-suggestive advertising talking about “liking them young”.
Oh, wait, there I go reading things the wrong way again:
“All of the adverts in the current campaign are youth-centric, and use ideas like earning a good salary, skipping to the front of a queue, etc, and language that youth commonly use and see as perfectly acceptable.
“Cougars are merely identified as a group that are interested in those under 25 years old – as are we when we are looking to attract new police recruits.”
Merely identified, people. That’s all cougars are, they’re just interested in
having “naughty” sex with young people.
Who the fuck does James Whitaker think he’s kidding?
All of the adverts in the current campaign are clueless-misogynist-centric, and use ideas like treating older women as freaks, covering up for your mates and raping vulnerable women that cops commonly use and see as perfectly acceptable.
There, I fixed it for you.
[TW for rape, facetious rape comparisons and abuse of the English language]
As broken by In The Gateaux, some wonderful human being on the Act on Campus bookface page decided to link to an article on compulsory student association membership which included the following:
But if the Charter guarantee of free association is to mean anything sensible at all, surely first and foremost it must guarantee the rights of individuals not to be compulsorily assimilated into larger groups merely by being outvoted. After all, if two men corner a woman in a dark alley and force her to have sex with them because they, the majority, have voted in favour of it, that would still be rape, not the exercise of their group right to freedom of association.
Yep, apparently “compulsory assimilation into a larger group” = “being raped by multiple people”.
Which is where, if you can believe that, it gets worse.
ACT on Campus: “Thanks to the Labour and Green supporters for their comments but an analogy is just that, an analogy. No-one claimed the two are the same or equivalent.”
Okay, this calls for macros.
And now, the OED.
- a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
- a correspondence or partial similarity.
- a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
late Middle English (in the sense ‘appropriateness, correspondence’): from French analogie, Latin analogia ‘proportion’, from Greek, from analogos ‘proportionate’
Oh, I see what they did there. I await with bated breath the excuse that “no one said compulsory student association membership was literally the same as being sexually violated”.
But then, we are dealing with people who, under their real names, will say shit like this online:
Rape was not compared to compulsory student membership. Instead, the following observations were made:
2) Majorities do not have a right to take away individual freedoms.
3) Were that not the case, then majorities would, as a matter of logic, also have the right to take away people’s capacity to not consent to sex.
It wasn’t a COMPARISON, it was just, um, a logical extrapolation of what would obviously happen.* Which is not to say that we’re comparing the two things, just saying that in this situation they would both be totally logical. Which is not to treat them as comparable things. Just things which are similar enough to be compar- HOSHIT.
Moral of the story: I should learn to be less surprised that people who support Act, party of Rodney “Perk-Buster Except When It’s Me” Hide, David “Tough on Crime Except For My Own Identity Fraud” Garrett – and especially Deborah “Being Called on My Lack of Integrity is Just Like Gang Rape” Coddington – don’t think words have actual meanings.
“‘There’s glory for you!’
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – - that’s all.’”
*And isn’t it wonderfully telling that people like this go immediately to rape when pondering some kind of hypothetical breakdown of civilisation? Protip, dudebros: MEN ALREADY “OUTVOTE” WOMEN AND RAPE THEM AND ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM AND THEY WANT TO. You aren’t hypothesizing shit.