Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:34 PM
MadrasT (5,795 posts)
March 13, 1969
So seabeyond's Redstockings thread got me poking around at redstockings.org...
This article was the first appearance of "Redstockings" in print. This excerpt really got my attention: The first thing they want to change is the abortion laws so that "women's bodies will be their own." They were part of the group that broke up an abortion hearing several weeks ago at which 14 men and a nun were scheduled to testify. Since no hearings have been scheduled at which women will testify, Redstockings will hold their own.
Which reminded me of this: 
February 16, 2012, House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control rule. Another excerpt from the 1969 Village Voice article: A group of women will speak about their abortions and the New Feminist Theatre will perform a short play on the topic...
Which reminded me of this: Silenced Lawmaker To Perform Vagina Monologues
At least nine Michigan legislators will take part in reading the play on the Capitol steps in Lansing. By Daniel Politi | Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012, at 4:25 PM ET There’s going to be a lot of talk about vaginas around the Capitol in Lansing, Mich., mere days after a female lawmaker was banned from speaking in the state House after she dared to utter the word “vagina” during a debate on an anti-abortion bill. At least nine female legislators are going to join playwright Even Ensler Monday night for a reading of her famous 1996 play, The Vagina Monologues, on the Capitol steps, reports the Detroit Free Press. http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/16/lisa_brown_michigan_lawmaker_banned_for_saying_vagina_will_perform_vagina_monologues.html And all I could think when I read that old 1969 Village Voice article was... What. The. Actual. Fuck. 1969. 2012. Forty-three years. Same shit, different century. When I was a little girl in the 70's, this is not what I expected the world to look like when I was a grown up.
|
13 replies, 1230 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
 13 replies |
Author | Time | Post |
 March 13, 1969 (Original post) |
MadrasT | Jun 2012 | OP |
| Scootaloo | Jun 2012 | #1 | |
| Little Star | Jun 2012 | #2 | |
| sufrommich | Jun 2012 | #3 | |
| CrispyQ | Jun 2012 | #4 | |
| MadrasT | Jun 2012 | #5 | |
| redqueen | Jun 2012 | #6 | |
| seabeyond | Jun 2012 | #7 | |
| Little Star | Jun 2012 | #9 | |
| MadrasT | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
| seabeyond | Jun 2012 | #8 | |
| MadrasT | Jun 2012 | #10 | |
| CrispyQ | Jun 2012 | #11 | |
| seabeyond | Jun 2012 | #12 |
Response to MadrasT (Original post)
Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:39 PM
Scootaloo (6,108 posts)
1. The bitter old fucks with withered testicles who ran the show back then...
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:34 AM
Little Star (11,745 posts)
2. Ain't that the truth!
Response to MadrasT (Original post)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:36 AM
sufrommich (13,582 posts)
3. I was late teen, early 20s in the 70s. Just
|
reading those articles from the 60s/70s makes me happy, what heady days those were for young and old women alike. Yeah,it's definitely one step forward, two steps back, same shit,different decade.
 |
Response to MadrasT (Original post)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:07 AM
CrispyQ (16,175 posts)
4. I can barely express the loathing I have for men like this
|
& for the women who continue to support this shit. I was a teen when the Roe v Wade decision passed. I remember my mother telling me the importance of it. I never dreamed that 40+ years later it could be at risk.
 |
Response to CrispyQ (Reply #4)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:20 AM
MadrasT (5,795 posts)
5. I was 8 when Roe v Wade passed.
|
When I became aware of things like abortion and Roe v Wade in my teens, I was very aware of how recent it was and how important it was, and was very thankful that I came of age AFTER Roe v Wade.
I never got pregnant, but I always knew if I did, I would have a CHOICE. MY choice. These days, my rage about the war on women grows almost daily.
|
Response to MadrasT (Original post)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:30 AM
6. But we have come so far! We can be sluts now! And bitches! Own it grrrrrl!
Response to redqueen (Reply #6)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:42 AM
seabeyond (85,893 posts)
7. geeez, so true. nt
Response to redqueen (Reply #6)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:29 PM
Little Star (11,745 posts)
9. I don't see how anyone can think that shit helps....
Response to redqueen (Reply #6)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:15 PM
MadrasT (5,795 posts)
13. That right there is some serious Stockholm Syndrome stuff.
Response to MadrasT (Original post)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:43 AM
seabeyond (85,893 posts)
8. it truly is astounding that we sit in 2012 and have a panel of men tell women what to do.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #8)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:36 PM
MadrasT (5,795 posts)
10. And i have to listen to actual self-proclaimed "progressives" tell me:
|
Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:39 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) ~ What patriarchy? I don't see it.
~ Women are equal now, we are already "there", what is my problem exactly? ~ the problem with feminists is they don't care about men's rights or problems men have. ~ Male privilege? There is no "male privilege". I sure don't have any.
Cause there are a few women CEOs, a smattering in congress and you know, hell, we can vote and stuff. So WTF could I possibly have to complain about? (Oh and don't forget, more women than men are graduating college now. See? All better. And why don't you care about the male suicide rate? Heartless feminist bitch.) ^^^ all stuff I actually hear from "progressives" ^^^ Yep, I see, we have it all now. 
Cranky today. Seriously cranky. "Oh and could you put on a dress? It makes you more feminine." |
Response to MadrasT (Reply #10)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:07 PM
seabeyond (85,893 posts)
12. pms'in?
dress? to read a book or du? |
