If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why Should Slutty Bitches Get Jobs, Anyway? They'll Just Quit Later and Have Babies

chicago dyke's picture

Gosh, I'm actually glad I found this. I should thank the author for being so blunt; I've read plenty much like this, however variously coded in softer, gentler misogyny:

Putting people to work
What does contraception have to do with to putting people back to work? It was a christmas tree ornament, and an obvious "gimme": something to drop in negotiation.

This is a comment on a liberal blog, on a thread critical of the stimulus bill. I left a reply, rather mild for me but I'm not in the mood for engaging those who use Hugh Hefner quotes as their sig lines. But still, this is just the most blatant example of O-xcusing I've read from supporters, as they ignore the reality of Administrative caving on #1) 40% of the "stimulus" is in the form of tax cuts and #2) Stupid sluts who don't deserve contraception.

I don't think the new administration understands how deeply this one goes, this betrayal, as more strongly worded writers have put it, and the anger it has generated in the feminist community. Women don't forget those who toss them under the bus at the very first, and wholly unnecessary, opportunity. Particularly those women who were told to, erm, 'grin and bear it' during and after the primary season, in the name of "victory" and "unity." It's especially bitter to realize: Obama got *nothing* in exchange for ah, screwing over poor women. Nice job, Hero. Way to help the the poorhouse. With bratz in tow, even! I can't wait to pay for their upkeep, can you? I'm so glad those women will be less likely to find jobs and benefits which would keep their slatternly selves and bastards off the public dole. It's where they were meant to be, right?

I won't, um, belabor the point, except to say that strategically, this is in Major Fuckup territory. There is no "solidarity" or "feminist consciousness" in America, but there is one truth to all American women: we take the freedom to fuck when we please for granted. Our boyfriends and husbands do too, even as some of them may not be willing to fight for our reproductive rights or get angry when they are threatened. This isn't about "poor women." It's a statement about the value the new administration places on women as a whole. No amount of apology will make us forget this. I will not "rejoice" when the funding is passed in a later bill, assuming the new administration ever actually gets around to that. Reproductive freedom is and should always be a central, automatic position for any politician calling herself/himself a 'Democrat.' For all women. All of the time.

I hate to say it, but the much-mocked, frequently-hated 'PUMA' crowd scored a big victory today, not that people like the author of the quote would admit that. I'd like to coin the meme, "She told you so," replacing the gender neutral "we." One doesn't have to love the idea of HRC as Prez to perceive and understand how different this particular issue would've been played out, had she or any other Dem woman been in charge. Yeah, I'm starting a flame war. It's a shame to think that I never should've been given the opportunity, and that technically, I'm the last survivor of the primaries with any interest in doing so.

Oh, how many Republicans ended up voting for the stimulus bill?

/Pregnant Pause/

Yeah, I thought so.

No votes yet


a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

I find it difficult, at the moment, to lie back and think of England bipartisanship.

Oh, and the shrill one speaks:

The House has passed the stimulus bill with not a single Republican vote.

Aren’t you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on


I honestly think republicans are so perverted after Bush that they wouldn't dream of voting for Democratic-engineered legislation.

Rot, evil ones.

If this is theater, I'd better like the first act.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

on his part, or rather, our parts. as in: it was unnecessary and/or avoidable, painful, difficult, didn't have to/wouldn't have happened in a civilized society, and produced only suffering and destruction.

yeah, i'm about ready to go there. time to go watch a DVD and kewl off, i guess.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on


Obama got *nothing* in exchange for ah, screwing over poor women. Nice job, Hero. Way to help the the poorhouse. With bratz in tow, even! I can't wait to pay for their upkeep, can you? I'm so glad those women will be less likely to find jobs and benefits which would keep their slatternly selves and bastards off the public dole.

Of course these women and their children don't belong on the public dole.
I'm as staunchly pro-choice as they come, CD, but I have to tell you -- this comment makes me think that hating on Obama is infesting rational thought, to the detriment of rationality as well as thought.

The public dole, as presently constituted, btw, is NOTHING like a safety net.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Of course these women and their children don't belong on the public dole.

Unfortunately, they're here, so where do they belong?

OTOH, I used to get shit on Eschaton for backing Hillary's "Safe, Legal, and Rare."

What should we do, Sarah?

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

did you miss the snark in my comment? what is your, um, beef? tell me what you didn't like, and i'll explain what i meant in a more sober tone. i was trying to get at the idea that by denying poor women contraception, for the "purpose" of "saving taxpayer money," this denial actually means that the taxpayers will pay more, esp for the "undeserving." was i unclear? did i miss your point? i'm all ears.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

objecting to the misogyny I've been seeing -- NOT JUST from Obama, but including from Obama -- was an invitation to a scolding throughout the primaries.

My big objection? That we don't have a system like LBJ envisioned. It was the GOP who cut the benefit for families to one for 'single mothers', remember? Then they have the chutzpah to blame Democrats and the dole for "welfare mothers".

I'm so old these people don't even make me want to puke anymore; I'm too tired.

Dykester's picture
Submitted by Dykester on

for those of us who are female and queer. Feels like it's been a long year already and January is still here. . . . .

I wish I could feel betrayal like CD, but yanking these funds simply confirmed to me that the O doesn't support women and women's issues. Go all the way back to his "present" vote in the Illinois state house. Praised as some kind of masterful stroke of integrity, Obama's failure to stand up and educate struck me as indicative of his style of leadership: he's happy for your support, but he won't do anything in exchange if it might endanger some possible vote from some possible future supporter who might not like it.

The majority of Americans are women. I wish we would all just say no to this action. Put the funds back in. The republicans were never going to support this bill. Give us a progressive $819B stimulus and shove it down the republicans' throats. Let them prance around and pretend they have ideological differences with it. Who cares? Real stimulus will work, women and men will get more and better jobs with higher wages,and America will begin to recover from this date-rape we call the Shrub years. Later, republicans can crawl back to us when they've let go of their hatred and anger towards 95% of Americans and are ready to act like adults who want to govern.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

Reagan and to the right of Nixon. I don't find this surprising. I'm expecting his football buddies to push him to take out Title IX. I'm sure the attacks are coming.

No adult male who would utter the thought that "periodically" Clinton gets down and needs to attack to boost her appeal, is an adult male who has any regard for women. He is a creep and a thug and he will do everything he can to set women back.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I've heard many people, including ever-so "progressive" male bloggers, dismiss the need for contraceptives to be available to poor women and girls by usually offering two replies: "What about condoms?" and "How does it help create jobs?" First, contraceptives are the best safe sex option for women and girls, especially since it's not terribly uncommon for them not to be able to express their sexual autonomy. Condoms are dependent upon male choice. Rape and coercion does happen. But even if that weren't the case, why is it wrong to support reproductive freedom? Is having a child no longer a serious, life-changing event?

Second, I ask, "How does a poor woman or girl having an unwanted pregnancy help her get or keep a job or help the economy as a whole?" Honestly. We know that unwanted pregnancies are terribly expensive and all but push women and girls who are already struggling economically, usually with other children in tow, into deep poverty. We know that denying reproductive rights has a terrible impact not only for those directly affected but society at large (Mind you, this is after decades of GOP efforts of rolling back reproductive rights, making getting an abortion a difficult task just about anywhere in the US). Face it, the GOP singled this out not because it's frivolous but because it works. The GOP did not do this out of economic concern (as if there was nothing more expensive in the stimulus bill that they objected to), but purely out of a hate-based ideology and yet Obama still gave it to them. And even after they swore they would vote against it!

Oh, and did I mention that the GOP has been thrashed the past two elections, the economy is hanging in the balance, and yet he kept the stimulus under a trillion and included bullshit tax cuts to appease them? WTF?

Dykester's picture
Submitted by Dykester on

and ensures that young girls will not set their sights higher. Then we can all go have a beer and talk about how men really are the movers and shakers in the world and women really don't seem to do much but get pregnant and raise babies. Darwinism at work, heh?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Since high school, I've worked at my local homeless coalitions to help home people. For a decade now the overwhelming majority of people I've seen have been mothers and their children (The "fathers" are non-factors, at best, or abusers, at worst). It kills me every time. These little kids grow up in a culture of poverty that denies them basics, blocks their ability to advance academically, and leaves them highly vulnerable to abuse (especially girls). They don't know anything different.

But like any other kids they do have dreams. They have incredible hopes for their futures but they don't know how to get there and they face incredible obstacles just getting to college. And now it's all the more difficult with the awful credit crunch (I hope that education money included in the bill does the trick and helps these kids out).

The mothers, women and girls (Yes, I've seen homeless mothers as young as 16), almost always grew up in similar circumstances. It's this awful trap.

If denying help to the neediest of people on bigoted grounds isn't a "childish thing," what the hell is?

Submitted by scoff on

most of the rest of the civilized world recognizes that women and gays can and do contribute and can aspire to the equality they deserve.

Only in America (and certain third-world countries) is the truth unrecognizable.

I'm so damned disgusted with Obama and the so-called "progressives" who support him unreservedly (despite all he has shown himself to be no more of a "progressive" than I'm the King of Siam.)

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

first: love this-

he won't do anything in exchange if it might endanger some possible vote from some possible future supporter who might not like it.

that should be a sig line, nice.

pie, sarah: i guess my snark wasn't clear enough. of course, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT POOR WOMEN SHOULD BE FORCED on the public dole, ever, of any kind, for any reason. is that clear enough? what are we fighting about? i don't understand. reproductive freedom, paid for by the same taxes that pay for viagra for men, that's what i'm sayin here. rich or poor, woman or man: reproductive choice and freedom for all, regardless of class.

all i want is for all women to have equal, easy access to simple, reliable contraception, all the time, everywhere. obama and his flaks ditched that in this bill. i'm pissed. i hope that's clear enough to explain why i'm mad/this post. sorry if i didn't do so at first.

Dykester's picture
Submitted by Dykester on

appreciate your noticing

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Quite a day's output. I can barely keep up reading you, much less think through the issues you raise. Ah, to be young again.

While I probably shouldn't touch this topic with a long, ahem, pole, I do have one thought. This portion of the bill was pulled for one reason; to placate Senate Republicans. Like it or not, Obama needs to buy a couple of Republican Senators to get anything through. Them's the rulz.

I don't like it. You don't like it. I doubt seriously that Obama likes it. It is, however, the price he was told he had to pay to get a couple of votes so this stinker of an inadequate "stimulus" bill can pass. Should he have said screw it (oops) and just walked away from the whole thing? Should he have stood firm (oops again) and watched the Senate Republicans block it so he could then capitulate?

The problem isn't fundamentally with Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or most of the Democratic caucus. They are for shit on strategy, we know that, but still they included this pittance of support of reproductive freedom in the original bill. It is the Republicans who demanded removal, who extorted this payment. Shouldn't Progressives be at least as outraged at the extortionists who demanded the payment as it seems they are angry with the fools who paid up?

I'm not asking for less anger; I'm asking for more.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Since he only needs a couple of Senate Republicans, why not go after Snowe and Collins, who are pro-choice and vulnerable? Send Jim Jeffords to talk to them about the realities of being a New England Republican from a blue state.

Submitted by lambert on

You got to this 2 seconds before I did.

Not only that, Collins and Snowe could really use single payer -- Maine has the oldest population in the country, and the budget crisis is causing our own state funded public system to fail.

Hey, who knew, Obama could actually move left by working with Republicans who he could, ya know, actually work with. And kick the Blue Dogs in the stones.

(I don't think he will, though. Our own state oligarchy is a awful -- Maine is about extracting resources. The son of the biggest Dem lawyer in the state, Severin Beliveau, played a big role in the inaugural. However.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

he won't do anything in exchange if it might endanger some possible vote from some possible future supporter who might not like it.

No votes in the House for the stimulus bill from Republicans. Who negotiates away a provision that they even mildly care about for nothing at all? I'm not sure it's that he was willing to bargain away support for women based on some possible potential imaginary post-partisan bipartisan scintilla, as that he had no interest in having it in the bill in the first place. Why else give it away for free? (no pun intented...). Is having to horse-trade with the Republicans a (weak) reason, or an excuse?

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

So what's the problem? If they choose to be poor sluts, why should Jon Favreau's hard-earned tax dollars pay for them to have a good time without paying the consequences? And just so you know, that's only for when they are young and hot. When they get old, they are dried up old hags, so no need to worry about them then (either). Well, maybe we can get around to it later. If they ask politely, and showing the proper deference.

But speaking of nice, you should be careful CD, you might be accused of the following if you get too critical:

"You, on the other hand, along with the thankfully dwindling tribe of Rabid Hillarians, see Obama as BAD BAD BAD and seek to punish him for everything he does regardless of value or correctness. Your aim is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh, to undermine Obama and destroy him. All that rubbing feels so good you can't stop long enough to see what is happening around you, or judge the consequences of your actions.

Gwen Ifill discusses the other choices to make at 3:10, for about 5 seconds, all the time it deserves really....

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Our betters can make all our decisions for us:

In fact, if the Democratic Party had stolen every single election from 1968 onward this would be a far better world in which to live.

I've had a belly full of nice guy candidates finishing second. All you little lambs should maybe go find a nice shady spot and munch clover for a while, while the wolves duke it out; wouldn't want your delicate sensibilities getting upset. You can thank us for doing the dirty work later.

We just need the "right people" doing things for us all.