Friday, March 10, 2006

Y'all! I think Nathan Moore is flirting with me!

I don't know what else to make of his bizarre post. Let us examine the evidence: --Egalia is a nationally-known and well-respected blogger in feminist circles. I write about cooters and boob freckles and think men should be able to opt out of fatherhood and therefore imagine I would not be well-respected even if I were better-known. And yet, that sweetie, Nathan Moore lumps us both together as "the usual suspects" as if our opinions are both equally well-known and regarded. --He compliments my youthful vigor when he says that I "seem to have the maturity of a slightly-advanced adolescent." --He calls me "liberated and enlightened." --He thinks I'm so tremendously powerful that I am "backbone of the family and Western civilization." Gosh. I don't know what to say. The last guy that talked that sweet to me had one hand stroking my cooter at the time. Nathan, I am so flattered, you don't even know. And not surprised. For whatever reason, married men love me. I think it's the beer in the fridge and my appreciation for a burp well-executed and gas well-passed. And I love it when men say sweet things about me, so flirt on all you want. I just want to be up front and let you know that I just don't see a future for us. Here's why. First of all, you don't know me. So, for you to say that my concern for rape victims and the victims of incest is disingenuous is just about the biggest asshole move you could make. Who do you think the victims of rape and incest are, Mr. Moore? They're women like me. They're my friends. They're the women in my family. For you to insinuate that I don't care about them is really amazingly gross. For a man attempting to make an argument that rests on his position being the most "humane," your callous refusal to acknowledge my humanity is pretty telling. But, in case I missed it, you call me a monster again--"ignoble" and "morally bankrupt" and "self-loathing." This is not the way to a girl's heart. Then, bless your heart, you ascribe to me positions that I don't hold--"Women are biologically different - scrap it. Women are mentally different - scrap it." When did I ever say that? In fact, it is precisely because I believe that women are different than men that I'm particularly disturbed by this latest move by a bunch of old men to take control of my uterus and to attempt to legislate what should happen inside of it. How can someone who's never had a uterus not hesitate before passing laws dictating what I must do with mine? But all these things I think I could get beyond. We might still have a future if not for this one line: "Why one as woman fights for a 'right' to nullify the primary differentiation between male and female boggles my mind." Are you really suggesting that the primary difference between men and women is that men have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies and women don't? That I should just accept that the state is trying to take away my right to say what happens to my own body? How can I ever be a full citizen of the United States if I don't have the right to liberty? You, as a lawyer, would know better than I, but can you think of any other instance in which the state would compel a citizen to always defer when his rights come into conflict with the rights of another? Yet, when it comes to making abortion illegal, what your side says is that a woman only has the right to be secure in her person--to make her own decisions about what happens to her own body--as long as no one else has a claim on it. If we only have rights when they don't conflict with others, we really don't have rights at all. We just have some privileges you guys have granted us and now that we're all uppity and "de-feminated," y'all are determined to punish us by making sure we understand that we don't belong to ourselves, we belong to the state. That's not exactly my idea of a fun date. Still, Mr. Moore, I appreciate you being so brazen in your mixed love/hate passion for me.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Sarcastro said...

Speaking of gas well-passed, last night I ripped one that made the dog run and bark at the front door.

3/10/2006 05:11:00 PM  
Anonymous brittney said...

What a dick this guy is.

That was the most hateful, misogynistic thing I've read in a long time. Excluding the Blogger Blaster, natch.

3/10/2006 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Lee said...

"How can someone who's never had a uterus not hesitate before passing laws dictating what I must do with mine?"

I agree B. Only women can debate abortion. And only men can debate funding for prostate cancer research.

3/10/2006 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger TVonthefritz said...

"Gosh. I don't know what to say. The last guy that talked that sweet to me had one hand stroking my cooter at the time."

And my hand never quite smelled the same.

3/10/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Anonymous brittney said...

Only women can debate abortion. And only men can debate funding for prostate cancer research.

That is not what she said. What she said was how can a man not pause before passing a law about a procedure that could never in a million years affect him personally (in the way it does a woman).

She did not say they couldn't debate abortion. Nice try.

3/10/2006 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger Lee said...

Just curious then, and this is a non-sarcastic reply since I admit I don't know this.

How did the female legislators vote on this?

Was it roughly the same as their male counterparts, or skewered one way or the other? What percentage of legislators are female in TN in the first place?

3/10/2006 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Peggasus said...

I think I'm going to start calling you Aunt 'Susan' B. for your dedication to women's rights.

And I just watched her bio this morning on A & E in the Classroom at 6 in the freaking A.M., so I totally mean that as a compliment.

And damn it, I LIKE my monster-y / feminist / adolescent bloggers "ignoble" and "morally bankrupt", so take that to the bank, Nathan! And while you're at it, BITE ME.

3/10/2006 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger Aunt B said...

Lee,

There are thirty-three Tennessee senators. Nine of them voted against the amendment. Of those nine, four are women. Of the thirty-three senators, eight are women.

All of the Republican women voted for the amendment as did Charlotte Burks, the Democrat who was trying to outlaw dildos.

3/10/2006 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger cafiend said...

I want to toss out this chilling, paranoid notion. Between the men who want to control women and the women who are comfortable with that, what would happen if every state managed to pass a law outlawing abortion? What if push came completely to shove, and legislatures started systematically trying to roll back as many of women's freedoms as possible? Would enough women get together politically to withstand the assault?

Men voted to give women the vote. Women convinced them to do it. So one of the biggest political victories for women was brought about without their being able to bring numbers of themselves to the polls. I'm not sure exactly how that's relevant, but it does indicate that political power can be wielded without the vote. And recent reversals indicate that political power can be lost even with it.

How would women be able to respond? Gender is a powerful identity, but does not guarantee solidarity.

I don't want to see something like this happen. I'm just afraid I'm seing it start to happen, and thinking ahead to possible courses of action.

You can't underestimate the desire of conservative forces to control sexual behavior and enforce that all copulation is reproductive. In their view, you do it because you want to get pregnant. There are no accidents. It is unrealistic, but that's how it is. So maybe there's an escape clause for rape, maybe not. Some people really believe that God controls all actions, that everything happens for a reason. Forget the bus-size holes you can blow in arguments like that; faith consciously defies reason.

By giving a fetus a personality, the true believers create fictional characters. Think how beloved fictional characters become. Abortion opponents are just trying to create reasonable doubt in the public mind regarding whether little Frankie Fetus or Ellie Embryo deserves the big flush. That's all they need: doubt.

I just wonder how long it will be, if ever, before women's equality is unassailably enshrined as an understood political truth.

3/10/2006 09:05:00 PM  
Blogger bridgett said...

Are we talking about *the* Nathan Moore? Chairman of the Young Republicans? Member of the Right Impressions Toastmaster Club Nathan Moore? "I graduated from a law school that now brags about being caught in a seven-way tie for 41st in the nation because when I was going there it was ranked between 71 and 113 and is usually thought of as a "safety school"" Nathan Moore? He's awfully young to be so wrong....many men twice his age aren't half so full of shit. He might wind up on the federal circuit court if the Republicans stay in power. Quite the conquest, Aunt B.

Of course, Nathan has problems with the idea of women forming intent all on their own. For example, he was the defense attorney for Vicki Sanford last month. You may remember the case -- in essence, she was a married woman who admits she broke her adultery-committing lover out of jail and ran off to Mexico, though the lovers were apprehended in El Paso. Vicki sent her lover letters post-arrest saying that she loved him and is still really sorry they didn't make it to Mexico. Nathan, however, went into the post-plea interview claiming that his female client (mother of six, grandmother of seven, and presumably at 52 old enough to know her own mind when it came to busting some guy out of the slam -- especially when she repeatedly insists that she isn't remorseful) was "taken advantage of" by her lover. WTF? I think I will rob a bank and insist that I still really really really want to keep the money -- Nathan can get me off with a minor felony count and a "best interest" plea by saying that Marx took advantage of me when he wrote Das Kapital. Yes, he's just that good.

3/10/2006 10:06:00 PM  
Blogger Wendy said...

I am so glad someone else sees eye-to-eye with me on this abortion thing. I went on a blogging uterus tangent last night, and in it, I wrote this lovely letter to Sen. Fowler:

Dear Mr. Fowler,

If you are against abortion, don't have one. This should be quite easy for you, considering you DON'T HAVE A UTERUS. Please keep your legislation out of mine.

With more loathing than you could ever imagine,
~ More than just a babymaker


I just don't understand what makes a bunch of men think they can possibly grasp this scenario enough. Hell, I'm a woman, and I can't even wrap my brain around what it would be like to become pregnant via rape or incest.

3/10/2006 11:09:00 PM  
Anonymous brittney said...

Whoa. Interesting inside info there.

3/10/2006 11:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home