Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 15, 2012
The Ladies God Bless Lisa Brown and Her Vagina
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Goldy mentioned this in morning news, but it bears repeating: Watch the video below of Michigan state Rep. Lisa Brown (D, naturally) being censured for saying "vagina" at the end of a smart floor speech that criticized a pro-Christian, anti-choice bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the woman’s life was in danger.
Brown is Jewish. She explains that under the Jewish law, abortions performed in instances to save the life of the mother—at any stage in pregnancy—are not only encouraged, they're mandatory.
"I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs," Brown says. "Why are you asking me to adopt yours?"
But the GOP doesn't give a damn about one woman's reasoned argument criticizing a bill that would put pregnant women's health at risk. They ignore her points and call her remarks offensive because she said "vagina." They're cramming all the laws they can up our vaginas, fist over fist, but we're not allowed to even say the word.
That is how fucked up the war on women's health, on choice, has gotten.
UPDATE: It's worth noting that a spokesman for Michigan's Republican Speaker of the House, Jase Bolton, claims that Brown and another female Representative weren't silenced because of using "vulgar" terms like "vagina" and "vasectomy," but for throwing "temper tantrums." Because to the GOP, women fighting for their reproductive rights is synonymous with fussy children who need a nap.
3
And a big thanks to all those women who've been voting Republican and those who've said "I don't really consider myself a feminist..." The bill has come due.
5
Honest to god if one more smug penis having jackass says that noooooo there's no war on women......
6
Freedom of speech is only protected when it's lies the Republicans tell. Which is everytime they open their mouths.
7
Someone in Michigan should make "God Bless Lisa Brown and Her Vagina" shirts. I would wear the shit out of that shirt.
9
A nap???
More like a public spanking. And the GOP would get off on administering it, too. ::growls in irritation::
More like a public spanking. And the GOP would get off on administering it, too. ::growls in irritation::
10
It should probably be noted that according to the speaker of that house, that she was not censured for her word choice, but rather because she essentially compared the other lawmakers to rapists with the "no means no" line.
Perhaps I am splitting a hair, and I fully realize that it is still total bullshit, but reporting that it was because she said "vagina" is not truly accurate.
Normally I would say that implying another is a rapist on the floor of a legislative body is indeed out of line, but since the other representatives do want to control her body much like a rapist does, I would say the comparison is, in this rare case, apt.
Perhaps I am splitting a hair, and I fully realize that it is still total bullshit, but reporting that it was because she said "vagina" is not truly accurate.
Normally I would say that implying another is a rapist on the floor of a legislative body is indeed out of line, but since the other representatives do want to control her body much like a rapist does, I would say the comparison is, in this rare case, apt.
12
> a pro-Christian, anti-choice bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the woman’s life was in danger.
> She explains that under the Jewish law, abortions performed in instances to save the life of the mother—at any stage in pregnancy—are not only encouraged, they're mandatory.
Um, so what was she complaining about? The bill as described here would allow for abortions in the situation she is worried about being able to have them. So, she was arguing in violent agreement? Or did someone misreport again?
> She explains that under the Jewish law, abortions performed in instances to save the life of the mother—at any stage in pregnancy—are not only encouraged, they're mandatory.
Um, so what was she complaining about? The bill as described here would allow for abortions in the situation she is worried about being able to have them. So, she was arguing in violent agreement? Or did someone misreport again?
13
This really and truly pisses off sgt_doom.....
who firmly believes the majority of those jackholes could never find their own vaginas.....
who firmly believes the majority of those jackholes could never find their own vaginas.....
14
What a patronizing asshole. When men give the same speeches, they're "impassioned" or at least "just worked up". When a woman does it, it's a temper tantrum! Hysteria!
15
Speaking of temper tantrums, such as the ones I got when posting the argument below on the Seattle PI, maybe I can get some rationality here (rolls eyes skyward).
Ok, here it goes.
Darcy Burner and other womanists have been turning the tables on abortion and other women's issues by claiming, hey, instead of making it this awful thing, lets make it this great thing, this right that woman should be proud of.
Ok. If woman have the right and benefit of being able to choose an abortion...if a woman controls her body 100% and should essentially Stand Her Ground (or Vagina), then why do men have to pay alimony and child support?
In other words, do Men have the right to an abortion -- if they tell a woman, hey "I'm not ready for a child" and woman (who, according to Darcy Burner, "owns" her body) then legally, should a man have any responsibility? Really, if the woman has it or not, should he ever have any responsibility?
I don't see how, given the 100% ownership of the baby producing machinery that is being stated here.
17
@15: Damn, where to start...
No one says abortions are great. No one WANTS to have an abortion. Women get abortions because that horrid decision is better in the long run than bringing another child into the world unsupported. These women harm themselves so that harm is not visited on others later. Or simply because their lives are threatened by the pregnancy, of course.
That "machinery" you speak of is ANOTHER FUCKING PERSON, not a machine. It has feelings, rights, and aspirations. While the male side of the equation should have input and should be considered, it is ultimately the woman's choice because it is her body, not some abstract machine.
No one says abortions are great. No one WANTS to have an abortion. Women get abortions because that horrid decision is better in the long run than bringing another child into the world unsupported. These women harm themselves so that harm is not visited on others later. Or simply because their lives are threatened by the pregnancy, of course.
That "machinery" you speak of is ANOTHER FUCKING PERSON, not a machine. It has feelings, rights, and aspirations. While the male side of the equation should have input and should be considered, it is ultimately the woman's choice because it is her body, not some abstract machine.
19
#17
Ok, so this is no better than the PI comments thread.
Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes.
Think of it in terms of property rights, which is what Darcy Burner is asserting.
If she says women have 100% control -- then I argue they have 100% responsibility.
Carried to its logical conclusion, women have to accept 100% responsibility for children.
Ok, so this is no better than the PI comments thread.
Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes.
Think of it in terms of property rights, which is what Darcy Burner is asserting.
If she says women have 100% control -- then I argue they have 100% responsibility.
Carried to its logical conclusion, women have to accept 100% responsibility for children.
20
@12:
You're wrong. The bill bans all abortions in Michigan, with no exception, after 20 weeks EGA. That leaves 4 weeks during which there is no chance of fetal survival but abortion is impossible in the case of, say, severe pre-eclampsia, or a bleeding placenta previa, any of which are not only health- but life-threatening.
Thinking of moving to West Bloomfield so Lisa Brown can be my rep.
Love,
A Michigan Midwife
You're wrong. The bill bans all abortions in Michigan, with no exception, after 20 weeks EGA. That leaves 4 weeks during which there is no chance of fetal survival but abortion is impossible in the case of, say, severe pre-eclampsia, or a bleeding placenta previa, any of which are not only health- but life-threatening.
Thinking of moving to West Bloomfield so Lisa Brown can be my rep.
Love,
A Michigan Midwife
21
@ 17, @ 15's a tool. Just pretend he's unregistered, or install that "registered user block" script and make him first on your personal list.
22
@19, giving you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't just trolling:
The man already has 100% control of the situation by deciding where he ejaculates. And who he has sex with.
The man already has 100% control of the situation by deciding where he ejaculates. And who he has sex with.
23
@15, 19,
Men DO have a choice in the matter, they can choose not to have sex with the woman.
Let's say I choose to play baseball, and further, I choose to play baseball near your house, and I hit a stray ball that smashes through one of your windows, I am responsible for paying for that window. I don't OWN that broken window, you still own it 100%, but I have to pay for it because I broke it. You still have to get the new one installed, I don't have to do that, but I have to pay for it because of my actions.
Women and men are not baseballs and broken windows, but do you see my point?
Also, child support is not automatic and mandatory. It is decided upon by a court. A man can argue in his defense to not have to pay child support. It's unlikely he'll be successful, but it's still possible.
Men DO have a choice in the matter, they can choose not to have sex with the woman.
Let's say I choose to play baseball, and further, I choose to play baseball near your house, and I hit a stray ball that smashes through one of your windows, I am responsible for paying for that window. I don't OWN that broken window, you still own it 100%, but I have to pay for it because I broke it. You still have to get the new one installed, I don't have to do that, but I have to pay for it because of my actions.
Women and men are not baseballs and broken windows, but do you see my point?
Also, child support is not automatic and mandatory. It is decided upon by a court. A man can argue in his defense to not have to pay child support. It's unlikely he'll be successful, but it's still possible.
24
@19 I suppose I would agree if the father of the child is not together with the mother during the pregnancy and wants nothing to do with his son or daughter (would have chosen abortion)...than no, he shouldn't be liable for anything to do with supporting that child. But then he should have absolutely no rights at all regarding the child in the future.
I would feel different if the relationship ends after the child is born.
I would feel different if the relationship ends after the child is born.
25
@20: I literally cut and pasted the text of the Slog post, so it's not me that's wrong.
(No, I didn't watch the video, because I can't watch lots of videos during the workday. And TLDW.)
@17: So what he's saying is, if the choice is ultimately the woman's, because she is an individual with her own rights and sole decisions over her own body, does that not basically mean that the sperm donor's future obligations are therefore ultimately being determined at the mercy of the woman's decision?
Man and woman have sex. Let's assume it's entirely consensual. Woman gets pregnant. Woman doesn't think having baby is a good idea, she can have abortion. Man doesn't think having baby is a good idea, tough shit buddy. Is that morally right? Does it become morally right for one person to set obligations for another simply because their own obligations will be greater?
That is his question, and I have to agree that there is a thorny issue there. If a man doesn't want to have a child, should he be forced to help support one? A woman isn't.
INB4 "yes, because he took that responsibility when he had sex." if so, then so did the woman, so therefore she shouldn't have an abortion any more than the man should get out of paying child support. (Ultimately, that's one of the Other Side's arguments.) What makes this dichotomy okay or equal?
(Now to be fair, @15, alimony is not about children but about standard of living, regardless of children, so it's not relevant.)
(No, I didn't watch the video, because I can't watch lots of videos during the workday. And TLDW.)
@17: So what he's saying is, if the choice is ultimately the woman's, because she is an individual with her own rights and sole decisions over her own body, does that not basically mean that the sperm donor's future obligations are therefore ultimately being determined at the mercy of the woman's decision?
Man and woman have sex. Let's assume it's entirely consensual. Woman gets pregnant. Woman doesn't think having baby is a good idea, she can have abortion. Man doesn't think having baby is a good idea, tough shit buddy. Is that morally right? Does it become morally right for one person to set obligations for another simply because their own obligations will be greater?
That is his question, and I have to agree that there is a thorny issue there. If a man doesn't want to have a child, should he be forced to help support one? A woman isn't.
INB4 "yes, because he took that responsibility when he had sex." if so, then so did the woman, so therefore she shouldn't have an abortion any more than the man should get out of paying child support. (Ultimately, that's one of the Other Side's arguments.) What makes this dichotomy okay or equal?
(Now to be fair, @15, alimony is not about children but about standard of living, regardless of children, so it's not relevant.)
26
But I don't think I would make that a hard law...if it's already something that's decided by a court and not automatic as @23 says. There are so many factors and considerations in every situation.
28
A one night stand where a baby is concieved and the mother decides to keep her child (rather than place for adoption or have an abortion) would be a situation where the responsibility might be primarily with her.
I would hope the father WOULD want to be a part of the child's life in someway and if needed (or possible) should help provide for his son/daughter.
And if abortion is not a legal option for some reason..than the government should help with support.
I would hope the father WOULD want to be a part of the child's life in someway and if needed (or possible) should help provide for his son/daughter.
And if abortion is not a legal option for some reason..than the government should help with support.
29
@25,
At the moment, the court's only consideration is the best interest of the child, which means that both biological parents are on the hook for financially providing for that child. If both parents decide they don't want the kid anymore and they can't find an adoptive family, the child becomes a ward of the state and both parents have to pay child support until the child is adopted. For the purposes of child welfare, it's an imperfect but necessary system.
That said, I bet there are many women who would love to cut the fathers of their children out of their lives, even if that means giving up child support, especially if the father is unwilling or unable to fork over much money. I question how many men, however much they might squawk over how unfair child support is, would sign the legal document giving up all parental rights, even if it absolves them of paying child support.
At the moment, the court's only consideration is the best interest of the child, which means that both biological parents are on the hook for financially providing for that child. If both parents decide they don't want the kid anymore and they can't find an adoptive family, the child becomes a ward of the state and both parents have to pay child support until the child is adopted. For the purposes of child welfare, it's an imperfect but necessary system.
That said, I bet there are many women who would love to cut the fathers of their children out of their lives, even if that means giving up child support, especially if the father is unwilling or unable to fork over much money. I question how many men, however much they might squawk over how unfair child support is, would sign the legal document giving up all parental rights, even if it absolves them of paying child support.
30
@25: It is not equal from the get-go. It is not equal because the woman has all the responsibility of carrying the child, bearing it (with a lot of risks to her health), and then supporting it if daddy flies the coop.
Since the woman has the most vested in the pregnancy, she gets to make the decision. It is that simple. The man's right to get out of child support or desire to have a child does not override the woman's right to her own body.
Since the woman has the most vested in the pregnancy, she gets to make the decision. It is that simple. The man's right to get out of child support or desire to have a child does not override the woman's right to her own body.
31
#12 Also, she was making the point that in her religion, abortions are MANDATORY when the mother's life is at risk, and yet she is not expecting the state of Michigan to change any abortion laws based on her religion. Duh.
33
@22 FTW in regard to asshat @ 15 & 19
To reiterate: don't want to become a father? You are free to exercise your right not to become one by using condoms, getting a vasectomy, ejaculating as far away from a vagina as possible or simply not having sex with a woman.
By all means, please exercise control over your own bodily autonomy. But don't turn around and try to exercise control over another existent human's bodily autonomy because, wah! you were too lazy and/or stupid to take responsibility for your side of the baby-making equation.
Also, for fuck's sake, a woman is not MACHINERY. Objectification, much? Puke. And false logic on top of that? I puke on you again.
To reiterate: don't want to become a father? You are free to exercise your right not to become one by using condoms, getting a vasectomy, ejaculating as far away from a vagina as possible or simply not having sex with a woman.
By all means, please exercise control over your own bodily autonomy. But don't turn around and try to exercise control over another existent human's bodily autonomy because, wah! you were too lazy and/or stupid to take responsibility for your side of the baby-making equation.
Also, for fuck's sake, a woman is not MACHINERY. Objectification, much? Puke. And false logic on top of that? I puke on you again.
34
Also @19, condescension much?
"Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes."
Say that while looking in a mirror.
"Try and be rational if only for just a few minutes."
Say that while looking in a mirror.
35
Good gracious, Cienna, where is your husband? Someone calm this woman down before she damages her uterus!
36
@25: And Google is clearly too difficult a thing when you're arguing the merits of Lisa Brown's statement. I understand. When I was nine it was too complicated to sort out as well.
37
@34: duh, we all know that women aren't capable of being rational. If they were, we wouldn't need men to make the decisions.
38
To the men saying that they should have veto power over abortion, because otherwise it's not fair:
Here's the deal: It's not fair. What are you, five? There is no way to make procreation completely and absolutely equal. We're not dividing up a pie here; we're talking about biological limitations. Women are the ones who are pregnant. Until birth, a fetus does not have full personhood. Until at minimum 24 weeks LMP, a fetus is not viable. Guess who gets the big vote here?
Get over it. There are things that aren't fair. That doesn't make me feel all that sorry for the unfairness towards men, but since you're not used to experiencing life without unearned privilege, I understand how it stings. You'll get over it.
To quote the Dude: "It's not fair? Who's a fucking nihilist now?"
Here's the deal: It's not fair. What are you, five? There is no way to make procreation completely and absolutely equal. We're not dividing up a pie here; we're talking about biological limitations. Women are the ones who are pregnant. Until birth, a fetus does not have full personhood. Until at minimum 24 weeks LMP, a fetus is not viable. Guess who gets the big vote here?
Get over it. There are things that aren't fair. That doesn't make me feel all that sorry for the unfairness towards men, but since you're not used to experiencing life without unearned privilege, I understand how it stings. You'll get over it.
To quote the Dude: "It's not fair? Who's a fucking nihilist now?"
40
Ahh, that delightful little MRA-inspired dystopia: Feminazis tricking men into financial obligation with calculated pregnanices!
"Congratulations, Mortimer, you're a father- AND NOW YOU'RE MY SLAVE! NYAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA HAAAA!"
"Congratulations, Mortimer, you're a father- AND NOW YOU'RE MY SLAVE! NYAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA HAAAA!"
41
I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again:
TAMPON FLASH MOB
OCCUPY THE MICHIGAN STATE HOUSE
Love love LOVE your last three paragraphs, Cienna...
TAMPON FLASH MOB
OCCUPY THE MICHIGAN STATE HOUSE
Love love LOVE your last three paragraphs, Cienna...
42
Ok, let's play. We women, we have too much in the way of reproductive privileges. I want you men to share them. Oops, time to change my tampon! Did you pack the supers? And the baby wipes? It's a heavy flow day and you know that gets messy. Oh, you're in a meeting? Me too, let's see if we can wait. Ooops, there goes that pair of underwear. It's your turn to do the laundry, and that suit needs to go to the cleaner. I'll get the next one, thanks sweetie. Now, will you go punch yourself in the testicles a few times? I think it's your turn to handle the cramps. Would you like a spike of estrogen with that? I know, that movie is soooo sad! Here, have a tissue. It's time for us to reproduce! Let's get that cincher on you. Do you feel fat yet? Do you have to pee every ten seconds? No? Let's cinch that a little tighter. There. Don't those sweatpants make it all feel better? I'm so glad we're in this together sweetie! Let's make sure we tell the doctor your allergies. We wouldn't want them to give you the wrong drugs when you go into the hospital and have your urethra split open. It's only a few stitches babe, ovary up! Oh, 6? Oh shit, now it's a C-section. Don't worry, babe, that scar will look hot! I know, it sucks not being able to use your dick for a month or three, and it's really embarrassing that you pee when you sneeze, laugh or cough, but the boys will understand. Just last week I saw Billy leaking breast milk all over his shirt in a meeting! His bosses didn't mind.
Oh wait, that's not the way the world fucking works. Jesus H. Christ. Life isn't fucking fair. You don't want to have kids? Have a vasectomy already. Logic impaired ass-hats shouldn't reproduce anyway.
Oh wait, that's not the way the world fucking works. Jesus H. Christ. Life isn't fucking fair. You don't want to have kids? Have a vasectomy already. Logic impaired ass-hats shouldn't reproduce anyway.
43
All of our problems occur in a vacuum of responsibility. Unintended/unwanted conception, included. Choice must exist for freedom to prevail.
46
@2 - Let me take that one step further:
MAUDE
My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
DUDE
Oh yeah?
MAUDE
Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say. Whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his "dick" or his "rod" or his "Johnson".
DUDE
"Johnson"?
MAUDE
My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
DUDE
Oh yeah?
MAUDE
Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say. Whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his "dick" or his "rod" or his "Johnson".
DUDE
"Johnson"?
62
For real, you guys? No, I mean, really? As of 2:42am EST there are 91 comments on Cienna's "Slog Poll: Am I a Disgusting Freak?" based on her debated sanitary habits re: her long unwashed mug.
That, THAT, is more important then women's bodily autonomy?
OK. I concede. The republicans have won. I will avoid wire-hanger abortions via complete refutation of male sexual companionship. Otherwise, see: wire-hanger abortions.
That, THAT, is more important then women's bodily autonomy?
OK. I concede. The republicans have won. I will avoid wire-hanger abortions via complete refutation of male sexual companionship. Otherwise, see: wire-hanger abortions.
63
I shoulda said: "For real, you PEOPLE! or you GIRLS!" instead of "For real, you guys?"
Woops! Just got caught up in the parlance of our times that says "you guys" = a mixed gender group or just a bunch of male-identified people. No biggie.
Sarcasm is intentional.
Woops! Just got caught up in the parlance of our times that says "you guys" = a mixed gender group or just a bunch of male-identified people. No biggie.
Sarcasm is intentional.
70
Saying the word "vagina" isn't wrong, but suggesting that a bill has been motivated by one's colleagues' sexual interests is. What if a male rep had said to female reps, "I know you're only arguing with me because you want to have sex with me"?
However, Ms. Brown's comments, in context, were not that big of a deal and should have been taken as the pointed joke that they were.
And yes, religion and the laws of man should be kept separate.
However, Ms. Brown's comments, in context, were not that big of a deal and should have been taken as the pointed joke that they were.
And yes, religion and the laws of man should be kept separate.
71
@seq(start=48 stop=68), et al.: I hate it when people I agree with seem so detestable.
@69: +1
@70: She didn't say they were interested in having sex with her; she said they were interested in her vagina. The equivalent would be " ... because you're so interested in my penis ..."
@69: +1
@70: She didn't say they were interested in having sex with her; she said they were interested in her vagina. The equivalent would be " ... because you're so interested in my penis ..."
72
@71, the way she said it, "I'm flattered that you are so interested in my vagina but no means no," implies that they were insistently requesting sexual favors to the point where she had to refuse them in no uncertain terms.
But yes, the equivalent would indeed be, "I am flattered that you are so interested in my penis, but stop making a fool of yourself."
But yes, the equivalent would indeed be, "I am flattered that you are so interested in my penis, but stop making a fool of yourself."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
-
Obama Administration Admits the US Has Used Drones to Kill Its Citizens by Brendan Kiley
-
Everything Wrong with Television, in One Handy Chart by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (73) RSS