"The War on Women: A Modest Proposal"

[bloom]

by MzNicky

MJS at Corrente writes that, in view of recent proposals that would hand over ownership of women’s lady parts to the state, a terminology change is in order. The Jivester suggests that rather than using the negative “anti-choice” label for those who not only want to force unwanted pregnancy on all females, including rape and incest victims, but also to thwart access to emergency contraception and, yes, even the good ol’ birth control pill, we instead accentuate the positive and call this new confiscatory policy what it is: a War on Women (WOW).

May this latest US declaration of hostility be as successful as the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror have been.

In that regard, I’d like to propose that we, the majority of humans who are now equated with poverty, drugs, and terror, just go ahead and get all Lysistrata on these warriors’ asses. You remember Aristophanes’ play, the third in his “War and Peace” trilogy? The one where the women of ancient Greece decide they’ve just about had it with 20 years of warmongering and issue a moratorium on the only other thing that always seems to get the manly man’s attention?

“They meet in solemn conclave, and Lysistrata expounds her scheme, the rigorous application to husbands and lovers of a self-denying ordinance: ‘We must refrain from the male altogether.’ Every wife and mistress is to refuse all sexual favours whatsoever, till the men have come to terms of peace. In cases where the women must yield 'par force majeure,' then it is to be with an ill grace and in such a way as to afford the minimum of gratification to their partner; they are to be passive and take no more part in the amorous game than they are absolutely obliged to. By these means Lysistrata assures them they will very soon gain their end. ‘If we sit indoors prettily dressed out in our best transparent silks and prettiest gewgaws, and all nicely depilated, they will be able to deny us nothing.’ ...After no little demure, this plan of campaign is adopted, and the assembled women take a solemn oath to observe the compact faithfully. Meantime, as a precautionary measure, they seize the Acropolis, where the State treasure is kept; the old men of the city assault the doors, but are repulsed by ‘the terrible regiment’ of women. Before long the device of the bold Lysistrata proves entirely effective, Peace is concluded, and the play ends with the hilarious festivities of the Athenian and Spartan plenipotentiaries in celebration of the event.”

Yes, I know, this has been suggested before; but, as with true Christianity, has it ever really been implemented?

We’re at war here, ladies. One might call it a new kind of war. There won’t be much need for reproductive choice if there’s no reproducing, or anything else, goin’ on. Think of it as boycotting a corporation—which, really, it is not unlike— and hit ‘em where it hurts.

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/war-on-women-modest-proposal.html

[xchrom]

1. wop, wot and wow.

[Missy Vixen]

2. Now this would be interesting!

>“They meet in solemn conclave, and Lysistrata expounds her scheme, the rigorous application to husbands and lovers of a self-denying ordinance: ‘We must refrain from the male altogether.’ Every wife and mistress is to refuse all sexual favours whatsoever, till the men have come to terms of peace.<

One thing's for sure: The women currently living in states attempting to implement restrictions on reproductive choice should be seriously rethinking their stance on the above...

Julie

[Clark2008]

16. I live in a "red" state, but my husband is a true blue New England

liberal.

Do I still have to give up sexual favors to him? :evilgrin:

I mean, because, I don't want to. I LIKE giving and receiving said favors from my guy.

Which makes me think of another point: this article is kind of anti-woman in and of itself. It assumes that women don't like sex and would be able to withhold their "wifely duties" because it wouldn't be such a chore.

Novel concept, but I'd be a basketcase sooner than my husband. :rofl:

[Katherine Brengle]

20. Well, look at it this way--if one is not having sex, one cannot become

pregnant. So, in these terms, it could be a very interesting experiment.

[Clark2008]

27. That part is true, but I'm not worried about that aspect

Not that I'm saying OTHER women shouldn't be - if you don't want babies, abstinence is the only prevention that is 100 percent.

I, however, have a sexy liberal husband who cares about my body, my uterus and my feelings and who, if I get pregnant, would lovingly help me raise the child, and who plans to get a vasectomy after I turn 40, which will be the point when I absolutely will not want any more children (I'm 36, now, so of this, I'm sure).

I totally get the concept of the OP - I do, but I also think it should be selectively applied. In my husband's case, he wasn't for the war, he is a liberal, he's pro-choice and he's a caring partner. There's no need for him to be "punished," nor for me to be similarly punished by not being able to afford him some "nookie." :)

[Missy Vixen]

21. Okay, okay, okay

>Do I still have to give up sexual favors to him?<

Absolutely not. Liberal men are the sexiest ;-).

>Novel concept, but I'd be a basketcase sooner than my husband.<

:blush: :blush: Yeah, I know what you mean. :rofl: :blush: :blush:

Julie

[VelmaD]

3. I'm there...

gonna work it into my rants from now on. :yourock:

[genie_weenie]

4. Isn't this what Bonobo Chimps do

in order to keep the peace in the group? Dole out sex to reward good behavior and restrict it as a form of punishment?

Thank goodness Man has "evolved" beyond that to control those lovely lady lumps... </jk>

[Greyhound]

35. Bonobos!

The ill-named Homo Sapiens species is several evolutionary steps behind...

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Cindy Sheehan said the same thing when I asked her last summer how

to stop the war, she said (more or less) "It's up to us women. I think we need to take a page from history and stop the war by refusing to share our bodies with our men."

[ismnotwasm]

6. I would love to see the people

Who are are so intent on controlling other women's choices publicly state that they refrain from any sexual activity involving sperm coming close to a vagina unless it's for the express purpose for the women involved to become pregnant. Anything else is hypocrisy. And for those whose sexually activity doesn't involve sperm and vaginas should refrain on the principle of the only reason to have sex is to procreate.

Perhaps we should consider forced castration for men who can't control themselves. If we're going to force laws on individual uterus's, how about a few testicles? Not paying child support? Fuck that silly little lose your drivers licence bullshit, we're taking your balls buddy.

It is a War on Women. It's always been there, it hid in the shadows for a little while, while many became complacent and tsk- tsked how other countries treated "their women" (While they told us "you've come a long way, baby) It was here, waiting.

I was reading the constitution of "The Gambia" the other day, (not that Gambia is my standard for human or women's rights but it was an interesting read) There is a provision in it for women to have rights equal to men. Like the ERA we can't get passed in the US. (It also gives the military unregulated power which under the president of course completely sucks,-- hmm maybe the US is taking lessons)

[bloom]

7. On a related note:

The great Stop Fucking Him post

http://wicked-wish.livejournal.com/463017.html

8. I would never sleep with somone who

was against birth control in the first place.

[pitohui]

10. we all say that

but let's be honest, the reality is that sometimes you don't even know someone's stance on birth control or anything else before you get swept away, especially in those younger passionate years of the teens and twenties, it's the call of flesh to flesh, come on, it's the young people most vulnerable to passion who are most likely to get hit by the lack of abortion and birth control services and pretending that they can just coldly decide whether or not to be swept away makes us look as ridiculous as the baptists

12. well I have always been policially minded - so I guess

I am not in the norm.

[pitohui]

9. yeah well it assumes women themselves have no desire

that we are just pretty things depilated in silks exploiting our looks to get our way because we can have self-control because sex is nothing to us

while i'm willing to acknowledge there is a fair share of women who get no pleasure from sex and use it simply as a pure financial technique to get their way in life, i think we have to realize that there are large numbers of us for whom celibacy and abstinence is just not going to happen, passion and hormones will have their way

in other words, if you don't put out, somebody else will, so the lysistrata protest always comes to nothing

[Reader Rabbit]

11. Nah, this is why God invented batteries.

:evilgrin:

[Minnesota Libra]

15. You apparently don't realize your abilities as.......

.....a fully functioning woman. As a female, I too object to "exploiting our looks to get our way because we can have self-control because sex is nothing to us". Yes, I enjoy my SO as much as the next women enjoys hers. On the other hand, why not inject a few "wake up and smell the coffee buddy" moments now? When are we going to quit pretending that men rule the world? They rule the world because we women LET THEM RULE THE WORLD. Every man on the face of the earth knows one thing as being an overwhelming fact, IF we womem ever did band together they wouldn't have a chance of overruling or out doing us. I mean all this only as something to think about.

[Clark2008]

18. That's what I said!!

I have a higher libido than my husband - and his is pretty high.

He could hold out for a least two days longer than I could and I'm NOT kidding. I have, of course, gone without it for long, long, long periods of time, but now that I'm in a wonderful and committed relationship, I don't WANT to go without it.

You're absolutely correct: this assumes that women don't want it, which is an incorrect assumtion.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Yeah. People should stop having sex. THAT'LL piss off the pro-lifers.

:crazy:

[bloom]

14. The other idea

Is that all men should get vasectomies.

I suppose the two ideas could be combined (in a conjugal sort of way) and women would only have sex with men who have had vasectomies - at least until the laws and such are under control again. Of course - that could be awhile.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. What I think is more than a little noxious about this whole thing

is this assumption that men are uniformly or near-uniformly driving the anti-choice movement, and women are lined up on the other side. The leader of the "March for life" this year, the one who ranted about "nuremburg trials"... uh, she had a uterus. I flew 3,000 miles to participate in the March for Women's Lives in DC in 2004 (If you were there, maybe I saw you.. and maybe you noticed that there were plenty of other men there as well)

I think what is off-putting about this whole thing is the painting with the broad brush. Yes, anti-abortion laws affect women, because women are the ones who can get pregnant- and these laws are totally unacceptable from all standpoints, particularly the one of an individual's right to control one's own body. But, rather than issuing edicts to other people about their sex lives and birth control choices (which is what the other side does- remember?) the people to be raging against are the PRO LIFE CONTROL FREAKS, not anyone who happens to have a Y chromosome. IMESHO*, the fight is with them, not with men-in-general-- and I think trying to hijack the righteous rage people are feeling about the imminent demise of Roe, and shunt it off into some other battle a few folks may be spoiling for (like the people who show up at anti-war protests with the Mumia posters) ... well, I think that's a BIG mistake.

That said, given the current circumstances, I certainly wouldn't blame single women who don't want to have sex with a guy until they're damn sure they know he's not a pro-lifer, and that SOMEONE has access to birth control, or, as you say, the guy has had a vasectomy.


*In My Ever So Humble Opinion

[bloom]

19. Well

when I see men posting on DU that it is up to the young women in the country to tackle this problem alone - I think it makes sense to start these conversations. A lot of women are feeling besieged these days.

And a lot of birth control methods (that are not vasectomies) fail.

[mongo]

29. I've been trying to find the post your are refering to

I saw you said the same thing in the FG. If the post you are refering to is this:

A better idea is for young women to fight for their rights in the 50 states.

I don't think the idea was to convey the impression that it is ONLY women's responsibility to fight for reproduction rights. More a statement of amazement that more young women aren't getting politically active today.

Which is as confusing as the fact that the S.D. anti-abortion legislation was introduced by a woman Democrat -- WTF? I hope she gets thrown out of the party.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. It's worth remembering that the majority of people in this country

are pro-choice.

The other side is smaller and less influential than they (and the media) would have us believe. And it's not made up of 'men' or 'women', it's made up of people who can't grasp the simple fact that choice means that other people may do things with their bodies that they, personally, don't approve of.

Honestly, I think when presented with this (the link in the OP) kind of idea, most people- those on the front lines of this deal, in states like Mississippi or S. Dakota.. are apt to go "Huh? The whole POINT of fighting for reproductive freedom is to be able to CHOOSE to have sex with whom, and when, we want, and not be held hostage to our physiology.. or, for that matter, to somebody's agenda."

[Cleita]

22. According to the Lysistrata we have to seize the treasury as well.

Personally, I think this would have more effect than any withholding of sex.

"If you mess with my lady parts, buster, I won't give you your allowance."

[bloom]

23. In my dreams

women control all of the weapons as well.

(Not that we would have to use any of them - but they wouldn't be used on us).

:evilgrin:

[Cleita]

24. You know if women had actual equal representation, our

cpuntry would be ruled very differently. Imagine if half of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Pentagon were women, how different things would be. I also envision the executive office with each cabinet office having two secretaries, one male and one female, elected by the the Congress. So even if you had another President bunnypants in office, he couldn't do as much damage as he is doing now.

[VelmaD]

25. I'd just hope they were women...

who hadn't had their brains washed. Margaret Thatcher ran a country and was indistinguishable from the men who came before or after her.

Having a government full of republican women would do us no good at all. They've caved and cozied up to the oppresser hoping to get some individual consideration. It's ugly but it's what people do when they have no direct access to power. *sigh*

[bloom]

26. I think it could be different

for women on the Supreme Court - as opposed to women who become head of State. The sort of personality of woman who get into that job.

Like Sandra Day O'Connor.

I'm sure there would be crazy women as well - who are right-wing nut jobs.

At least they are more likely to have some kind of clue from personal experience about women's reproductive issues.


It would seem like a pretty easy thing to make the Supreme Court have to be all women - to balance out the other branches of gov't.

[Cleita]

28. This happens when a single woman rules in the middle of

men in a patriarchal society. It started with Queens Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt up to Queen Elizabeth I of England, who become almost as ruthless as the men because they can't be perceived as being weak. I don't know if we have ever had a government with women having as many positions of importance as the men.

Maybe there were some Polynesian peoples and Native American peoples who did. I think the Ancient Celts came close as well. Their women held positions of importance alongside the men and could even be Chieftain. Think of Queen Boudiccea of the Iceni in Britain, who was also a warrior, and almost succeeded in running the Romans out of Britain.

Somehow even if you get Republican women in there, I still feel that even Ann Coulter views her reproductive organs differently than Bill Frist does. We would have times of more conservatism and times of more liberalism, but I'm sure that there would be more concern about children, about their education and health care and other issues than there is today with predominantly male elected officials.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I'm certain that given the choice between MY views on reproductive choice

and Ann Coulter's, you'd want me in there, despite my pesky male-ness.

[Cleita]

32. I wouldn't doubt it. This is why I don't worry that much about

some women being Republicans because I know there will be male liberals out there to counter their ideas. What I don't like is that there isn't a fair representation of women yet in our elected offices. If we held half of the elected office, which we should because we are half the population, nutjobs like Jean Schmidt wouldn't have that much clout with their vote.

We really need that balance of estrogen in there to shift some of the focus to issues that even conservative women care about. As for Ann Coulter, she's just a lunatic mouthpiece with rabies.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. If Barbara Boxer decides to run for President

I'm right there.

[KAT119]

34. Only women can save us! Call upon the Divine Goddess within all women...

STOP boys playing w/ nukes and false power/greed/total ignorance!

If women would unite, say around our modern ground breaker/HEROINE, Cindy Sheehan, there is NOTHING we cannot do!!

In fact, astrology and prophesy from every quarter say: Only women can save this world, and raise it's vibration! We are not victims- we are THE FORCE which can & will prevail in union together for the highest goals! And So It Is!!