Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Bill O’Reilly’s Misogyny is Only Tip of Sex Slave Iceberg
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
An alternate headline might be this: “Bill O’Reilly Admits Only Drunk Women Have Sex with Him.” You have to wonder where his “knowledge” comes from, after all. Amusing as such thoughts are, they miss the point altogether. He says he is basing his conclusions on a study about 1 in 5 people binge-drinking. But binge-drinking isn’t the same thing as sex – for most of us:
“[M]any women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex and [are] not going to use birth control anyway.”
That’s hardly true: you don’t have to put in an IUD yourself before you step out with your girlfriends. The Young Turks had some fun with Bill-O’s point of view:
All joking aside (and Bill O’Reilly is certainly a joke) the Center for Reproductive Rights points to the importance of this issue:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said that she will decide whether the new healthcare law will cover contraception without co-pay by August 1st.
The simple fact is that the Republicans don’t want abortions but they also don’t want to take the measures necessary to prevent unwanted births. The first thing George W. Bush did was with his first budget to Congress (April 9, 2001), strip out the provision requiring insurance companies to include contraceptives for 9 million federal employees as part of their coverage Republicans consistently vote against tax-payer funded contraceptives. They don’t want us to have them, they don’t want them going overseas as part of foreign aid.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM), which Kaiser Health calls “an independent and well-respected research organization” was asked by the Department of Health and Human Services “to advise what services should be considered essential.”
Turns out that IOM’s recommendation was that all American women should be able to get birth control for free. And that is what has Bill-O all riled up. Who is going to pay for that, he asks? The government, he answers. But Republicans don’t like any kind of health care or health insurance, as we know. For the GOP, having a hospital down the street is adequate healthcare. The people who really deserve it will be able to afford to go, and that’s all that matters.
IOM’s full list of recommendations included,
We’ve already seen cancer screenings take a hit with the Republican crusade against Planned Parenthood.
What the GOP doesn’t understand is that preventative medicine, as the name suggests, will prevent problems down the road and therefore save money and lives. We know they don’t care about the lives but they do care a great deal about money. But here their false morality gets in the way; they don’t like sex, they don’t want people to have sex or to have an excuse to have sex and contraception is just an invitation to sin. As the American Life League says, “The practice of contraception is intrinsically evil.”
Republicans want abstinence instead, despite such well-publicized failures as Bristol Palin. But as a study released by the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) on June 22, 2004 says, federally funded abstinence-only education programs don’t prevent teens from having sex.
So we have a choice between a measure (contraception) that works and a measure (abstinence) which doesn’t, and neither of them is free. Of course, one obvious difference is that abstinence only programs are run by religious groups, so guess who gets the funding then?
So instead of meaningful changes that would improve the healthcare received by women, we get misogynist jokes from Republican pundits because in the end, as the forger who wrote 1 Timothy argued, women should be “silent, submissive, and pregnant.” And that is what the GOP wants to legislate – not healthcare, but their deranged ideas about morality which reduces women to the role of sex slaves for a Christian patriarchy.
Today is the start of free preventive care for women courtesy of President Obama and the Democrats in Co ...
Glenn Beck was on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor on Friday, where he continued to spread lies and falsehoods abou ...
The first part of Bill O’Reilly interview with Jon Stewart aired on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor tonight, and w ...
On his FNC show tonight Bill O’Reilly declared that the government does not have the right to force a person ...
In a stunning turn of events, Fox News has been running a holiday greeting commercial that does not say Merr ...
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Actually, the Republican position is that only men should have sex, but never with other men. God bless ‘em, they’re still trying to figure that one out.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:22 am
You owe me one clean laptop screen and you know Steve Jobs doesn’t give it way cheap:-) This is how we got women like Carrie Prejean — you’re not supposed to have sex with the cheap girl who sends video of herself (cough) around, but you CAN have sex with her if she wears a cross. This must have come after much serious debate…….
Nasty Liberal
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Reynardine, dig deep in those pockets. You also owe me for rupture surgery and I guess you’re gonna’ buy a lot of keyboards and such.
What is the acronym for Laughed Until I Ruptured Myself, anyway? LUIRM?
Snooze Hamilton
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:54 am
(applauseclapclapwhistle)
I got sent to my room for pointing out to my mother that if guys were supposed to “be men” and fool around but “ladies” weren’t, and prostitution wasn’t acceptable either, who were the guys screwing?
I learned better than to drink anything while reading stuff on here – it’s usually spit-take or gag worthy ;0)
zumpie
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Hee! My take is that they view prostitutes as a sort of necessary evil, you’re just not supposed to talk about it.
Another area that the Puggie argument on abortion falls apart is rape. Frequently on boards I’ve seen pro-lifers unsympathetically post “you do the crime (sex), you do the time (have a baby”—but when you bring up “what about rape or incest?”, they either (miraculously!!!) shut up or attempt the feeble “was it really rape/a baby’s still a gift from God” type arguments.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I get the feeling that the GOP wants women living in communal housing giving birth one after another, yet providing no care for those woman while they live in abject poverty. Pop those babies and oh by the way, after you have them we are going to berate you for being pregnant.
O’Leily has no common sense at all. Just look at the tides issue. The guy is dumber than a rock
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:02 am
He seems to think being bombastic will cover up a complete lack of wits
Sarah Jones
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:23 am
We women are pretty darn sure you’re correct about that. Imagine that we didn’t want to vote for Sarah Palin. They’re still trying to figure out what went wrong there.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:06 am
And they never will figure that one out because it goes against what “has to be true”
mikeyhatesit
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 11:34 am
That’s just a couple steps removed from the “menses hut” in pre-industrial societies, where women were sequestered from anywhere to days to weeks at a time, based on scientific ignorance. Fear of attracting malevolent spirits, witchcraft, or food contamination were among the justifications for this. Proscriptions in the Torah and co-equal texts merely list the latest version (at the time) of rules for women.
Cut to modern times, and a literal interpretation of spiritual texts leads to Dominionist/Jihadist legal strategy that seems to want to return to those days. But they’re taking it slow, so as not to spook the herd- but not slow enough. Cowboys like Anders Breivik, the 9/11 Terrorists, Byron Williams, or the Hutaree keep jumping the gun-literally. Those flashes in the dark only serve to illuminate just how dangerous the fundamentalist mindset can be.
A Walkaway
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Actually, this is wrong for at least some cultures.
The Menses hut for many cultures was a break for the women… they got a break from the daily chores. It was actually considered a time of rest. Not all cultures believed that the “moon time” was somehow bad (patriarchal cultures, I would buy that. Matriarchal like my own – and we do exist – nope).
At least for my tribe (and a few others I’ve heard about), a woman was considered spiritually clean because of her moon time, and the fact that she could bring forth life from herself (childbirth) made her closer to the Creator. A woman would become dangerous for a man during this time because of this connection, and thus it was a kindness to the menfolk that they avoided contact (with men only) – because men are thought to be less “pure”. Indeed, before ceremony men needed to purify themselves by fasting and use of the “Black Drink” (and others), but this was not a requirement for the women.
The white man came along and tried to change all that (a sign of steeplejacking is men starting to talk of women being subservient), but the elders and ancients heard of the old ways, practiced them in secret until it became legal for us to exist in 1980, and tell of them still.
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Black drink= Ilex vomitoria? You’d have to be a man indeed to go through regular draughts of puking holly.
A Walkaway
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
(Laugh) right name, but the truth is the “scientific” name was given to the plant (proper name Yaupon) by the British Tea Company because the settlers were starting to compete using Yaupon and they couldn’t have that! (The secret is how it’s prepared and drunk.)
When you parch the leaves and brew them, it makes the most delicious tea. VERY strong, btw. More caffeine than either tea or coffee. I drink it now and then… should consider growing more plants and drinking it more often.
That reminds me… I’d like to pick some leaves from my Yaupon bush so as to enjoy a cup or two.
Mikeyhatesit
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
What’s your heritage?
Also, from what I learned in my coursework, matriarchies, from an evidentiary standpoint, are about as relatively rare as cannibalistic societies. (Discountint of course the Zombie Cult of Personality that insists on rewriting history).
The obvious Steppe cultures aside (Scythians, Picts, North Asiatics), my understanding was that subtemperate to arctic climates were more likely to produce a sexually dimorphic leadership structure. This is on the basis that every single person is required to contribute to the resources of the community. When free time accrues, gender roles can become more rigid, but only as the weather evens out.
Once significant agricultural and dwelling structures developed, women start being treated more as a resource than as assets.For any species, genes are the most valuable thing of all. When access to food or water can be controlled, so too can reproductive access. The biggest predictor of mammalian social structures is found in relativity: relative sizes of genitalia and body mass per gender.
In nomadic groups, when women share in the same chores as men, it’s easier to keep the genetic parity levels more equitable. Human body size suggests men would would have 2 mates, typically. When a culture develops a luxury class, that number increases to whatever he can sustain financially until the group begins to get concerned that he is taking all the women (genes). Think of any politician, millionaire, actor, or rock star that you would like. David Lee Roth, for instance.
None of what I’m saying means that matriarchies don’t have any worth. It’s just that like cannibalism, they are almost statistically insignificant. What I’ve read of them suggests that we might be better off as a species had invested more energy in those political/belief systems. Unfortunately, environment dictates biology, which in turn determines culture. It was a race, or luck of the draw, that men, in wanting women, sought to amass resources (power) to make themselves more attractive. In this way, the Koch Brothers are among the biggest peacocks in America.
I really recommend Robert Sawyer’s “Hominids” trilogy for an excellent take on what a mosern matriarchal society would look like. It’s an alternate universe where Homo sapiens never took off, but Neandertalensis did.
My take on women and power: since women tend to live longer, they wind up being the head of the clan anyway. In small groups, humans are much closer to elephants and lions. It’s large groups that seems to get us into trouble.
A Walkaway
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Muskogee-Creek Indian. I also have Cherokee ancestors, as well as Catawba and probably Shawnee, Iroquois, and a few others.
The problem is, people don’t listen to us (don’t trust the books – the best I know of about my own tribe is SERIOUSLY flawed). Matriarchal societies are NOT inverses of Patriarchal and don’t look even similar – much more equality for one thing. The structure is completely different, but the womenfolk always have the final word. (As one of the professors I had correctly put it: if the men made the wrong decision, the women would keep sending them back until they made the RIGHT decision.) We also had a representative form of government (democracy isn’t just an ancient Greek thing), a codified system of laws, and recently people are starting to understand that intercropping and careful management of the environment (including providing for other creatures) makes good sense.
The dominionists don’t like us, but try to steeplejack us anyway. Which is surprising, because in some nations (in older days), if a woman was pregnant she held the vote for her unborn child as well as those of her children and even her husband.
People are sometimes flabbergasted to learn that our principle chief is a woman, but then, many if not most of our Mikkos were women anyway (archaeology has recently supported that).
Sarah Jones
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Hraf, such a great read. Men like BOR don’t know that we women see through him a mile away. He’s a biter, angry power monger who views women as trinkets that he should be able to own by virtue of his “success” and simple privilege of being born a man. Of course he doesn’t want us to have access to contraception — who would have his babies if they could NOT have his babies? And somehow this choice will be viewed by him as an assault on his rights.
Bill is the kind of man women laugh at as soon as he turns his back and you can bet the women who have slept with him in that dungeon of propaganda have swapped stories and they ain’t pretty. Now you guys know why men like Bill don’t think women should speak:-)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Thanks, Sarah. I hate to think what the workplace environment is like for women on Bill-O’s show. It’s gotta be hellish for anyone with ovaries.
crsytalwolfakacaligrl
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 9:56 am
The GOP or the Dominionist Christians, in their belief system “you only have sex to make babies” (Brisdull Palin enters here)
Hypocrisy!
The also believe birth control is some sort of abortion! (excuse me but your total lack of education is showing)
Many years ago, my Son’s Gamma wanted him Baptized. This required that the Father & I visit the Church for a “talk”
The Priest asks personal questions…
P:do you use Birth control?
M:Yes.
P:The church doesn’t approve of that?
M: Well when the Pope wants to pay for all the kids I will have b/c I’m not using it…I will stop…!
End of Story.
Oh yea…my Son did get Baptized, and he is now a Atheist!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Great story! Love a happy ending.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Gosh I’m shocked the pope didn’t want to pay — imagine a man not standing behind his “Pro-life” convictions when the baby is born:-)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:50 am
The only thing more important to them than abortion is cold hard cash. That’s how deep their convictions go. Look at Rick Perry’s miserly tithing.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 11:00 am
But see, that’s because God PICKED them to be rich, abandon their children, cheat on their wives, and rob the country because He wants to give financial rewards to the greedy sociopaths so they can do “His work” here on earth by starving the poor and be sure to get into Heaven, where all of the con artists assure us they will reside whilst we sinners (read: non-haters) will burn on Judgement Day, which according to the fundies, is like Groundhog Day only it never comes.
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:15 am
I haven’t heard those stories… about him; but boys aren’t the only ones with nasty mouths. Some of the All Tell & Tell “operators” would make a sailor blush and a parrot faint, and as they picked up salted peanuts between the hard likker and the beer chaser, they’d say…
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:41 am
A. Never have coffee in your cup when you’re on the computer; B. Ditto for buggers in your nostrils.
Seriously, kids, that’s therapy. Now, about that fifty- minute hour fee…
pcbedamned
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
You know, I Really don’t understand the American Right and their views and beliefs on sexuality. It boggles my mind. Hell, even here in Commie Canada (with a Conservative Majority no less), things such as abortion are Off The Table (as well as that other Socialistic Behemoth known as Health Care). Our PM (Prime Minister) won’t DARE touch those things.
Sex Ed begins, at least here in Ontario, in and around Grade 5 or 6. In Grade 9 health, the kids in my eldest daughters high school, are not allowed to even leave the classroom without taking a condom (what they do with it outside the door is their choice, but the school makes sure they at least leave the room with 1 on their person). In our little town High School, with an enrollment of maybe 300-400 students coming from 4 different other towns, the health clinic has a bowl in the front where the kids can go and take condoms, no questions asked.
As a full disclosure, I am considered Conservative up here, and I am also a Christian. Yet once I found a letter from my daughter when she was 14 to some boy which contained sexual overtones, the FIRST thing I did was get her to the Dr. to get her on the bloody Pill. To me, it was just Common Bloody Sense!!!
*sigh*
If someone could explain the American Right’s regressive attitudes, I would be be greatly appreciative. Pointing and laughing has now become simply head shaking with an open mouthed WTF…
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
The US is vastly behind Canada and the UK in so many ways. We have leaders whop are deathly afraid of the US being successful and the population moving forward socially. We have these fricking crazy religious people whose only purpose in life is to repress people
Diane
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
You would have to be a little bit ‘off’ to understand it and it doesn’t sound like you are qualified.
But, here it goes.
God makes women to have babies and be subservient to men. It’s in the bible. Every fetus is supposed to be loved and cherished, Never, Ever aborted. The rights of the woman who is pregnant does not matter(see above subservience).
The baby that is born becomes the property of his parent(s). No funds for health care, education, food are to be spent by the government, that’s socialism.
The faithful are only interested in the fetus. They love those fetus Americans! But, babies not interested.
So, only 2 things to remember.
Women are to be subservient to men.
Fetus rule.
pcbedamned
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
BAZINGA!!!!!
K, seriously, they must read a different Bible than I do…
All I guess there is left to say, is Vive le Canada!!!
This here Commie Conservative (oxymoron much?~?) is quite happy living in my ‘socialistic hell’ where we actually care about our fellow humans even once they are out of the womb.
Peace.
Cathy
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
They read a different Bible than most Americans do too! You should be proud of Canada for being progressive in the 21st century, while American politicians and right wing nut cases, like Billo, want America to go back to the dark ages.
The Platzner Post
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Billo the Clown!!!
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
If by matriarcies, you mean societies where women brutalize, disenfrachise, and domineer over men in an inverse Taliban hierarchy, of course, those have been rare. Matrilineage, though, was the only form of ancestry known to us until the Chalcolithic, and with it went matrilocality and a tendancy to coalesce around a female ancestor/ leader. This persisted through a horticultural/ pomicultural/ early agricultural stage… which is not to say that men were not esteemed and valued, nor that their contributions were discounted. The metalsmith and the hunter/herdsman were especially valued, but real patriarchy was rare until the discovery of paternity and the invention of wars of conquest and plunder. Both of these seem to be the result of large scale agriculture: paternity because pastoralists relying wholly on domestic sires figured out how babies were made, and war because a developed agriculture, and the specialized artisanry it supported, caused a surplus of goods that some had and others wanted – and finally, as populations grew and exhausted their own resources, a relentless seeking for others. And thus began civilization as we know it: Great Chain of Being, Ayn Rand, Republicans, and all.
Reynardine
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Should’ve posted under Mikeyhatesit’s entry. Oh, well, you get the idea.
Almost all my animals have been whole grain, and have come to be large family groups. Any animal with an unusually boodthirsty nature can upset the whole order, but as a rule, they are sociable, gentle, and somewhat matricentric. I have a giant white tomcat whose favorite thing is kittens. He chirps for them until they come to him, but if they don’t, he lies on the floor and twirls his tail enticingly till they pounce on it, and then he either plays with them or washes their faces. Only one of the kittens was his, but he likes them all.
A Walkaway
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
(Please forgive the somewhat off topic sub-thread.)
Patriarchal societies can be matrilineal and matrifocal, but the men still rule (although granted, matrilineal and matrifocal societies tend to be less coercive and abusive and the women have more say). Matriarchal societies are more common than believed, but admittedly are rare compared to all of the patriarchal ones. The difference between patriarchal societies that are also matrifocal or matrilineal is that in societies like ours, the women make the decisions (in reality often share the decision making with the men, but have the final say) and the men know it and often will admit to it. We are also matrilineal and usually matrifocal. Even our language reflects this structure (explaining would be a distraction and lengthy).
As far as when societies started repressing women and treating them as less equal, historical evidence suggest that it is even more recent than the start of agriculture in some areas. Lingual evidence and old records suggest that the change in England and Ireland happened possibly around Roman times. It could be that the earlier societies were like ours, but there is no evidence.
We can’t even say that it is connected to the beginning of early state-level societies, even though almost all of those were coercive. IMO, it’s not tied to cultural change… although the ideology is exported or transferred to others and does change.
Mikeyhatesit
Jul. 31st, 2011 at 1:10 am
I took a wide variety of anthro/arch courses, so I know what you mean by the language modes (gender intonations, stops, sibilants, etc).
One of my final courses was as a research ass’t to my Mormon prof. Wrap your head around a deeply religious man who taught evolution!) Being from Michigan, we went to Ojibway petroglyphs, an Ontario reservation, and witnessed a burial ceremony for ancestors found during a construction project. I was about to become a zookeeper, so to commemorate some of my coursework, including a semester doing archeo, with a tattoo of Nanabush.
My professor’s main interest was in determining the truth of the 13th Israeli Tribe. Artifakes (counterfeit artifacts) confirmed his theory that Salt Lake groups were truly indigenous, as they didn’t possess 2-story longhouses during the correct timeframe.
But I digress (so rare to meet someone who knows these things!) I don’t think that there’d be many matriarchies that would be a strict inverse of a top-down pyramidal power structure. I suspect the Scythians (the basis of Amazonian myth) were more akin to the Shield Maidens of Great Britain, given the harshness of resource management.
As for when male-dominated wealth cultures began, I do think early city-states would be a good place to look. Equal access/adaptations to a consistent food source might even out and reduce size disparities along gender lines. Basicall, when women got taller/men became slender, the decrease in ratios meant that other skills, in paticular verbal communication, became more valuable than heavy brow ridges and thick jaws.
With our current understanding of the Golden Ratio, versus the difference in mate fidelity, we should be able to start pushing back against ideas that are millenia old about what constitutes a democratic society and equal rights for all.
Unfortunately, the Dominionists seem to be stuck in the Stone Age. Wait- that’s not fair to actual cavemen who most likely engaged in more egalitarian politics…
A Walkaway
Jul. 31st, 2011 at 9:53 am
(Laugh), well, I helped to teach evolution and I am deeply religious, as are several (many) of my friends and colleagues – it’s not that unusual at all, although we don’t usually advertise the fact. I am also an anthropologist/archaeologist, although unemployed (thus the knowledge). Even anthropology/archaeology (I’m a four-fielder) has some ideas that resist exposure to reality – the “Clovis First” model is one that I’ve encountered on a personal level and struggled against (pre-Clovis is a fact and it’s finally becoming accepted by most archaeologists). Ditto for some of the ideas about development of government.
The idea about food resources has merit IMO and fits what I’ve observed (through readings and with my tribe). Our ancestors didn’t have a fraction of the problems that other areas had, and it could be that there is a relationship between scarcity and wealth-oriented male dominated societies. I’ll bounce it off of some of my colleagues if I get the chance (and remember).
Brown cow
Jul. 31st, 2011 at 9:28 am
I just curious where I would fit in as far as the women staying pregnant society. I’m not married and have had a hysterectomy. Would I be auctioned off ? Or perhaps sent to the death panels ?
A Walkaway
Jul. 31st, 2011 at 8:56 pm
In Africa, there is at least one culture where the church had made having many children a good thing and NOT having a lot of children a bad thing. They have a special ceremony for a woman who has (as I remember) 9 children.
There was an interview with a woman who couldn’t have children… she was severely abused by her village/culture (if I remember divorced, ostracized, and raped). Women who can’t have children were non-persons.
A friend of mine commented about this very topic and how it would play out in America about a year ago. If a woman couldn’t have children, the man was supposed to divorce her and get another so he could have children. Never mind if he loved her and believed in being faithful to the one he loved.
bpollen
Aug. 1st, 2011 at 2:38 am
“their deranged ideas about morality which reduces women to the role of sex slaves for a Christian patriarchy.”
Margaret Atwood – The Handmaid’s Tale
I’m reminded of that story often when I hear what comes out of the mouths of the right-wingers.