McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 16,633
Number of posts: 16,633
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
- 2017 (29)
- 2016 (33)
- 2015 (72)
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (4)
- 2012 (69)
- 2011 (13)
- December (13)
- Older Archives
As long as there have been victims, there have been people blaming the victims. You don't think it's fair that I kicked your teeth in with my steel toed boot? Why did your teeth get in the way of my steel toed boot?
Victims get victimized all over again by society---police, lawyers, the press---when they are told "Didn't you realize that wearing____ could get you killed???" Sometimes, society seems so eager to blame the victim---and defend the perp---that it comes up with fashion rules that would make the Taliban proud.
The classic example---and still used by defense attorneys in courtrooms to this day---is the old "Men don't rape women. Short skirts rape women." A woman walking down the road in a short skirt is just asking to be attacked. If she left her panty-hose at home, she is practically begging to be assaulted. Doesn't matter if the young woman in question is a minor. Doesn't matter if the rapist is someone who should know better, like her priest. That's because the man didn't do the crime. The short skirt did.
Meanwhile, according to prosecutors, in his cell before his arraignment, the Catholic Church’s Father Duenas said, “She didn’t protest to getting a massage. She was wearing short skirts.”
Guys, whatever you do, don't wear skinny jeans. Skinny jeans will get you beaten with a baseball bat.
Lesbians, that short hair will get your head slammed on a pavement.
In the wake of 9/11:
In Alabama, women in traditional Islamic garments were jeered and spat upon.
There is something very wrong about a member of the press telling us that we are not free to choose our own clothing. This is the same press that defends its right to free speech the way that a mother bear defends her cub. I own three hoodies and none of them has a big red target on the back. What's more, if I walked down the street wearing all three of them, one on top of the other, I would not be shot by some trigger happy community watch--because I am short, female and white.
So how can Geraldo say that the hoodie is as responsible as the gunman? Even he admits that is the Black or Latino youth inside the hoodie that is responsible....
"I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly not to let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as much as George Zimmerman was."
You heard it from Geraldo. Whatever you do, don't get caugt walking outdoors in America wearing the wrong color skin.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:04 PM (6 replies)
Romney says “I don’t see how a young American can vote for a Democrat.” Why is Romney appealing for the support of the section of the population that votes the least? Trick question. He isn’t. Dear old Mittens wants to appear hip, trendy. He wants Republican voters to recognize the star appeal that will help him breeze through the general election---even though he is limping through his own party’s primary.
“Young” in politics mean “maverick”. It means “glamour.” It means “I’d offer that guy a beer.” It was what Reagan was able to project through his two term presidency even as he slipped into dementia. Because face it, there will always be something intrinsically “hip” about an actor president who can count of the support of Hollywood’s A List. “Cowboy” never really goes out of fashion.
Romney is trying his best to acquire a thin veneer of “style over substance.” He is not alone.
Standing before the statue of a young Ronald Reagan on horseback, Rick Santorum repeatedly drew parallels to the “insurgency” both represented in the Republican Party, and he called on Illinois voters to give him an upset victory in the primary on Tuesday.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/santorum-sees-parallels-between-him-and-reagan/
Insurgency. Oh yeah, baby. The man who wants to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions and burning homosexuals at the stake is telling us that he is a rebel. Practically James Dean.
Is there room for three on the Ronald Reagan bandwagon? You bet!
“In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich,” writes Elliot Abrams in the National Review.
How is Newt like Ronnie Baby? Let me count the ways. Ummm… they both have a Y chromosome. Other than that, I can’t think of two politicians within the same party who are more unalike. Romney was able to court crossover voters with his “I’m just one of you” style. Newt, if nominated, will mobilize Democratic voters, too. They will come to the polls in record numbers to cast straight party Democratic tickets as their way of thumbing their nose at a guy who is only just barely tolerated by his own party and despised by everyone else.
Show of hands. Who here wants to kick back on the porch and drink a beer with Newt? With Rick? With Mittens?
Forget substance for a moment. We are talking style here. Who is the candidate with the Hollywood A List support? Who is the one who can say (with feeling) “I know where you’re coming from. I’ve been there, too”? Who is the one who would not look like an idiot riding a Harley-Davidson? Answer those questions and you will know who gets the all-important working class “I won’t vote for a guy I wouldn’t drink a beer with” vote this fall.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:22 PM (1 replies)
.... making birth control more affordable so that fewer women will have unplanned pregnancies that require termination.
...on dental care for the millions of Americans on Medicaid who can get their hearts fixed but lose all their teeth.
...on school fitness programs to combat the epidemic of juvenile onset Type 2 diabetes.
...educating young people about the dangers of tobacco.
...handing out condoms to prevent the spread of Hepatitis and HIV.
....providing mental health care to folks BEFORE they decide to go on a wild shooting spree.
....on school meals for kids who do not get enough to eat at home.
Right now, in your Texas city, there is at least one man with excrutiating abdominal pain due to gallstones who can not get his problem diagnosed (much less treated) because there is no law requiring that he be given an ultrasound----and he can not afford to pay for it out of his own pocket.
Right now, in your state, there is a woman with a gynecologic tumor who can not afford the tests that would identify her problem early, before it has spread. Where is the Texas state law that insists that she be given an ultrasound?
Right now, in your neighborhood, there is someone who needs a stress echocardiogram (another kind of ultrasound) to figure out why he is having chest pain. But he doesn't have health insurance, so good luck with that.
If Texas state legislators were really "Pro-Life" they would not turn down federal money to help women get breast and cervical cancer screening. They would not cut Medicaid benefits for cancer patients and disabled children. Their governor would not call for the end of Medicaid---the health insurance program that takes care of so many pregnant women and their children.
The state would not rank near the bottom in percentage of people insured---
Infant mortality rates for some groups in some parts of the state are in the double digits. If Texas legislators love life so god damned much, why aren't they doing more about that?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 18, 2012, 12:24 AM (3 replies)
"Men do not leave their jobs to have children and are less likely than women to leave their jobs to care for their children. In addition, men are less likely to move if their spouses are forced to relocate for professional purposes. All of these are reasons why turnover rates for men are lower than turnover rates for women. One study using Department of Labor reports estimates that the median number of years men stay on their jobs exceeds that for women by 77-100 percent."
Cato Institute paper, 1984
In the 1960s, before birth control became safe and legal, women made 59 cents for every dollar men made. Employers justified this wage discrimination by citing the unreliability of female workers. Women got pregnant. Women had children. Women with kids missed work. Women could not devote themselves to their companies the way that men could, therefore they did not deserve promotions. Women’s “delicate condition” rendered them unfit to do high paid factory and construction work, though no one seemed to mind when they worked long, grueling hours in the pink collar ghetto, scrubbing floors, canning fish or sewing in sweat shops.
Women in the workplace were shamed for doing what they had to do to support their families. A woman who could not hold onto a man with a high paying job was deemed a failure. With her self-esteem battered and bruised, the female worker did not dare raise her voice to demand a better wage or better work conditions. She was just there “temporarily”, said her boss. The minute she got a man, she would quit. The minute she spread her legs and conceived a child, she would demand maternity leave. Or get a back alley abortion and die and leave her employer in the lurch. She was a liability. The boss only kept her on out of a sense of charity. She didn’t deserve more than 59 cents on the dollar---
Then came safe, legal birth control. Then came the right to (safely) terminate an unwanted pregnancy. And suddenly women could say, with confidence, “I can do the same job a man can do.” As a result, the wage discrepancy between women and men has been declining in the last few decades. The change has been slow. Women have gained a half cent a year, so that by 2010 we were making 77 cents compared to the dollar men made for comparable work.
Doesn’t sound like much, I know, but when you are living on the edge of poverty, that extra 18 cents an hour can mean the difference between food on the table and none. It can enable a battered wife to break away from her abusive spouse. It can pay the tuition for night school, so that women can climb out of the pink collar ghetto.
Eighteen cents is chump change to the employers of this country. And yet, they begrudge it to the women who raise this country’s children. And they dread having to hand over that other 33 cents that they currently pocket as profit. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, enacted by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama is a thorn in the side of the Right. The National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against it, on the ground that existing legislation was more than adequate to protect the rights of women---even though existing legislation still left women in this country 33 cents short.
Dixie Cup, aka the Koch Brothers, aka the Cato Institute declared that the law was a “Sword of Damocles” that threatened the economy----because, apparently, the economy only thrives when women do the same work as men for a fraction of their wage.
In the face of federal legislation that makes it easier for women to sue for past wage discrimination, what is the right wing to do? Answer, strip away the reproductive rights that women have gained. Deny women birth control. Force them to give birth to children they cannot afford.
Then, the Dixie Cup manufacturers of this nation can assert, with confidence, “I don’t need to pay that woman an equal wage. She will just get pregnant and leave me in the lurch. Seventy-seven cents is too much for her. She should be happy with the 59 cents her mother made.” Never mind that single mothers in this country are overwhelming working mothers and that maternity leave is a luxury almost unheard of in the U.S.A.
The Koch Brothers don’t give a damn about your unborn child. Newt Gingrich could care less that your IUD may prevent implantation. Mitt Romney does not lose sleep at night knowing that your employer sponsored health insurance pays for your birth control pill. What they really care about is that 18 cents that women’s reproductive rights have cost them---and the 33 cents they stand to lose if the current trend continues.
And for all you guys out there, remember. When the wages of women and minorities are kept artificially low, all workers get paid less. Law of supply and demand.
“Needless to say, sexism emerged as a source of outrageous super-profits for the capitalists.”
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:23 PM (11 replies)
Go to Page: 1