In the life of every budding feminist man or woman, there comes a moment that I like to call the "What The Fuck, Sister?" Moment.

This is the moment when the young feminist first encounters a vehemently anti-feminist woman. What the fuck, says the feminist. Why would a woman want to campaign against her own social and political equality? Why would a woman speak out against the very people who are fighting to protect her basic human dignity?

While there may be some psychological or sociological answers floating around, it remains very difficult for most of us to get inside the head of an anti-feminist woman, just as most people would be hard pressed to really understand the mind of a black KKK supporter. But every once in a while, an anti-feminist women will open a window into her mind and allow us to peer cautiously inside.

One such window can be found in this charming letter from Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, an anti-contraception activist who explains to us how all sexually-active women are whores:

When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.

Why is it that most of the e-mail letters I get on this topic is from men? I have concluded that the chemicals and drugs are their way to have all the goodies and not pay the price. When you encourage this behavior, you create more of it. In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people. Don't you think having to pay child support for the next 18 years is a suitable disincentive?

...

The irresponsible men love it when women think they are supposed to give away free sex without any consequences.

It may seem obvious to some, but this letter filled in a piece that had been missing for me.

Women like Rep. Davis believe in the virgin-whore dichotomy in such a literal way that I actually never really got it. They believe that any woman who is has sex is a whore, in one way or another, and thus the real crime of a sex-positive feminist is that she's not charging enough.

From their perspective, the real problem with feminism is that it's driving down prices. Every man who is sleeping with a willing, eager, sex-loving woman is one less man participating in the bidding war for the untouched cooters of virtuous anti-feminists. Every man who finds an independent and sexual woman is one less man who can be bribed into life-long providerhood by the promise of some shame-faced, awkward fumblings on the wedding night. If word gets out that women may actually enjoy sex, then how the hell is a gal gonna get paid?

It's not actually about tradition, morality, gender roles, or any of that other crap. It's about a pack of snotty hookers getting pissed off that the bitches on the other corner are undercutting their rates.

So how does that feel, folks? The morality crowd thinks that all women who have sex are whores, and all men who have sex are johns. You're either selling sex or buying it.

For the menfolk, how does it feel to know that no woman ever wants to have sex with you? Women don't want sex, they want to see how high a price they can set before you'll wander off to find cheaper pussy. You think your girlfriend or your wife likes being with you? Well, Rep. Davis and company think her arousal is set by your pocketbook.

For the womenfolk, how does it feel to know that you will be the subject of insults and slurs if you dare to have sex without demanding payment? You better get a diamond ring out of him up front, or else you're a cheap slut who deserves to be punished with STDs and pregnancy. How does it feel to know that your "morality" is defined by the rates you charge?


UPDATE: Posted this as a diary over at DKos, just to see what would happen. Getting some interesting comments so far.

Fuck South Dakota.

Some days you just gotta love the godidiots:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.”

...

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

Of course, this kind of superstitious bigotry doesn't really come as news to most of us godless types. And neither does this:

Who believes that torture is never justified?


Catholics	26%
White Protestant	31%
White evangelical	31%
Secular	41%
Total	32%

Yep, it is the "self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good" who selfishly cling to the idea that torture is wrong in any situation, while the faithful share "an understanding of right and wrong" that is more open to the notion of torture. Good stuff.

Please take a moment out of your day to pray for the people praying for those who are praying for the courageous prayer-senders who send prayers to the supporters praying that PZ Myers' prayers be answered.

On Friday, President Bush used a speaking opportunity at fundraiser lunch to remind voters why not to vote Democrat.

Did he remind them of how the Democrats are trying to create a disenfranchised population of migrant workers who will be readily available for exploitation by corporations? Oh, oops, no, that's the Republicans.

Did he warn the audience of how the Democrats use dirty tricks and lies to deceive voters? Wait, that's the GOP again. And again. And again...

Did he remind them that the Democrats are so determined to violate the basic freedoms of American citizens that they will silence solid scientific data and withhold sale of medications for political reasons alone? Well, I suppose Bush might be able to speak out against Democrats on these topics, if "Democrats" could be pronounced "Republicans."

Or how about the way Democrats think reproductive choices for women are utterly evil, but the abortion of black babies is a potentially handy means of social engineering? Did Bush point out that the Democratic party continues to back openly racist candidates? He didn't? Hmm, could it be that the party of modern American racism DOESN'T begin with the letter "d"?

Which of the many recent political disasters did Bush focus on? Was it the total failure in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath? The growing body of information suggesting that our country is currently fighting a war that was begun with blatant lies and deception? The exploding debt and deficit that have been produced out of what was once a balanced budget and a surplus? The handouts being given to the super-wealthy at the expense of a growing number of impoverished and unemployed Americans?

Obviously our Beloved Leader couldn't talk about any of these issues. The issues, the "facts" if you will, are biased against Republicans. So Bush decided to focus on the one really important topic for the upcoming elections:

He warned the crowd that Democrats will raise taxes and harm the economy if they are elected. "If you want the government in your pocket, vote Democrat," Bush said.

And if you want the government shoved up your pussy, vote Republican. If you want the government deciding when your loved ones live and die, vote Republican. If you want rich companies to be given your tax dollars, which they can then use to buy themselves some more Congressmen, vote Republican.

If you think the last five years have been super, and would like some more please, vote Republican. If you don't, take a page from Savage Love and DTMFA: dump the motherfuckers already.

The FCC has publicly reaffirmed its committment to keeping boobies and bodily functions in the Shame Closet where they belong*, assigning a whopping $4 million in fines to CBS for their disgusting portrayal of implied sexual relations and women's nipples.

But while Janet's Boob has garnered over half a million dollars in fines, Jack Bower can continue blissfully torturing and murdering, safe from any charges of "indecency." For you see, the human body is so shameful and dirty a thing that the only decent course of action is to beat it to a pulp (a Law and Order favorite), break its bones one by one (a la Jack Bower), chop it into bloody pieces (CSI has this down to...dare I say it?...a science), and riddle it with bullets (pick your crime drama). Showing a nude female torso is a crime against society, but showing a dismembered female corpse is damn good television. A glimpse of unclothed man-rump will lead to chaos in the streets, but a graphic depiction of murder will lead to ratings gold.

Sex-phobic? Who, us Americans? Naaaah.

Don't lose hope, though. While American standards of "decency" grow ever more fucked up, 1500 nude Venezuelans are on the right track:

More than 1,500 Venezuelans shed their clothes on a main city avenue Sunday to pose for American photographer Spencer Tunick, forming a human mosaic in front of a national symbol: a statue of independence hero Simon Bolivar.

The photographer is bound to earn himself a stern warning from the Forces Of Decency, as he brashly asserted that the human body "represents beauty, love and peace." Pervert.


*Fun fact: the original seven dirty words banned by the FCC are shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Note that while two different parts of a woman's body are deemed offensive, no references to men's bodies make the list ("tit" is out, but "dick" and "cock" are in). Also note that "asshole," a body part which both males and females may possess, is okay. One is prohibited from using an offensive term for poo, but not from using an offensive term for a black person or homosexual. And, lest somebody mistakenly assume that these seven words are banned because they are simply considered too offensive for public life, we must all remember that case of Bono's F-bomb at the Golden Globes: a bureau of the FCC declared that it's okay to say "fucking," as long as you aren't actually talking about Teh Sex. Essentially, curse words are only offensive if they refer to the female body, going to the bathroom, or sex.

Happy Pi Day, everybody!

Kirby Puckett died today. I once went to a kindergarten costume party dressed as Kirby, though I think the illusion was somewhat unconvincing due to me being a 5 year old white kid. My mom used to say he was built like a fire plug, and I remember her cheering as we watched him tie the World Series record for runs scored in a single series game. Of course I had only the vaguest understanding of baseball at the time, but I knew that Kirby Puckett hit homers and made my mom chuckle, so I liked him the best.

RIP, Kirby.

It looks like PZ Myers and I are watching the same TV. Okay, so it's not really a big coincidence that we were both tuning in for the Oscars, but we also both happened to catch a particularly annoying "news" piece about--what else?--that movie with them gay cowboys in it. When looking for the opinions of some Real Americans(tm), CNN decided to sift through some rural shithole to find a Christian fanatic, some geezers who hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain but knew they hated it, and the typical cast of hicks who insisted that Hollywood doesn't understand farmers and ought to get back to making movies like "The Sound Of Music."

I grew up in Minnesota, smack dab in the middle of Middle America, and PZ Myers just happens to teach at the University of Minnesota, Morris. We both find ourselves insulted by the portrayal of Middle Americans as bigotted, ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, particularly since we are both glowing examples of the cultured, brilliant, devilishly attractive specimens produced in the heartland of America. We're both annoyed by how coastal dwellers love to indulge their own stereotypes about the inhabitants of that silly little stretch of land between the Rockies and the Ohio River. All the missile silos are in our fucking praries, you dickwads, so shut the hell up.

But what really bugs me is how rural farmers are STILL being held up as examples of "Real America." According to the USDA, only one in five Americans lives in a rural area, and the vast majority of those who do live in rural areas are not farmers or ranchers or John Wayne look-alikes. The Bureau of Labor reports only 444,870 people employed in "Farming and Fishing," but David Horowitz says there are some 617,000 college and university professors in the US, so it appears that the evil fag-loving Jeebus-hating Commies are ahead by at least 172,130. So why the fuck does CNN ask Farmer Bill to tell us about "real America"? Farmer Bill has more important things to do, like getting Ma to pump out another couple thousand young'uns to even up the score.

The federal government says there are only 2.1 million American "farm families." To put this in perspective, 4 million Americans play World of Warcraft. So where are the news features surveying Night Elf druids about health care or national security?

I am fully aware that farming is, and always has been, essential for the economic health of this country. I'm sure there are many people who find farming and/or rural living to be extremely enjoyable and rewarding. But can we please stop pretending that this particular minority represents Real America(tm)? They are no more (or less) American than anybody else. They are actually a less representative sample than, say, business professionals who live in urban or suburban regions.

And, while we're at it, can we all take a page from George Clooney's book and stop expecting a bunch of obscenely wealthy and inhumanly attractive Hollywood insiders to be "in touch" with typical Americans?