Category Archives: My Laws Won’t Suck

The Anti-Abortion Queen Rides Again

Over at Represent!, they have a post up about Mississippi representatives introducing a personhood bill into the Mississippi legislature, despite the fact that a personhood bill was recently put to the vote in that state and was soundly defeated with 60% of the vote.  Just to be clear: that means that the fine people of Mississippi, having been politely asked, do not, no thanks, not at all, no, siree Bob, want to define personhood as arising from the moment of conception.  Are we clear?  And Republicans (and no I haven’t checked they’re Republicans, but if they’re Democrats, I really do just give up), have taken that resounding no and told voters to go fuck themselves.  Are we clear?

And it’s too easy, over on this side of the pond, to just yawn and dismiss this as yet another example (and not even a particularly fine example at that) of bat-shit Republican craziness, given that every word attached to ‘Republican’ these days seems to be either ‘anti-abortion’, ‘anti-contraception’, or ‘trans-vaginal probe’.  And that’s just when they’re trying to win the women’s note.  Bat-shit crazy.

This would never happen here, though, amirite?

Nadine, Nadine.  Aah, lovely Nadine!  What would we do without you to remind us that pride comes before an ungainly trip straight on the noggin?

Nadine Dorries, the MP for somewhere clearly bonkers (I can’t remember where, but just look for the large hole in the ozone layer and the hanging smell of over-cooked brains somewhere over the Home Counties ).

I’ll be kind because she may have just forgotten, so I’ll remind her what she was up to last year.  She was introducing a bill to parliament which sought to ‘strip charities and medics of their exclusive responsibility for counselling women seeking an abortion‘.  In other words, she wanted to stop organisations providing abortions from offering counselling to women thinking about having one.  Her stated rationale was was that they had a conflict of interest because they both provided counselling and were paid to provide abortions. She also maintained that ‘alternative’ counselling would prevent women being rushed into abortions that they may later regret.

Those evil abortion pushers, eh?  Does anybody seriously believe that charitable abortion providers try and push abortions on women to get a few quid?

No, nobody did believe it, Nadine.  Even the other members of parliament (known for a degree of bat-shit craziness themselves) understood that the whole idea was just bat-shit craziness.

Dorries is now a member of a cross-party group of MPs which is now looking to give anti-abortion groups an official role in abortion counselling.  As in, yes, exactly what was defeated last time around.  This is the same cross-party group, by the way, that MP Diane Abbott walked out of saying she was leaving ‘because the talks were little more than window dressing for the agenda of “Tea Party Tories” determined to prevent abortion providers, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering counselling.’  This is also the same cross-party group that includes Catholic MP Louise Mensch, just so we can be certain where this is all going.

The Guardian has the low-down on the three policy options this group is currently being offered:

One option is to make no change while another resembles Dorries’ original proposals, which would have prevented abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) from providing counselling services.

‘It is understood, however, that most discussions are focusing on an option that would create a register of counsellors eligible to tender for pregnancy counselling – including anti-abortion organisations.’

It has been suggested, quite rightly, that this is an attempt at back door legislation which would introduce radical changes to current abortion laws.

It has also been suggested, again quite rightly, that this is Dorries way of telling women to go fuck themselves (that was my suggestion).

Or, as Clare Murphy from BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) puts it: ‘There was a major discussion about pregnancy counselling last year and a comprehensive defeat of these campaigners in parliament. It seems extraordinary to then turn around and effectively say: “It doesn’t matter that this has been talked about and voted on. We’re going to do it anyway.”‘

And all this when there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the current standard of counselling being provided.  It’s almost like Dorries has invented a problem where none exists!  You’d almost believe it was nothing about women and the standard of care they receive and all about ideology!  Unbelievable I know!

As Marie Stopes’s Tracey McNeill put it, the current system provides ‘access to impartial, non-directive and expert support from trained counsellors, if [women] decide they want it’.

She also said, and this here’s the rub:

We simply don’t believe that organisations whose own publications describe abortion as “a most grievous sin” can provide impartial pregnancy counselling to women.’ [emphasis mine]

So, sure, you could ask an avowedly anti-abortion religious group for advice on your abortion but, then again, you could ask a PETA activist advice on whether to buy a fur coat, but it sure as fuck wouldn’t be a good idea.


Mistress’s New Law No.4

With thanks to Kenneth Clarke for the inspiration.

Following on from his white guy patriarchal misogynistic rape apologist comments, we have Mistress’s New law No. 4.

Given that the current definition of consent seems to cause so much confusion (‘well, she didn’t cut my cock off, so she must’ve been OK with it’), Law N0.4 will bring some much needed clarity to the area.  Henceforth, a woman’s consent to any sexual act is to be defined in accordance with the principles put forward in Hole’s Asking for It.

Thus, in the event of any dispute as to whether valid consent was in fact given, the following questions will be posed:

Was she asking for it?

Was she asking nice?

If she was asking for it,

Did she ask you twice?

Subsequent to these requirements, anyone accused of rape or sexual assault must provide evidence that not only did the woman positively consent to the act in a happily enthusiastic fashion, she positively reiterated that consent a second time, just to make sure there would be no misunderstanding.  Failure to provide such evidence will lead to a presumption of no consent.

And yes, I realise this tips the current notion of consent on its head – silence will not be enough, I’m afraid, my ‘date’ raping friends – and it will lead to some written contract probably becoming normalised prior to any consensual sexual interaction, but this is a fucking revolution, my friends.  Change is kind of what it’s all about.


Mistress’s New Law No. 3

Following on from the genius stealth tax that was New Law No.2, comes related New law No.3.  This one’s for all the ‘Political correctness has gone maaahd’ crowd (aka. the ‘I’m no longer allowed to openly state arsehole opinions without rightly being made to feel like a steaming pile of crap’ crowd).  They’ll love it.

So, for all the ‘I’m not sexist, but…’ and the ‘I’m not racist, but…’ and the ‘I’m not a wanker, but I’m going to now illustrate how I spend my life masturbating into my own mouth’, here it is:

Mistress’s New Law No.3.

Anybody who utters the words ‘You can’t say it anymore’ followed by ‘but…followed-by-a-precise-statement-of-exactly-what-you’ve-just-alleged-you’re-not-allowed-to-say-anymore’ will be subject to the same financial penalties levied for offences against Mistress’s New Law No.2.  As an additional bonus, they will also be required to attend classes along with other offenders until they finally get why you can’t say it anymore.

Jesus, this is going to be the best financed post-revolutionary period since the glory days of the CIA  and its fondness for puppet regimes.  We will have  milk and honey flowing through the streets, my friends!


Mistress’s New Law No.2

As with so many of the things that are the small manifestations of my genius, I started my Mistress’s New Laws full of further ideas and enthusiasm.  And then ran out of steam.  Honestly, if I could figure out how to finish my genius manifestations, I would rule the fucking world.

Anyway.

I was idly wondering, as I tend to do about 20 times a day, how freakishly rich (like Tory MP rich) I would be if I had a pound for every time somebody said ‘XY chromosomed little person is so [insert stereotypical masculine behaviour]…but then boys are like that, aren’t they?’  And, of course a pound for ‘XX chromosomed little person is so [insert stereotypical feminine behaviour]…but then girls are like that, aren’t they?’

Which led me to Mistress’s New Law No.2.

Come the feminist revolution, anybody who utters either version of the above, or any variation thereof, will face an on-the-spot fine of an amount between £100 and £1000, the precise amount to be determined by the sheer inanity of the stereotypical behaviour illustration used.

The fine may be levied by any feminist within earshot.

And by this means alone, I calculate that the on-going revolution will be financed for at least the first ten years.

See?  Genius.


Mistress’s New Law No.1

Contrary to what the Daily Male would tell you if they ever did an expose on me, I like dresses.  And contrary to Boogie’s recent assertion that I wear jeans ‘every day‘, I actually wear dresses quite a lot.  I hated them and skirts with a passion when I was younger and with very good reason given that I spent my childhood playing British Bulldog and climbing trees.  Dresses just got in the way of that so they never figured at all in my wardrobe.  Now that my days very rarely involve activities that would be hindered by even the fullest of skirts, I find dresses to be a very convenient and quick way of getting dressed in the morning – I only have to find one item and a clean-ish pair of leggings or tights and voila!  I am dressed (in both senses of the word)!  That’s wardrobe gold right there if like me, the mere idea of getting dressed wipes you out for the rest of the (pajama-ed) day.  I even kinda feel sorry for men (in this culture at least) that they don’t get the option.

But at playgroup the other day, I saw something that reminded me that I really need to get on and start hashing out the laws that will govern come the revolution.  I know, I know, I should be on it already; hopefully Catherine Mackinnon isn’t as lackadaisical or the whole thing may go to ratshit.

A girl child (identified by the glow of pinkness radiating from her every surface and, in case that wasn’t enough to avoid gender-based mishaps, by the flowery clip hanging on for dear life to her almost non-existent hair) was crawling.  I say crawling, but it was more ‘attempting to crawl whilst under the influence of a dress’.  Every time the poor kid made a move, the dress would be pulled downwards by her knees causing her head to bow as it stretched at the neck.  It was almost like she was being forced to kowtow in reverence to The Patriarchy which had imprisoned her in the very item of clothing forcing the bow.  To make the image even more poignant, a boy of similar age was crawling up a storm aided not  only by trousers, but by trousers featuring the nifty addition of knee patches.  What a great idea!  Trousers!  With knee patches!!  I know – this is great, you’ll love it – let’s put them on girls, too!

So, New Law No.1 (admittedly these won’t necessarily be in order of importance):  It will be illegal to manufacture or procure dresses or skirts for any baby of crawling age (such age to be defined broadly).  Anybody found guilty of the above offence will be forced to run a half-marathon with their legs tied together.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers