Tag Archives: sexism

controversies, ethics, healthcare, law, sex, sexism, slut shamers

The vast majority of “pro-life males” make me want to hurl!

Ah abortion… yet another topic I am tired of thinking and writing about these days. And yet, it’s a topic I can’t escape, because so many people are posting and talking about the abortion issue, since the Supreme Court is considering overturning Roe v Wade. There have been so many articles written about this subject. If one pays attention to the Internet, as I do on a daily basis, it’s impossible to ignore the headlines. I suppose I could practice some self-control and not read some of this stuff, in the interest of controlling my blood pressure. But anyone who reads my blog, knows that self-control isn’t always one of my fortes.

One thing I’ve noticed over the past few weeks, is that when I read the comment sections on anything having to do with abortion, I inevitably run into the stereotypical “pro-life male” commenter. That’s a man who feels compelled to self-righteously “mansplain” to women why they think women should be forced to maintain an unintended pregnancy. They usually use loaded words and phrases like “murder”, “sanctity of life”, and “kill”, and they whine about hypothetical taxpayer funded abortions, which is NOT a thing. The Hyde Amendment of 1976– that’s 46 years ago, folks– makes public funding of abortions against federal law. But I still see comments from dumbassed “pro-life males” about how they don’t want to pay for abortions with their tax dollars.

“Pro-life males” usually take on an air of disgust, as they sanctimoniously preach about “protecting the most vulnerable”, shaming anyone who dares to question whether or not a gestating human has the right to privacy, autonomy, or self-determination. They loftily opine about how “irresponsible” and “cruel” pro-choice people are. How can a “decent” person not want to “protect the most vulnerable”? “A developing fetus can’t defend itself”, they reason; therefore, it’s up to these high and mighty males to be the white knight for these unknown beings!

I would like to know, where are these guys when those babies are born? I never see these “white knights” talking about continuing their valiant fights, “protecting the most vulnerable and innocent” by offering to pay for their care or, supporting their mothers, or even babysitting them! I’d like to ask some of them how many special needs children they’ve adopted. Hell, I’d like to ask them how many dirty diapers they’ve changed… and how many times they’ve gotten up in the middle of the night to breastfeed a crying infant. I’d like to ask them if they’ve experienced any permanent changes to their bodies and bank accounts after a baby has been born. I think we all know the answer to those questions, don’t we?

I often get queasy when I stumble across “pro-life males'” holier-than-thou screeds, which NEVER address anything more than “protecting” a developing embryo’s or fetus’s “right to life”. They never want to talk about anything other than that barest of minimums of “protecting babies”… maintaining the precious embryonic heartbeat. They don’t address whether or not the pregnant person should be granted some assistance of any kind. To read their words or hear them speak, it’s always the woman’s fault for being “slutty” and “getting herself pregnant”. I can’t remember ever reading any comments from these guys concerning providing women and children access to affordable and high quality healthcare, housing, food and medicine, child care, or education. I never see them mentioning anything about the responsibility society has toward the so-called “vulnerable and innocent” babies whose mothers were forced to give birth to them. Usually, these guys just want to lament about the “irresponsible” women and how much people who need welfare disgust them for being “lazy”.

From what I’ve seen, most “pro-life” guys just smugly want to focus on maintaining, at all costs, the heartbeat of the developing embryo, the pregnant woman’s circumstances be damned! And then, when that embryo eventually turns into, hopefully, a healthy baby, they no longer give a shit about the baby’s welfare. They never cared about the woman’s welfare, so now there are two people who are left to figure out how to get through life with so much stacked against them.

Pro-life males never seem interested in contributing money to make sure the developing fetuses are getting the best chance at starting off life on the right path. They have nothing to say about how “cruel” it is for a developing embryo or fetus to be growing inside a pregnant woman who can’t or won’t take care of her health. I never see them concerned about pregnant women’s access to competent medical care, making sure that those developing fetuses don’t suffer because their mothers aren’t healthy. In fact, most of these guys seem to lack any charitable thoughts whatsoever toward anyone but the voiceless potential babies being carried by perfect strangers. They only have negative words for them. And they usually get decidedly pissy when women tell them they shouldn’t get a say about forcing someone else to be pregnant.

God forbid anyone encourage them to do their parts in preventing unplanned pregnancies, either. They bristle at being advised to use condoms, get vasectomies, or– perish the thought— simply keeping their dicks in their pants! To hear them speak, or read their comments, one comes away with the idea that preventing pregnancy is solely up to the females. They are almost always solely focused on the so-called “trampy females” who lack self-control and have extramarital sex for “fun”. Never mind that it’s usually the men who are demanding sex or, in some sad cases, forcing women to engage in it. Never mind that sometimes, women seek abortions for reasons that are very personal or even tragic. Their narrative is that women who consider abortions are always irresponsible, selfish, and out of control.

Below are a few examples of the so-called “pro-life male”. Notice the underlying hostility, misogyny, and disgust… Poor guys. You’d think that a woman’s right to choose is a personal affront to them! “Josh” had several comments on this subject. It really seems to cause him serious butthurt that women still have the option to choose… at least for now.

Having a penis doesn’t mean you don’t get to voice your opinion. Must have missed that in the constitution, the right to murder the most vulnerable.

Abortion is the killing of another person for convenience.

A woman pointed out to “Josh” that murder is not the right term for abortion. “Josh” then proceeds to whine some more.

Anyone who wants to kill babies and let “facilities” profit from selling their organs is sick. You’d think a bunch of veterans (who were lucky enough to not be aborted) would stick up for the ones who cannot defend themselves. Men need to have a say in it, to protect the babies, especially the ones responsible for the baby.

I don’t need a uterus to be a woman these days. That being said, abortion is murder.

I could probably spend all day finding more puke-inducing shaming comments like these, almost unilaterally from males who refuse to understand why a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is none of their goddamned business. So often, I’m tempted to respond to these guys, but I know it’s a lost cause. Because they just don’t want to get it. They can’t see how having children permanently changes a woman’s life.

Yes, there are MANY women who are delighted to become mothers. But becoming a mother comes with huge costs… and so few of these “pro-life males” seem to care about that. I never see them offering to support women who are pregnant and need help. They very rarely express compassion, empathy, or kindness. It’s all about how the woman who has an abortion is a “murderer”. And then, they seem to think she should be sent to rot in prison. Gee… that’s good for society, isn’t it? Taking a woman out of the workforce to waste her life sitting behind bars. Especially if the woman has other children who need her. Those other kids are better off in foster care, right? /sarcasm

I have never cheered for abortion. I certainly don’t think it’s the ideal solution. I would prefer that people who don’t want to be pregnant simply avoid getting pregnant. However, I also don’t think I have the right to dictate to someone else what they should or should not be doing with their bodies. Of course I would prefer that unintended pregnancies due to “irresponsible behavior” didn’t happen. I would also prefer that women were never raped, have severe health issues, abandoned by the men who impregnated them, or experienced any of the other negative situations that would lead them to consider abortion.

I determined long ago that the circumstances surrounding how and why someone gets pregnant, and why they might want to terminate a pregnancy, is none of my business. Abortion is healthcare, and it should be private. I don’t need to know why “Josh” in the above comment might need to have his prostate removed someday, even if it means he can no longer pleasure the hypothetical woman (or man) in his life. What’s important is that he might need to have his prostate removed for health reasons that are not my business. The same thing goes for an already born woman who decides that she needs to have an abortion. It’s her health on the line. Her health and well-being should always come before that of a potential human’s taking up residence in her womb. After all, if she’s not healthy, neither will be the developing fetus.

I know that I have no right to tell someone abortion is only okay under certain circumstances. It’s true that developing fetuses have nothing to do with the circumstances of how or why they exist. They are “innocent”. But if abortion is truly “murder”, then how can there ever be a situation in which murder is “okay”? I would say abortion is less murder than “self-defense”. The woman is defending herself against negative outcomes of being pregnant, which can include everything from financial difficulties, to poorer health, to being forced to maintain a relationship with an abuser, to death itself. I never see these insufferable “pro-life males”, who lecture everyone about the “sanctity of life”, offering any solutions for the women who find themselves in difficult or impossible situations caused by pregnancy. Instead, they want to dehumanize the women by labeling them, criticizing their choices, and refusing to offer any help to them whatsoever. They can’t even spare a kind word of encouragement or understanding. It’s just non-stop slut shaming and willful ignorance about the conditions would drive someone to terminate a pregnancy.

I don’t think most of the “pro-life males” give a rat’s patootie about “saving babies”. The vast majority of them, from what I can tell, vote Republican. Besides forcing women to birth, they are also for gun rights and cutting welfare benefits. They don’t agree with healthcare for everyone. They don’t want to pay higher taxes so that vulnerable people can get a better quality of life. I never hear these guys talk about helping babies and children with special needs, who may or may not grow up to be adults with special needs. There’s nary a peep about making sure that the babies, born to the women who aren’t prepared to be mothers, are loved and cared for, so that they can get the best start in their lives. Nope. It’s all about blaming the woman– the woman, who CAN’T get pregnant without the man’s input, and will have to deal with just about everything that comes with making babies.

“Pro-life males” don’t seem to consider that their part of literal babymaking only lasts for a couple of minutes. Instead, they whine about having to pay child support or not getting a say as to whether or not a pregnancy continues. Or they equate paying a couple hundred bucks a month in child support to a 50/50 contribution. I wonder if those guys would take a job gestating a baby, especially since at this writing, the other parent isn’t legally compelled to offer any support to the pregnant woman. I wonder if, after the baby is born, those “pro-life males” would take a couple hundred bucks a month to raise the baby… if raising a child was just about dollars and cents, that is. My guess is that most of them would not be happy with that pay scale, especially since it also potentially means fewer job opportunities and promotions.

How is it that in 2022, we still have so many clueless, sexist, mansplaining, slut shaming, men in the world who have no concept of why so many women see abortion as a human right? Why do so many men not realize that there’s a huge price to be paid for making women gestate babies they don’t want? How come so many of them forget that every woman was once a developing fetus– something that they claim they want to “protect” at all costs? Why don’t they care more about people who have already been born and are struggling? Why are they so focused on everyone but the person doing the actual work?

I have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”. Almost every case I’ve heard of involving abortion has been about someone making a very difficult decision. It’s a decision that doesn’t require mean comments from guys like “Josh”, who will NEVER be in that situation himself. What Josh and his ilk should do, is take a moment to muster some empathy. Any man who labels women as “murderers” for looking out for themselves– just as most men do– should never request sexual gratification from a woman. I hope Josh is a virgin. I hope he STAYS a virgin. Clearly, he’s not mature enough to handle the realities of what can happen when people have sex.

Standard
law, true crime

Repost: Yet another innocent man goes to prison over false rape charges… 

Here’s a repost from July 2014 about a man who was falsely accused of rape. I am reposting it to go with today’s fresh content.

This is actually an old case.  Someone posted about it on Facebook today and I had to read up on it to see if it was true.  I found the case referenced in several brief articles until I found a much longer one that related the tale of Cassandra Ann Kennedy and her decision to falsely accuse her father of raping her back in 2001.  At the time she made the accusation, Cassandra was 11 years old.  She was upset with her father because he had divorced her mother.  She was tired of having to go to his house for visitations, where she and her sister would have to sleep on a mattress on his floor.  She was tired of his partying, drinking, and pot smoking.  And then, apparently, he stopped showing up altogether.  Cassandra thought he didn’t love her, and she wanted revenge.

Cassandra had a friend whose stepfather was sent to prison for a child sex crime.  She got the idea to accuse her father when she saw her friend’s stepfather get sent away.  Since Cassandra started having sexual experiences in the second grade, she knew about sex and what she could say to make her father look guilty.  She also had some trauma to her genital region that looked convincing.  Obviously, someone was abusing Cassandra when she was a little girl.  It wasn’t her father, though.

Based on Cassandra’s convincing testimony and her wrath toward her dad, Thomas Kennedy spent nine years in prison and was released in 2012.  He was originally sentenced to 15 years and would have been released in 2016, had Cassandra not had an attack of her conscience.  She went to detectives and told them she lied about her father.  He’d never raped her or touched her inappropriately.  In fact, she even had some fond memories of him from when she was very young.

Cassandra Kennedy was not punished for falsely accusing her father of rape, because authorities feared that punishing her would discourage legitimate rape victims from coming forward.  I suppose I can understand that fear, given how shameful sex crimes are for victims.  However, I can’t help but remember that an innocent man, who may not have been the world’s greatest dad, spent nine years that he will never get back in a prison cell.  I am assuming that since he was innocent, he won’t have to register as a sex offender… but now he has to resume his life after having spent nine years incarcerated.  How difficult was it for him in those months after he was released in 2012?

Some months ago, I wrote a blog post about a young man who was falsely accused of rape.  Johnathon Montgomery had the misfortune of once living in the same neighborhood as Elizabeth Paige Coast, a girl whose mother caught her looking at pornography.  Elizabeth’s mother assumed that her daughter must have been abused, since she was looking at porn, and she demanded to know who had touched her.  In a panic, Elizabeth named Johnathon, who had since moved to Florida.  She didn’t think the police would find him.  They did, and he went to prison for four years for a crime he didn’t commit.  At least in this case, Coast had to pay a large fine and spend 60 days in jail.  It seems like a small price to pay for the four years Mr. Montgomery lost, though.

I certainly understand the need for people to come forward to speak up when they have been sexually assaulted.  I would never deny anyone the right to justice when a crime has been committed.  I even understand prosecutors being reluctant to charge false accusers because they don’t want to discourage genuine victims from seeking help.  At the same time, I can’t help but think of how totally unfair it is that Thomas Kennedy and Johnathan Montgomery went to prison for years because someone lied.

I posted about this case on Facebook and a friend who is very much a feminist was dismayed that someone had left this comment with the story…

It’s amazing that no one who actually is guilty of wrongdoing in this case, will pay any price. Not the accuser, police, doctor, teacher, prosecutor, no one.

All of those people were willing to throw away a man’s life based on nothing more than the say-so of a troubled 11-year old girl, because we’ve been told by feminists that “women don’t lie about being raped” and that men are animals. Well, women DO lie about being raped, and only a small fraction of men are anything but decent.

My friend described it as a “MRA” comment– that is, “men’s rights”.  She is against men fighting for rights because she thinks they already have too much control and don’t need to fight for their rights.  Frankly, I disagree.  While I completely understand that women have historically gotten the short end of the stick and still face sexism today, I also think that men also get treated unfairly based on their gender.  I think both males and females are entitled to fairness, and we do have some laws right now that favor females over males.

If you’re really for fairness, you can’t be for giving women special treatment because of the equipment they happened to be born with.  I think the above comment is perfectly reasonable.  What surprises me is that it was the only one posted.  Had the genders been switched in this case, I bet the comments section would have been full.  Do people really not care that an innocent man spent nine years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit?  Do people really not understand that if something like that could happen to Thomas Kennedy or Johnathon Montgomery, it could happen to them or one of their loved ones?

I understand that Cassandra Kennedy and Elizabeth Coast were both troubled girls when they made their false allegations.  It’s obvious that they both needed help when they were at their most vulnerable.  But that help should have come in the form of counseling, not incarcerating innocent men.  Making false rape accusations does more than ruin the lives of innocent people; it also does a huge disservice to legitimate victims of sex crimes who may one day face doubt when they come forward.  Situations like the ones I’ve written about today give people like Todd Akin ammunition when they spread their misogynistic agendas.

Honestly, if I had a son, I would be very vigilant about teaching him to be careful around women.  There are a lot of great women with big hearts out there.  But there are also a lot of shady, immoral, liars out there, too, and our society seems reluctant to hold them accountable when they take advantage of female friendly laws.  Justice should be blind.

Standard
sex, sexism, slut shamers

For the love of God, stop with the slut shaming!

Ugh… but kudos to this lady for coming up with a fine response.

A couple of days ago, the above post showed up in the Duggar Family News group on Facebook. I always groan when I see these kinds of posts about purity, even though I never heard those kinds of messages myself when I was growing up. I was fortunate enough to have parents who didn’t raise me in a very strict religion. As it turned out, I abstained anyway. I didn’t have sex for the first time until two weeks after my wedding. My reasons for abstaining, though, had very little to do with religion or wanting to please my future husband by being fresh and pure. In my case, it mostly came down to practicality.

I’ve mentioned more than once in this blog that I’m not particularly likable. A lot of the men who do like me, seem to like me for reasons that don’t have to do with sex. I have had male friends tell me they like me for my frank sense of humor. A couple of guys have told me they think I’m witty or smart. Only a few have said they think I’m pretty. Consequently, I didn’t date much at all. The one guy I did date in high school was just as nervous about sex as I was, and in fact, later confessed to me that he was more into guys.

For most of my 20s, I focused on working and going to school. I didn’t have a love life. Maybe I could have had one, had I made an effort, but I just never seemed to be attracted to the guys who found me attractive, and vice versa. Then, when I was 27 years old, I met Bill in a chat room. By the time we met in person, he already liked my personality… What can I say? Every old sock has an old shoe out there somewhere, right?

At the time Bill and I were dating, he was still a Latter-day Saint. Premarital sex is a “no no” for Mormons. Although I had zero intention of ever being LDS, and Bill was falling away from the faith, Bill decided he preferred to wait until after our wedding to consummate the marriage. I was fine with it, since I had already waited so long, anyway. And then, on our wedding day, I started my period, so we decided to wait until that was over before having sex for the first time. I was 30 years old.

The last thing anyone could ever call me is a “slut”… although Ex supposedly told her kids that Bill and I had an affair (and we didn’t– she was projecting). The couple of times anyone has ever insinuated that I’m slutty, I’ve been very offended by it. First off, it’s factually inaccurate. And secondly, it’s just not cool to shame people for having sex. Sex is a part of life. Sex is the conduit to life.

That being said… my personal belief is that people should have less unprotected sex, especially with people with whom they don’t wish to make a baby. But that’s just my personal view. I don’t think it should be a law. I don’t think young girls should be taught object lessons involving flowers, chewing gum, or licked cupcakes. Sex isn’t dirty, and having sex shouldn’t cause someone to feel damaged or soiled. The reason I feel the way I do is not because I think that people who have sex are weak or “slutty”. It’s because I think that sex can really complicate life in a lot of ways. Also, I do worry that abortion may soon be outlawed in the United States. And because of that, sex could become even riskier than it is now.

I don’t think most people actually use abortion as birth control, especially given how difficult abortion is to access in many areas. Even if they did, that would be their business, as far as I’m concerned. However, as I tried to explain to a militantly pro-life man yesterday, sometimes pregnancy is dangerous. Some women get very sick when they’re pregnant, and they might not know they’re going to get sick until their first time. Pregnant women are at a higher risk of suicide and homicide. Moreover, quite frankly, sex is powerful. I think that women should wield that power wisely. If fewer women were willing to have sex with men, maybe men might not feel so free in trying to dictate to women that they must stay pregnant when they don’t want to be. Frankly, I think most of the extremely pro-life men I’ve seen posting online should be denied sex. Quite a few of them have very misogynistic views.

This about sums it up.

The most obnoxious pro-life guy I ran into this week is a Facebook friend of a man I knew in college. I don’t know anything about this dude, but my college friend posted the familiar meme summing up why he supports abortion rights. I’m sure you’ve seen it, too. And the pro-life guy, name of Russ, took issue with it and has been airing his pro-life views ever since.

This is pretty good.

Russ has been stubbornly posting very condescending and offensive comments to the women who have challenged his views. I’ve commented to him twice, after noticing that he has some very scary Handmaid’s Tale leanings and seems to think that women who engage in “slutty behavior” that results in pregnancy should be forced to “lie in the bed they made”. Sigh… pregnancy should never be punishment, especially since we can’t and don’t ensure that pregnant women get proper prenatal care. Babies should be wanted, cared for, and loved. Forcing women to give birth because you think they should “sleep in the bed they made” is just stupid, and it could lead to some tragic outcomes that will affect those precious babies the pro-lifers claim to care so much about.

For all of Russ’s “white knight” bullshit commentary about how men should be forced to do the honorable thing and “stick with” the women they impregnate (hello, Josh Duggar), and how rapists should have their balls cut off (hello, guys who get falsely accused of rape and are later vindicated– it HAS happened), he doesn’t consider the scenarios in which abortion really is the best course of action. After I post this fresh article, I will repost my blog entries about two stories involving false accusations of rape, since the news articles about them are behind paywalls. Under Russ’s plan, those men who were falsely accused of rape should have been castrated.

Russ did tell us the story about how he used to be indifferent about abortion, but changed his mind when his daughter was born premature. Seeing her struggle to live gave him an epiphany. Suddenly, because of his daughter’s story– a girl who was presumably born to parents who really wanted her and were prepared to raise her– he thinks all other women should be made to give birth. And if you offer logical comments to him, he comes back with rudeness, condescension, and a complete lack of empathy. He slut shames. So I left the below comment for him.

Of course it did little good to write this, but I couldn’t help myself.

Russ says he thinks sex strikes are good ideas. On that, I would agree. I think women should be much less willing to give men access to their bodies. But I don’t feel that way because I think having sex is dirty or slutty or immoral. I feel that way because I know men are driven to have sex, and it would be painful for them not to have access to women who are willing to satisfy their urges. A lot of men are entirely too free with their opinions regarding what women should be doing with their bodies. So personally, I think that more women should stop letting them have what they seek so easily.

I’m also glad I didn’t have sex before marriage. I have never been in a situation in which I had to consider having an abortion, and I am getting really close to menopause. Since I’ve never had sex with anyone but Bill, and Bill rendered himself sterile for his ex wife, that means I’ve never been pregnant, either. However, I wouldn’t change what I did, even though I always wanted to have children.

Not having sex before marriage was very practical for me, and it spared me a lot of pain and angst. But… that’s just me. I wouldn’t want to make a law about it, nor do I think people should be shamed for being sexual. It’s part of life. And everybody is on a different path.

I know not everyone feels the way I do. Not everyone feels the way Russ feels… thank GOD. Although I’m sure he loves his daughter very much, I think his attitude about women is very scary. He seems to think that those of us who experience pregnancy, childbirth, and everything that goes with that, need his “help” in determining what is right or wrong for us. Russ is wrong.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this issue is really so much about outlawing abortion as it is about controlling women and suppressing votes so the backassward Republican Party can stay in power. Because if women wind up in trouble with the law for having an abortion or miscarriage, that will mean a lot more felons in our midst… and as we all know, felons aren’t allowed to vote. Think about it. And please, for the love of God, stop slut shaming. It’s so damaging, and just plain wrong.

Standard
condescending twatbags, politics, rants, religion, wingnuts

The Transformed Wife is worried sick about Biden’s Supreme Court pick…

As a rule, I don’t follow The Transformed Wife, aka Lori Alexander, working woman turned 50s era evangelical housewife guru. I find her views short-sighted, offensive, incredibly stupid, and infuriating. However, someone in the Duggar Family News group shared news of her most recent post, and that led me to take a look at it myself. The poster in the Duggar group had taken someone following Lori’s page to task over misinterpreting an episode of Little House on the Prairie. Since I am, myself, a fan of Little House, I took notice of that post, which was really about how worried Lori is about Joe Biden’s choice of a replacement justice for the Supreme Court when Justice Stephen Breyer retires this summer. Below is a screenshot of Lori’s post:

Christ, she’s dumb!

I wish Lori and her ilk had more concern for people who have already been born. However, I understand that the unborn make for a convenient cause, since they can’t be disloyal. And, on the surface of it, who supports “murder”? People like Lori use loaded legal terms like “murder” to describe abortion, but they don’t seem to have the same concern for children who have already been born and don’t have the basic necessities of life. They preach about Democrats being “socialists” who don’t care about unborn babies, but then they vote in selfish, incompetent, narcissistic asshats like Donald Trump, who do everything they can to penalize people for being poor, which makes it much harder for babies and children to thrive.

I look at the world today, and all of the many problems we have… the many people who suffer because they don’t have what they need, and have no means of getting what they need. Why do we need more people in the world, competing for scarce resources? Why should we encourage people who aren’t ready or don’t want to be parents to reproduce? Why should we shame people who can’t or won’t have children? According to Lori, my whole life has been wrong, since I don’t have any babies to nurture. It’s not because I didn’t want them. That’s just how life worked out for me.

Then I look at Lori’s followers, many of whom are just nuts. Below is the screenshot of the discussion about Little House on the Prairie— seriously? Does the world need more people who think like this?

Good God.
God forbid some women would rather not spend their lives on their backs with their legs spread for guys like Nathan…

I was feeling crappy and unfulfilled yesterday, but felt better when I woke up this morning. Then I saw Lori’s proclamation that my life should have been spent pumping out babies who would grow up coping with COVID-19 and climate change, among many other depressing issues to deal with in life. I used to want to have children, but now I’m glad I didn’t have them, because things just keep getting more and more extreme and weird, with people like Lori promoting their anti-woman platforms to the masses.

Before anyone points this out to me, I realize that by writing about this, I’m helping to expand Lori’s platform. But, as I mentioned above, I don’t follow Lori at all, except for when people who do follow her point out her more egregiously ridiculous statements on life. And then I see that there are people out there who take her seriously. She has thousands of followers, and most of them aren’t there to snark on her nonsense.

Do we really need to add to the collective idiocy of this group by having more babies?

And on and on it goes… and this is just ONE of her posts.

Actually, sometimes people have abortions for reasons besides “fornication”, that are no one else’s business but theirs. I don’t see a lot of these conservative and religious types clamoring for more affordable healthcare and facilities for the elderly and disabled that provide safe, competent, and humane treatment for those deemed a “drain on the system”.

The stupid hurts. It really does. Gosh, she’s just so dumb.

A Black woman wrote the first post. She seems concerned that Biden will likely choose someone like her to take Breyer’s spot. Then she writes about how Planned Parenthood is a “racist organization” that commits murder.

No matter who Joe Biden chooses, the Republicans will do what they can to delay the new Supreme Court Justice from being confirmed until midterm elections. It doesn’t matter that Trump pushed two wholly terrifying and inappropriate people into the Supreme Court so that Roe v Wade might be quashed. It doesn’t matter that Amy Coney Barrett took a seat just weeks before the 2020 presidential election and was an actual “handmaid” before she was a judge. God forbid progressive people have a voice in the Supreme Court instead of people who want to pull us back to the 15th century. It doesn’t matter that Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault and heavy drinking during his youth. Seems to me that the Supreme Court should be made up of people who are above reproach, and with the number of Americans who have law degrees, there ought to be qualified people who fit the bill better than Trump’s choices. Joe Biden better have the chance to find someone to balance out Trump’s disastrous picks.

I wonder how long it will take before the poster who praised Kamala Harris gets deleted and banned… That’s what Lori does when people post things that go against her warped, backwards views.

In spite of my complaints, I’m glad Lori has the right to speak her mind, even if I think her mind is completely fucked and her opinions are frightening. But it disturbs me that so many people, male and female, seem to agree with her. Am I really an outlier? Did our mothers and grandmothers really fight all those years for freedom, just so Lori and her followers can demand that women get back into the kitchen and on their backs with their legs spread for impregnation? It just boggles the mind. She really should read up on Romania in the 70s, 80s, and 90s… you want to talk about sad? That’s pretty sad… and that was a “socialist” state run by a madman who wanted women to have babies instead of living fulfilling lives.

Not everyone wants to be a mother (or father). Not everyone should be a mother (or a father). And many of us would rather not live in a culture dominated by religion. It seems to me that if that’s what Lori wants, there are places around the world where she can go that route. I’ve written about some of the cults that promote her views. Why doesn’t she join one of them and shut up? After all, she’s a woman, and women don’t have the right to work, have an opinion, or express themselves. They were put on the earth to breed. /sarcasm

What I really need is an educational Facebook post, like this one… I think I learned more from the squirrel than Lori Alexander’s feed.

Meh… after yesterday’s angry post, I can barely summon the ire to write about The Transformed Wife today. I’m feeling kind of apathetic and over it all. It didn’t help that Howard Hesseman, aka Dr. Johnny Fever of WKRP in Cincinnati died a couple of days ago. I loved that show when I was a kid. It was genuinely funny, and had great music, and was so well-written that it stands up even forty years since its last episode aired. Granted, Howard Hesseman was 81 years old, so he had a good run. We all have to die someday. But still, I genuinely liked him, so it sucks that he’s gone. I liked him in Police Academy 2, and on Head of the Class, too. May he rest in eternal peace.

Bill will be gone in a few hours, and hopefully I’ll see him Friday. Maybe I’ll do something worthwhile this week. Maybe the sun will even come out long enough to dry out the backyard and I can work on destroying the rest of the tree that fell over a few weeks ago before it kills the grass. I’m ready for spring. If I make it to spring…

Standard
book reviews, celebrities

A review of Bright Lights, Prairie Dust: Reflections on Life, Loss, and Love from Little House’s Ma, by Karen Grassle…

If you were growing up in the 70s and 80s, it’s a fair bet that you might know who Karen Grassle is. For eight years, she played Caroline Ingalls– Ma– on the hit NBC show, Little House on the Prairie. I was born in 1972, so I was a child when that show was airing on prime time. I remember watching it on Monday nights, probably starting at the time I was about eight years old or so. By then, the show had been airing for some time, and was starting to jump the shark a bit. It wasn’t until I started watching reruns on TBS during my college years that I really became a fan.

Although I loved Little House, I wasn’t necessarily a fan of Michael Landon’s. I always thought he was kind of weird. One time, I saw a comedian do a hilarious imitation of the way he smiled, screwing his eyes a bit and twitching his jaw, as if he was trying to keep from crying. The comedian had him down perfectly, and every time I see Landon on screen, I’m reminded of it, as well as why he never came across as particularly handsome to me. Edited to add: I think the comedian might have been Jim Carrey. Here’s a clip.

When I got older, I started to understand why people found Michael Landon so charismatic. He had this “saint like” image that he tried to project in his projects. A lot of people were fooled by him, thinking that he was much like his saintly characters, especially Charles Ingalls– which was probably his most famous role. He was well-known for being generous, and he certainly had a gift for making television programs that appealed to the masses. A lot of women thought he was “hot”, too, although it’s clear to me that he knew it, which I find kind of repellant.

As Karen Grassle points out in her recently published memoir, Bright Lights, Prairie Dust: Reflections on Life, Loss, and Love from Little House’s Ma, there was a lot more to Michael Landon than met the eye. And he was no saint. But then, neither is she. I just finished her eye opening memoir last night, somewhat surprised by her story.

Karen Grassle talks to Megyn Kelly about her book and working with Michael Landon. In this interview, Grassle says Victor French was a “wonderful actor”. And he was. But he also had a problem with alcohol.

Karen Grassle’s life started off normally enough. She was born February 25, 1942 in Berkeley, California. She grew up in Ventura, the daughter of a real estate agent and a teacher. She also has a younger sister named Janey and an adopted son named Zach. When she was very young, Grassle was captivated by her Baptist faith. She studied ballet, acted in school plays, and was popular among her peers.

Grassle’s first year of college was spent in New Orleans, Louisiana at H. Sophie Newcomb Memorial College, which was the women’s branch of Tulane University. Grassle couldn’t hang in New Orleans. She found the atmosphere too offensive with the rampant racism in the South during the early 1960s. With help from her mother, Grassle went back to California and enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, from which she graduated in 1965, with bachelor’s degrees in English and Dramatic Art.

After college, Grassle won a Fulbright Scholarship and moved to London for a year. Living in London gave Grassle the chance to travel around Europe, and she writes a bit about her experiences seeing the continent. She even includes a passage about riding on a train with a young Italian man and his father and having sex with the Italian guy while his father snored beneath them. I could relate to the train experience to Italy, minus the sex part. I once rode in a sleeper car with an Asian family on my way from Vienna to Venice and listened to the dad of the family snore all night. A little sex might have done me some good.

Grassle later moved to New York City, where she struggled financially, and picked up roles at the many theaters there. She drank a lot and smoked too much, and picked up interesting odd jobs to make ends meet, including a stint working as a size eight model for garment makers. Although she worked steadily, she didn’t really become financially successful in any sense until she moved back to California and auditioned for the role of Caroline Ingalls. The rest is history.

Yesterday, I wrote about Betty White, and how I think sometimes people mistook Betty White for her characters. I think the same may be true for Karen Grassle. On Little House on the Prairie, Grassle portrayed a beautiful, God-fearing, kind, gentle woman. Michael Landon portrayed a male version of that same ideal. But, as I mentioned in yesterday’s post, actors are often not at all like the roles they play. That is apparently very true of Karen Grassle and Michael Landon. Grassle writes that the two of them didn’t get along very well after the first year of the show’s eight season run. Although on screen, they looked like they were deeply in love, they really were just acting…

In Bright Lights, Prairie Dust, Grassle gives readers a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes on Little House, but readers shouldn’t expect an exhaustive tell all about the show. This book is really a book about Karen Grassle. The title is a bit misleading, which is why I think Grassle got some low ratings from Amazon readers. I think a lot of people read Grassle’s book hoping for stories about Little House on the Prairie, and what they got is a book that is pretty much just about Karen Grassle’s life, with only a little bit about the show that made her a star. There’s also quite a bit of throwing Michael Landon under the bus and airing of “dirty laundry”. As someone who also often airs dirty laundry, I can understand why she wrote about these things… but I can also see why other readers found the revelations off-putting.

I mostly enjoyed reading Karen Grassle’s story. I don’t judge her for her life choices or mistakes. We all make them. Karen Grassle admits to being an alcoholic who had many difficult relationships with men, including an unfortunate tryst with actor Gil Gerard (Buck Rogers) that led to a sexually transmitted infection. She’s been married a few times. She’s had a couple of abortions. She turned away from Christianity. She didn’t get along with Michael Landon and, in fact, even judged him for infidelity, even though she had herself been unfaithful to at least one of her partners. I’d say she’s pretty much the antithesis of Caroline Ingalls, a role she played so convincingly.

Karen Grassle writes that she loved working with Scotty MacGregor, otherwise known as Mrs. Oleson.

I’m sure a lot of readers will judge Karen Grassle for not being Caroline Ingalls. I guess I can understand why they might, since the title implies that she’s going to impart wisdom the way “Ma Ingalls” did. But again, I think readers should understand that actors are human, and memoirs are the ultimate project in self-promotion. Of course the book is about Karen Grassle, and Karen Grassle isn’t “Ma Ingalls”. That was just the most famous one of the many roles she’s played over her long career. I, for one, was interested in reading about Grassle’s lesser known work on the world’s stages.

I appreciated reading about Karen Grassle’s work toward promoting women’s rights. She grew up in a time when racism and sexism were rampant, and anyone who wasn’t a white man had less power simply because they weren’t a white male. I think it’s pretty clear that Grassle is politically very liberal, and she feels very strongly about protecting women’s rights, including the right to have an abortion. Grassle had two experiences with abortion. The first one happened when she was 20 years old. She had to go to Mexico, and it was done secretly. The second one was done ten years later, in New York, where in 1972, abortion was legal. She compared the experiences, which I found interesting, and a bit frightening for today’s young women, who may soon lose the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Some readers may have less sympathy for her, later in the book, when she laments how she eventually wanted a baby of her own. She did eventually adopt a son.

Grassle is also very involved in Jungian therapy, which I found intriguing, since my husband is also into Jungian therapy. She writes a bit about dream analysis, and some of the cool insights she got from some of her therapists. I probably wouldn’t have noticed that part of the book if Bill wasn’t working with a Jungian therapist. If I had read Karen Grassle’s book a year ago, I probably wouldn’t have cared about her revelations regarding Jungian psychology. But I guess it just goes to show you that as one’s life evolves, so do one’s interests.

The one thing I distinctly didn’t like about Karen Grassle’s book was a certain contrived quality it had. It was like she was trying really hard to write in an evocative way that came across as insincere. Her writing wasn’t terrible; it just seemed to lack some authenticity. Like she was trying too hard to turn a phrase or something.

I do think the title of the book is misleading. I’m sure it was purposely given that title to make sales, but plenty of people who bought it for the potential of Grassle’s “spilling the tea” about life on the Little House set will “spill the tea” that the book is only a little bit about the show. There’s very little about the children who played the Ingalls’ children, but she does include a couple of less flattering comments about Victor French (Mr. Edwards), as well as a few more positive comments about Scotty MacGregor (Harriett Oleson) and Charlotte Stewart (Miss Beadle). I think a lot of people will expect much more about the show. They won’t necessarily get that information in this book, which may disappoint some readers.

The last comment I want to make is that the book ends rather abruptly, just as Karen Grassle has married her second husband of three. I’m not sure why she chose to end the book at that point. Maybe it’s because it was just as the show was ending, in the early 1980s. But the book is clearly not just about Little House on the Prairie. Grassle wrote a lot about her young life, her years as a struggling actress, and what led up to her turn as “Ma Ingalls”. If the book had been more about the show, I might understand why she ended in the early 80s. But it’s clearly NOT just about the show. Again… I think a more accurate title would have served her better.

There are some photos included, though they aren’t so easy to see on my Kindle app.

I’m glad Karen Grassle was able to quit drinking, since it clearly affected her in a negative way and was problematic, particularly regarding her relationships with other people, as well as her image. As a fellow adult child of an alcoholic, I could relate to some of her comments about what it was like to grow up in that particular brand of dysfunction. I respect Karen Grassle’s talent, and some of her insights about working with Michael Landon. A lot of her complaints about Landon were about money, and how he allegedly wouldn’t agree to pay her what she felt she should be earning on a hit show.

This book could have been better, and should be retitled… and maybe even retooled. But overall, I’m not sorry I read it. I would just caution prospective readers not to expect a book that is just about Little House on the Prairie, containing heartwarming, homespun, words of wisdom from Ma Ingalls. Bright Lights, Prairie Dust is definitely not delivering much of that, in spite of its title.

As an Amazon Associate, I get a small commission from Amazon on sales made through my site.

Standard