I don’t usually use this kind of language for other women, but: Fuck you, bitch

Friday, February 24th, 2006 · 44 Comments »

Portrait of a Tool In the coverage of South Dakota’s bold new law to reduce women to the legal standing of cuttlefish, not much attention is being paid to the fact that the main sponsor of this legislation is a female Democrat. Senator Julie Bartling is her name, and that’s her mug shot. I’ve included it so you can gaze upon her oddly cheerful visage and contemplate what it must be like to live with your head permanently implanted inside the large intestine of the patriarchy.

Now, it’s standard operating procedure for feminists to acknowledge that our bitterest female opponents are themselves victims of the big P, and to extend compassion to them as the deluded tools that they are. So Julie, I’m officially extending compassion to you. And having gotten that out of the way, let me say again: fuck you, you goddamn misogynist bitch.

Filed under: Reproductive Rights · Tags:

44 Responses to “I don’t usually use this kind of language for other women, but: Fuck you, bitch”

  1. David says:

    I don’t mean to sound too dramatic, but when I first read this story earlier today, I got nervous. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. If this can happen in any US state, then it could happen in at least 50% of them.

    Granted this will probably be overturned before reaching the Supreme Court, I think this happened because of the new faces in the Supreme Court. I wonder how many more states have been waiting to pass legislation like this. Unfortunately, I see many more of these tests coming.

  2. Rufus says:

    Violet, I don’t think I’ve got your sense of humor figured out just yet. Is this post supposed to be funny?

  3. Violet says:

    Funny as in angry-rant funny. The woman is an asswipe, a fucktard, a patriarchy-blower.

  4. Hypatia's Father says:

    Ahh…..

    I’m going to start a Violet Socks fan club.

  5. Txfeminist says:

    All Hail Dr. Socks!

  6. Violet says:

    (blush)

  7. Txfeminist says:

    How ’bout calling the fan club, Socks Rocks?

  8. Violet says:

    You’re cracking me up, girl. Hey, did you get my e-mail? Any idea how to crack the mystery of Blogger so I can comment at your place?

  9. Jodie says:

    I think she has a thyroid problem.

    Other than that, I am speechless (and VERY angry) that a WOMAN is sponsoring this bill.

  10. Kaka Mak says:

    “The woman is an asswipe, a fucktard, a patriarchy-blower.”

    You forgot “and full of fuckery!”

  11. Michael Bains says:

    As another blogger pointed out, this shtick is the first salvo in the imminent “Alito’s Gonna Get Us Our Theocracy” war on individual rights and social justice.

    My innards started bubblin’ when I saw it, mostly cuz I’m afeared the Roberts’ SCOTUS will call it a “State’s Rights” issue and abdicate its responsibility on this issue.

    It’s on folks.

    {shakin’head}

  12. Jim Deeny says:

    My mom always said ” Anger blows out the light of the mind”

    Maybe I shouldn’t of said that post, ah, fuck it.

  13. Violet says:

    If you want me to delete it, I’ll be happy to. I appreciate your anger but what you propose isn’t exactly in the feminist spirit there, Jim. Maybe you’d like to re-phrase?

  14. Jim Deeny says:

    Yeah, I hear ya noodles! It just irks me that’s all, go ahead get rid of it. My wife can have children but……It would kill her if she got pregnant because of her disease, so I am against this woman 110%. It felt good though, talking about climbing through her window.

  15. Violet says:

    Okay, deleted and cleaned up!

  16. Violet says:

    And speaking of your wife, Jim, isn’t it endlessly fascinating that to “pro-lifers,” the life of a grown woman is absolutely worthless? Not to get you off on a tangent again, but the mind does boggle.

  17. Steve says:

    Violet: Your rage is admirably restrained. And you didn’t even mention all of her dipshit legislative colleagues who went along with it.

  18. Pastor Al E Pistle says:

    OK, all you uppity feminazi women! ON YOUR BACKS AS GOD COMMANDS!

  19. Pastor Al E Pistle says:

    On reflection, you used a horrible example. Female cuttlefish are completely free to choose a mate from competing males, to allow mating or not, and to dispose of the little cutlets in a manner of their choosing. Most animals have that choice. Humans are almost singular in their unwillingness to allow freedoms of choice. Thankfully the New Inquisition is beginning and many witches will be forced to confess. This tactic worked wonders in stamping out the black plague and various other maladies inflicted by GOD and will no doubt work again.

  20. Infidel says:

    Wise men would just hold off ejaculating if the woman would only make their choice clear at the point of no return for the man. Then we wouldn’t have to legislate.

  21. Steve says:

    Seriously, if the shit of repression and no choice hits the fan, we always have civil disobedience.

  22. Gabriel says:

    A (wo)man’s body is beyond politics and law. (S)he should be able to choose what is good for her/him and live according to those values that appear in line with her/his convictions.

    Making any form of concessions at this level goes against our constitution. We’re all equal at this level. As a spiritual being I am against abortion. And capital punishment. And assisted suicide. But I can understand that in the face of suffering a person may choose an easier way to deal with an issue that is very private and personal.

    In my opinion the government should spend more time on understanding and solving problems pro-actively rather than trying to come up with a legislated effort to undermine our constitution. What I see here is that we’re gathering momentum to turn our free society into a templated version of Utopia. The counter-reaction of this would be anarchy. I think I prefer anarchy.

  23. Infidel says:

    “Making any form of concessions at this level goes against our constitution.”
    My vote is there
    We must have the numbers it just makes too much sense. Won’t the numbers matter anymore? Isn’t that how we do things around here? I can’t believe that any reasonable Judge would deny…
    “A (wo)man’s body is beyond politics and law.
    (S)he should be able to choose what is good for her/him and live according to those values that appear in line with her/his convictions”
    Listen to it the other way…A (wo)man’s body is integral to politics and law. (S)he should not be able to choose what is good for her/him and live only according to those values that are in line with politics and law. It sounds so rediculous. It is rediculous. Fuck that bitch!

  24. Pastor Al E Pistle says:

    Gabriel says:

    A (wo)man’s body is beyond politics and law. (S)he should be able to choose what is good for her/him and live according to those values that appear in line with her/his convictions.

    [color-red]Oh good. You are pro choice![/colore]

    Making any form of concessions at this level goes against our constitution. We’re all equal at this level. As a spiritual being I am against abortion.

    [color=red] Oh….I thought you just said “A (wo)man’s body is beyond politics and law. (S)he should be able to choose what is good for her/him and live according to those values that appear in line with her/his convictions.” But then you go right on to say that women should not be given a choice as regards abortion. Which is it? [/color]

    And capital punishment. And assisted suicide.

    [color=red]So much for anyone having a choice. Did you reads any of this nonsense in the Book of Mysogyny or do you make it up as you go along?[/color]

    But I can understand that in the face of suffering a person may choose an easier way to deal with an issue that is very private and personal.

    In my opinion the government should spend more time on understanding and solving problems pro-actively rather than trying to come up with a legislated effort to undermine our constitution. What I see here is that we’re gathering momentum to turn our free society into a templated version of Utopia. The counter-reaction of this would be anarchy. I think I prefer anarchy.

    [color=red]You prefer anarch if it is on your terms. Otherwise, you prefer no freedom of choice at all. [/color]

  25. Alon Levy says:

    And speaking of your wife, Jim, isn’t it endlessly fascinating that to “pro-lifers,” the life of a grown woman is absolutely worthless? Not to get you off on a tangent again, but the mind does boggle.

    It’s not worthless. For theocrats, women’s lives are very important, as ways of generating more men, and more women to generate more men. Homosexuals and minorities can be safely gotten rid of, and indeed totalitarian regimes do just that; but women need to be controlled. For example, if you look at Nazi Germany, you’ll see that it regarded women as very important insofar as they should give birth to healthy German children and help prepare the boys for military service.

  26. Infidel says:

    A (wo)man’s body is integral to politics and law. (S)he should not be able to choose what is good for her/him and live only according to those values that are in line with politics and law. It sounds so rediculous. It is rediculous. Fuck that bitch!

  27. Jim Deeny says:

    The philosophy is nice Alon, but what about now?
    What about people like my wife today?
    The future is nice to predict when you can make it, when laws change someone that can foresee it’s attributes and downsides 50 years from now is somewhat talented, but even more talented to explain the perception how it will affect women a day or a week after a law has been passed.

  28. Jim Deeny says:

    Oh, Alon, I really think there’s allot of talent that posts on Violet’s web page, and I think you are one of them.I think that there’s allot of potential in everyone here. It’s a very thought provoking place. Thanks for deleting that noodles!

  29. Jeff says:

    Sort of off the subject, but why has this asswipe’s legislation been posted all over the blogosphere (albeit quite deservingly), while someone who is actually trying to do something to benefit the women of her state has been completely ignored? Colorado State Rep Betty Boyd has introduced legislation in her state to help protect Women’s Rights, but I haven’t seen any of it anywhere. Heres the link:
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/7250001/detail.html?subid=22100484&qs=1;bp=t

    I think that maybe this lady could use a little help and support. Sorry for the interruption, and thanks for listening.

  30. Violet says:

    Thanks, Jeff. I hadn’t heard of this. As soon as I have a chance I’ll look into it and see what I can do to spread the word. We absolutely do need to support those legislators who are fighting the good fight.

  31. veet says:

    Just when you think it can’t get any worse…this is a DEMOCRAT! for F’Sake. no, calm down. this IS the dems, not just spineless but contemptuous traitors to humanistic society.

    Alon’s not just talking some philosophy about some future. We must recognize this for what it is. We are all being turned into units of production. women produce new humans, men are harnessed to the juggernaut of war or wealth production, the planet is harvested until it’s barren and then the next regime can head out to colonize the next barren planet and start all over again. Orwell had it so right. thanks Doc Sox.

  32. Alon Levy says:

    Sort of off the subject, but why has this asswipe’s legislation been posted all over the blogosphere (albeit quite deservingly), while someone who is actually trying to do something to benefit the women of her state has been completely ignored?

    Because in general political activists get more worked up over threats than over opportunities. There’s a sociological explanation for that, but the result is that bad news, such as the South Dakota bill, pushes activists into action more effectively than good news, such as the Colorado bill.

  33. kate says:

    Alon is absolutely right, people are not moved to action by someone working to their benefit, quite the contrary, they are more inclined to sit down with a bag of chips and watch American Idol believing that someone else is up all night keeping the dike from breaking. (no pun intended)

    But a true threat, that is perceived as real will get people going.

    You won’t jump for the shotgun (unless your a godbag nutball) everytime your team scores a point, but you will if you see someone intruding into your space.

    That being said, I never ceased to be amazed at the number of women that are successfully co-opted to serve the patriarchy.

    I read part of that insipid book by Carville and his buddy whoever he is, talking about howthe dems can win ’08. Sacrificing the abortion was one of their ‘ideas’.

    Why not go ahead and ressurrect the plantations and open up Indian Schools while we’re at it all the while singing “Oh Happy Day”? We’ll get their support now won’t we.

    What I truly also can’t believe is the number of women who have posted elsewhere who seem to have little if any knowledge of the deaths and maiming that will occur if abortion is made illegal. Astonishing.

  34. Alon Levy says:

    Alon is absolutely right, people are not moved to action by someone working to their benefit, quite the contrary, they are more inclined to sit down with a bag of chips and watch American Idol believing that someone else is up all night keeping the dike from breaking. (no pun intended)

    But a true threat, that is perceived as real will get people going.

    Actually, for most people, the opposite is right: inspiration works better than threats. Inspiring politicians increase voter turnout, turn some people into activists, and encourage people to support the democratic system by participating in it. Threats are great in rallying activists, who perceive themselves as vulnerable to anything that might roll back some of their achievements, but cause most voters to ditch politics in favor of crappy TV shows.

    In fact, there are a few good case studies of campaigns that failed miserably because they were threat-based. One is John Kerry: Democratic activists screamed about how Bush would overturn Roe vs. Wade, sell out the entire country to big business, and destroy American education; these scare tactics made other Democratic activists be sure that now Bush’s time was up, but turned off most voters. If I’m not mistaken, the Republicans made the same mistake in the Virginia gubernatorial race, in which they concentrated on making the Democrats look like extremists rather than on inspiring voters.

    In social geography and anthropology, there’s something called the Cultural Theory of Risk, which posits that people’s perceptions of risks are shaped most of all by one of four cultural biases: individualism, egalitarianism, hierarchy, and fatalism. Egalitarians tend to focus on high-consequence risks because they galvanize the in-group well; and most activists adopt egalitarian modes of action, even when their goals are individualistic or hierarchistic. Fatalists view themselves as victims of a bad system; threats of things getting much worse if the other guy wins only confirm their views of the system as unworkable, making them even more fatalistic.

  35. Jeff says:

    Alon,

    Concerning your last two posts, I’m a little confused here. After rereading them both several times, it seems to me that you are trying to say that ultimately, activist participation in a political debate usually has negligible influence on a positive outcome of that debate. This would be because, as a result of the original antagonistic qualities of their entrance into the arena, it dissuades committed supporters from continuing on their agenda, and in addition, the activists themselves eventually lose interest because the cause is no longer “cutting edge”, and cannot contain their attention any longer. I tend to agree that this is a fairly accurate assessment of many situations, which leads me to ask, what was the purpose of your first post-

    “Because in general political activists get more worked up over threats than over opportunities. There’s a sociological explanation for that, but the result is that bad news, such as the South Dakota bill, pushes activists into action more effectively than good news, such as the Colorado bill.”

    -without the further explanation of the next post, other than to state an already much too visible fact and seemingly validate the behavior of these activists?

    My original post was simply an attempt to spread what I felt was important information so that maybe somewhere, someone with a few more resources than I possess would be able to help things along a little, not a call for activists to circle the wagons.

  36. Violet says:

    Jeff, apart from your discussion with Alon — you did see my post, right?

  37. Jeff says:

    Violet,

    Yes, I did. Thanks much for the response. Have you had any time to look further into it yet?

  38. Violet says:

    No, I mean I posted a whole entry about it this afternoon. On the home page of this blog. It’s at the top.

  39. Jeff says:

    Violet,

    Sorry, I haven’t been to the home page yet today. I’ve been doing other things, and haven’t gotten around to that yet. I remembered to check the box to subscribe to this thread, so I have been paying attention to it, but I haven’t made all my rounds yet. I’ll definitely go there next, though.

  40. Alon Levy says:

    After rereading them both several times, it seems to me that you are trying to say that ultimately, activist participation in a political debate usually has negligible influence on a positive outcome of that debate. This would be because, as a result of the original antagonistic qualities of their entrance into the arena, it dissuades committed supporters from continuing on their agenda, and in addition, the activists themselves eventually lose interest because the cause is no longer “cutting edge”, and cannot contain their attention any longer.

    Whether it’s true depends on how sensitive activists are to non-activists’ views of politics. Activists tend to be most successful when they realize that the best things they can do is inspire the fatalist masses to make them egalitarian, and make inroads into individualism and hierarchism.

    I tend to agree that this is a fairly accurate assessment of many situations, which leads me to ask, what was the purpose of your first post- … -without the further explanation of the next post, other than to state an already much too visible fact and seemingly validate the behavior of these activists?

    I wasn’t trying to validate anything. Rather, I was trying to explain why the liberal blogosphere (whose denizens are almost invariably egalitarians, or at least regard themselves as such) talked about the South Dakota bill more than about the Colorado bill.

  41. MizMaw says:

    “Woo-hoo! Thanks for the advice folks. And yes, if any woman in this country wants to retain any semblance of her autonomy and rights/liberties she’d better stay unpregnant.”

    Oh… hmmm. So, it’s much better to let the patriarchy decide whether I have children? Or do I exercise my autonomy and liberty by bursting with joy and life, and fuck the partiarchy if they think they can grind me down?

    Or something like that. I’m just pointing out that having the children you want to have is a reproductive freedom issue, too. And not having children because we live under patriarchy and things are scary is just too small for me, thanks.

  42. Jeff says:

    “Or something like that. I’m just pointing out that having the children you want to have is a reproductive freedom issue, too. And not having children because we live under patriarchy and things are scary is just too small for me, thanks.”

    That’s exactly right. You can elect to have a child whenever you want, and it is doubtful that anybody will ever try to take that right away from you. The scary part is that they are trying to take away a woman’s right to elect not to have a child. And it makes no difference how small you or anybody else feels her reason is, her opinion should be the one that carries the greatest weight in determining what she does with her life, not yours.

  43. belledame222 says:

    Well, unless of course you’re a very poor and troubled woman at the mercy of the state.

    I remember my father, who’s Democratic in most senses of the word, once saying how he didn’t necessarily think mandatory sterilization was such a bad idea for certain cases. (I argued with him after I picked up my jaw off the floor).

  44. Jim Deeny says:

    I’ll bet if Alice Paul was still alive she’d have blood spurting out her eyes because she’d be so pissed.