RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Vampires And Anti-Choice Ghouls

Amanda Marcotte's picture

Download
The history of the birth control pill, more on the Obama/BAIPA dust-up, and why vampires are still about The Sex.


Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed

Links in this episode:

The pill and mate selection

Humans don't "do" pheromones

Obama confronts the BAIPA nuts

Jill Stanek admits she was mistaken 

Candidates on abortion at Saddleback

Sarah Seltzer on the Twilight series

CWA on the Twilight series

Ann Coulter loses it once again

 

On this edition of Reality Cast, we'll have an interview with Elaine Tyler May about the history of the birth control pill.  Also, coverage of the crush of media coverage on abortion and Obama, and more on a series of vampire books by a devout Mormon.  Don't worry, it's still about sex, even if conservatives want to claim otherwise.

So maybe you heard this story about how women's sense of smell changes when she's on and off the birth control pill, and how this is supposed to affect her ability to be attracted to her mate?  It was from a study done on a very small group of women, and so I'm skeptical. Tracy Clark-Flory has more.  

  • insert BC smell *

But get this---it's worse than even Clark-Flory says.  What these studies of human pheremones don't tell you is that humans don't really "do" pheromones.  Rats do, and so do other animals.  But humans don't have the organ that detects pheromones.  So the odds that humans are reacting to pheromones is pretty damn low.  I guess that means all those commercials for Axe cologne are even stupider than you'd think.

**************

Hoo boy, has abortion been in the campaign news cycle lately or what?  Last week, I covered the whole fuss of right wingers, following nutbar Jerome Corsi's lead, trying to argue the absolutely ridiculous, paranoid point that Barack Obama voted for infanticide or something like that when he was in the Illinois senate.  Of course, they don't really believe this.  They're just saying it because they're hoping to raise alarms until your brain shuts down.  The so-called Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a stalking horse for abortion rights, and I think it's a shame that it was ever taken seriously by anyone ever.  

Obama finally came around to acknowledging the ridiculous accusations.  

  • obama calls anti-choicers liars *

It's not an ideal response.  From the get-go, I think the better way to deal with this crap is to declare that legislation presented by anti-woman groups should be treated as hostile and wrong, unless they go to extraordinary lengths to justify themselves.  As Obama says in this clip, the bill was redundant.  The only reason to pass it was to attack women's reproductive rights.  Meanwhile, parents who lose children through medically necessary abortions are being used as political footballs.  Even taking legislation like this seriously means dragging out the exploitation of grieving parents to gain ground in the war against women.

What I did like was that he singles out this lying, maudlin, exploitative tactic as the right wing craziness that it is.

  • obama calls out right wing tactics *
Of course, for days after this interview, the people pushing this accusation continued to lie about it, until various mainstream media outlets picked up the story and proved that there was no there there.  Finally, Jill Stanek, the woman I covered last week who has been instrumental in pushing this story, admitted that she was mistaken about how it all went down.  

Obama clearly thinks that there's a possibility of making nice with some of your everyday workaday anti-choice citizens.  I mean, obviously not the Jill Staneks of the world, who are so fetus obsessed that they can't even pause to consider that the parents of stillborns might have feelings.   But there's a huge middle section of society that's uncomfortable with abortion, but perhaps are not crazy right wing misogynist nuts.  Obama's tactic for reaching out to those people was on full display during the Saddleback Forum. Rick Warren asked the wrong question.

  • insert saddleback 1 *

You know, I understand that Rick Warren is one of those men impressed with his manly man sperm magic, but he can bite me.  The idea that a fertilized egg is a "baby" is insulting not just to real babies, but to women.  Women, who make babies with 9 months of hard work creating it with their own bodies.  The idea that it's a baby as soon as a man shoots, and this is a question of when the so-called baby has human rights is erasing women, their bodies, and their work. We. Are. Not. Flowerpots.  We are people.  And the question is whether we have rights.

Obama countered it with a joke.

  • insert saddleback 2 *

I'm not religious, so I believed the mainstream media types when they assured me that this answer was very offensive to the religious people out there, who are assumed to have no sense of humor.  But I actually asked around with some religious people I know, and they thought the answer was actually very in line with a certain Christian viewpoint, which is that Obama was saying that the answer to that question is not with him, a mere man, but with god.  

But that's the point, isn't it?  That's why we have religious freedom. If you think it's a baby when he hangs his belt at the end of the bed, go for it.  But leave me the right to believe that pregnancy is real, that it actually happens, that a baby is built inside a woman for 9 months.  That I have science on my side seems a little unfair, but again, the beauty of religious freedom is I can't make you change your mind.  Nor can you use god to control my life.

***************

  • insert interview *

***************

Our very own Sarah Seltzer wrote about the Twilight Vampire series a month ago, and she seems to have pre-empted a media frenzy.  It's because there's a movie based on the series coming out, and to make it even more media-friendly, the author is a devout Mormon, um, housewife.  Is it really fair to call a published writer a housewife?  That would make me a housewife, and I object to that description.  But I suppose "housewife" does make her massive fame and fortune less threatening.  Here's some CNN coverage:

  • insert twilight 1 *


Of course, most of us with even the slightest glimmer of sophistication can tell you why the vampire thing versus the Mormon housewife thing is a little startling.  And it's not because vampires are scary.  It's because vampires are a classic symbol of sublimated sexuality.  And, as Sarah said, the timing is perfect because girls nowadays are getting a lot more messages about how they have to be sexy without wanting sex than they were when I was a girl.  The plots of the books reflect this tension.

  • insert twilight 2 *

Of course, the heroine is super-desirable, so it's a way for girls to fantasize about being what they're told they have to be: chaste in behavior, but visually stimulating for passing men.  After all, pretty much no one strikes the perfect balance in life.  

Naturally, the wingnuts are getting in on the action, because who likes impressing impossible standards on teenage girls more than a wingnut?  Concerned Women for America actually had a podcast praising the book for pushing an abstinence message.  You know, despite all the penetrative and sensual biting that vampires like to get into.  

  • twilight 3*

God, you don't even get close dancing or closed mouth kisses?  Well, of course not.  The point of this exercise is to set the standards so high that pretty much every girl is bound to fail and then hate herself for being a dirty girl.

What the ladies against women don't mention in this interview, but my readers at Pandagon alerted me to, was that the main character gets pregnant pretty much right away after she gets married in the series.  And it's, as you might expect, a maudlin tome to feminine self-sacrifice, with the baby and then the birth nearly killing her.  Because it's demon spawn.  But who cares if it's demon spawn?  The important thing is that women learn that their bodies don't belong to them, but should always be subjugated to the needs of the patriarchy.

**************

And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts, the campaign season skips silly and goes straight to surreal edition.  You know you're hitting rock bottom when you have to trot out Ann Coulter to echo your nonsense, as was done on this Obama and late term abortion thing on Sean Hannity's show.  If you're sensitive, I suggest you tune out, because what she says is vicious and heartless.  Like everyone else pumping this thing, she completely forgets that women who need late term abortions are human beings who've suffered a great deal of pain.

  • insert coulter *

Okay, this is what I mean when I say that their entire worldview is fantasy.  I realize, since I read anti-choice literature all the time, that they think that zygotes have deep, thoughtful lives, but I was unaware that the fantasy extended to thinking that a 20 week old fetus could get up and run around a room.  Coulter, of course, is a heartless person and doesn't even pause to consider how it might feel to be someone who suffered a medically necessary late term abortion of a wanted pregnancy when she spouts off like this.   

Even Dennis Prager, who is willing to state any kind of right wing lie, is taken aback and skeptical about this.  As he should be, because it's all lies.

 


. . . . .
26 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

So someone can be an anti-woman ghoul without being a crazy rightwing mysogynist nut?

Submitted by pro-life atheist on August 25, 2008 - 11:57am.
But it's true---some people, like yourselves, are more ghoulish than other misogynists.
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 25, 2008 - 1:26pm.

Thank you. :)

Submitted by pro-life atheist on August 25, 2008 - 5:11pm.

Amanda fails to note that the federal BAIPA (which had the same wording as the Illinois 2003 BAIPA) passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 98-0. This included the vote of pro-choice senators like Barbara Boxer and Amanda's old boss John Edwards. Is John Edwards a ghoul for voting for this legislation?

Jill Stanek wasn't "mistaken about how it all went down." Do some research Amanda. Seriously. Jill, along with everyone else, thought Obama didn't allow the neutrality clause to be added to the 2003 BAIPA legislation until it was recently discovered by National Right to Life that he did allow the neutrality clause to be added and still voted against it even though for the last 4 years he's been claiming he would have voted for the BAIPA if it had the neutrality clause.

Babies aren't built. They're not cars. Human beings develop over time inside and outside the womb.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 25, 2008 - 12:34pm.

I never said politicians were perfect.  They are easy to booby-trap with nonsense, pointless, meaningless legislation.  Personally, I would refuse to vote for any bill introduced by organized misogynists on principle.  Same with white supremacists. 

 

I fail to see why their failure of will embarrasses me.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 25, 2008 - 1:25pm.

Much in the same way someone who views abortion as an act of killing would refuse to volunteer at a soup kitchen run by the SS guards from Sobibor, right?

Submitted by pro-life atheist on August 25, 2008 - 5:17pm.
Anti-choice literature must really deaden the natural logic skills most people are born with.  If you don't use it, you lose it, kids. 
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 26, 2008 - 10:30am.

What was the point of that?

Submitted by pro-life atheist? on August 26, 2008 - 1:24pm.

You should be embarrassed to put your name on something it appears you put a whole 5 seconds into researching. Anyone who has taken the time to examine both sides of this issue will quickly realize that you really don't know what you're talking about. Your posts sound like a broken ad hominem attack record - "Anti-choicers are this... anti-choicers are that..."

When you reject legislation (not based on the legislation itself - which I doubt you've read) simply because you don't like the people introducing it, that says a lot more about you and your way of thinking than it does about the legislation.

When a bill passes the U.S. Senate unanimously, it usually means there isn't a single good reason to vote against. It usually means the people opposed to the bill aren't really reliable sources for information.

Again, a woman who approved racist art images in her book should be wary about comparing prolife organizations to white supremacists.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 25, 2008 - 2:05pm.

But it was irrelevant.  You brought it up because you incorrectly assumed a) that I didn't know and b) that I mindlessly support anything a politician you deem liberal does.

 

Look, I get that you blindly follow authority, do as you're told, don't ask questions, and don't challenge the judgment of your leaders.  But don't assume everyone else is a sheep like yourself. 

 

By the way, you don't understand what ad hominem means.  You are arguing that it's ad hominem to say, "Christians believe Jesus Christ is the savior."  No, that's descriptive.  I'm sorry if you dislike accurate descriptions of yourself.  

 

Ad hominem is when I say, "Jivin doesn't look both ways when he crosses the street, so don't believe a word he says on abortion."  But to point out that your opposition to abortion rights is rooted in misogyny is descriptive and helpful to people trying to figure this out.  That you try to deceive people about your motivations indicates that you understand that they are, in fact, damning.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 26, 2008 - 10:28am.
Conservatives seem to think that screaming "ad hominem" is a "get out of having your motivations examined" card.  Politics is not a dry philsophical debate conducted in a classroom, where arguments are examined strictly on their merits.  In the real world, it's completely legitimate to deal with people as people and as political actors with motivations.  You are out to dismantle women's rights.  It's not off limits to say so, even if you wish it were, because it weakens your case tremendously.
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 26, 2008 - 10:35am.

There is a difference, though, in examining someone's motivations and creating your own radically errant view of what they are. I agree that its perfectly fine to bring up someone's background when discussing their positions (like someone saying they care for poor people while living in a mansion and getting expensive haircuts). However, we can't go and make up their motivations or reasoning in an effort to discredit them - that's unfair, unethical, and flat out lazy.

Submitted by pro-life atheist on August 26, 2008 - 1:19pm.

is somehow an argument. You think all your ridiculous armchair psychology motivation claims (you've made quite a number of them) about prolifers are somehow a way for you to avoid actually engaging with prolife arguments. It's much easier for you to write off prolifers as a woman-hating, sex-hating ghouls than to actually read prolife arguments and respond to them with a thoughtful argument.

Which is why you often come off as incredibly ignorant on abortion issues - when you don't take the time to treat people with opposing viewpoints seriously and always assume the worst, you end up looking silly on an issue like BAIPA.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 26, 2008 - 1:40pm.
Is not "screaming" misogyny, though I suppose you, being a misogynist, can't tell the difference between a woman speaking and a woman screeching, since you seem to think women should be quiet unless they're parroting anti-woman nonsense.  Sorry, but if working to end women's liberation isn't misogyny, nothing is misogyny.  If you were trying to repeal black Americans' basic rights, we'd call you a racist.  Why should the term "misogynist" be held to such a high standard that people that are actively trying to hurt women can't be called an accurate term?
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 27, 2008 - 10:19am.

You've proved I'm motivated by misogny? When? You've asserted over and over again how prolifers are misogynists but I've never seen an actual argument.

I don't think women should be quiet. That's a really lame strawman. I just think men and women should do some research on a subject before acting like they're experts on the subject. For example, in a previous RH Reality Check post you linked approvingly to Dana Goldstein's embarassing piece about how the Born Alive legislation was really about partial-birth abortion. Only someone who knew next to nothing on the subject would do that.

Abortion didn't liberate women and if you think the right to have an abortion is the key to women's liberation then your sense of liberation is highly skewed.

No one (neither men or women) have the right to have an innocent human being intentionally killed.

But if you can't be honest and/or reasonable about the Born Alive legislation then I shouldn't expect you to be honest or reasonable about abortion.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 27, 2008 - 1:32pm.

Amanda,
I didn't assume you didn't know the federal BAIPA bill passed the Senate unanimously. I actually assumed you knew but you didn't mention the vote in your post because you can't come up with a good reason to explain why it passed so easily. But I would love to read a post by you explaining how you're right and every pro-choice organization and senator was wrong about a bill I don't think you've read. It would be a battle between your unbridled arrogance and your unfathomable ignorance.

I don't blindly follow authority. I just pointed out how silly you look for opposing a bill that passed unanimously because no one could think of a good reason to oppose it. Apparently, the only reason you have for opposing it is because prolifers introduced it. That's like me saying any legislation Barbara Boxer introduces should be immediately shot down.

I know perfectly well what an ad hominem is. You, however, need to take an intro to logic class at your local community college. Instead of providing a well-reasoned reason to be opposed to the legislation, all you've done is attack the people supporting the legislation.

This is classic Marcotte. When you don't have an argument and haven't done any research, claim everything prolifers are doing is bad because they're supposedly misogynists and hate sex. How anyone can find this persuasive is beyond me.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 26, 2008 - 1:28pm.

Because it's irrelevent.  It really is.  I know this is very, very very hard for you to understand, but this is a podcast, and as such, I want to keep it quick and breezy so that people can absorb it in a commute to work or other such environment.  Asking why politicians are such rubes is an entirely different podcast segment, and this one wasn't about that.  I don't know if I'll ever do such a segment, because it's sort of stating the obvious.

 

I mean, you might need help with the obvious (politicians are easily guilted into stupid votes), but my intended audience isn't you.  My audience is relatively sophisticated.  If you need your hand held, you can go somewhere else.

 

And of course you blindly follow authority.  You've never said a damn thing ever that wasn't regurgitated right wing talking point void of intelligent thought.  

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 26, 2008 - 4:06pm.

Well, I guess here's more evidence that you're quite ignorant about the Born Alive legislation and the Obama cover-up or you're a really bad liar.

The federal legislation and the unanimous vote in favor of it matters because Obama said he would have voted for the Illinois legislation if it had a neutrality clause like the federal legislation. One of the reasons he made this false claim was because of how easily the federal legislation passed.

But we both know the real reason you didn't mention the 98-0 vote. It would have blown a titanic whole in your whole diatribe of assertions that the Born Alive legislation is really bad. Your listeners would be thinking to themselves, "But wait, how can legislation which every pro-choice senator voted for and NARAL didn't oppose be so bad? Is Marcotte really smarter than every single pro-choice group and federal legislator?"

I'm would enjoy reading your take on why no pro-choice group opposed and every pro-choice Congressperson voted in favor of specific legislation (namely the federal Born Alive bill). I'd love to know why you're right and they're all wrong.

Submitted by JivinJ on August 27, 2008 - 1:51pm.
Intellectual dishonesty get so boring so fast.
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 28, 2008 - 8:35am.

I liked her post and no body said that you have to know what you are talking about to blog.

Submitted by Cheap Pheromone Cologne For Men on September 16, 2008 - 2:12pm.

This is so dissapointing. AGAIN.
Human VNO have been found. To say that they do not exist (because they haven't been found on occasion, or because we don't understand the difference in function between human and rat..etc.) is like saying that freckles don't exist because not everyone has them or because they dissapear. The real debate is whether or not they function.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 27, 2008 - 11:57am.
Not only did I get it on science blogs from a scientist, but I called another biologist and asked about this.  My research indicates that the controversy over the VNU is minor and that the general opinion is that it's non-functioning.  And that human sensitivity to smell is about memory and association.
Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on August 28, 2008 - 8:01am.

CWA obviously forgot the scene in Eclipse where Bella tried to seduce Edward. He turned her down, being born in 1901, Edward is old-fashioned that way.

On Bella's pregnancy, because Edward was a vampire, she believed he couldn't get her pregnant. Edward wanted her to terminate the pregnancy because he was concerned for her health but she wouldn't allow him to do so. He didn't seem to want the baby until really late in the pregnancy when he was able to read its thoughts (that is an extra ability he has.)

Submitted by Toni T. on August 27, 2008 - 2:29pm.

If you have that lunatic on your side, be afraid, very afraid.

Submitted by libhomo on August 30, 2008 - 11:02am.

There is a difference, though, in examining someone's motivations and creating your own radically errant view of what they are. I agree that its perfectly fine to bring up someone's background when discussing their positions (like someone saying they care for poor people while living in a mansion and getting expensive haircuts). However, we can't go and make up their motivations or reasoning in an effort to discredit them - that's unfair, unethical, and flat out lazy.

Submitted by Briefmarken Schweiz on November 7, 2008 - 7:51am.

Give Amanda a break, people. Despite all controversy, I personally think it's a good article and we should credit when credit's due.

Submitted by Cheap Wigs For Sale on November 10, 2008 - 9:40pm.