"No" apparently doesn't mean "no."

Another disheartening article:

Court: Woman Can't Say No After Start Of Sex

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.

Awesome. So if I get drunk beyond belief, say "yes" and pass out, apparently raping my unconscious body is totally groovy in Maryland. If I go out on a date, say yes and my otherwise charmer suitor turns into a raging asshole - I'm not implying these two things are connected in any way - I'm shit outta luck. If some other circumstance happens and the "yes" turns into a "no," I'm beat. If, say, I'm with an otherwise charming suitor who does something triggering or insists on doing something I'm not comfortable with, thereby changing my previous "yes" to a "no," I shoulda considered every weird circumstance beforehand.

Geeze. Why don't we silly women learn? Afterall, it's our faults if our skirt is too short, if we're wearing too much makeup, if we've been drinking, if our hair is too short, if we're wearing jeans, if we look too masculine, if we haven't experienced heterosexual sex, if we're prudes, if we're easy, if we're married, if we're in a relationship, if we're in a "bad part of town," if we're out by ourselves, if we're out late a night, if we go to a bar alone, if we go on a blind date alone, if we don't have a gun cocked at every man we encounter, regardless of our relationship to him and so on and so on and so on. Why shouldn't we prepare for every strange situation possible? If we want to keep ourselves out of these situations, apparently we need to keep ourselves locked at home, away from everyone in the world.

Oh, but then I'm sure we should have anticipated burglarizing rapists.

I have to wonder how much of this "protecting men from false rape charges" decision is meant to actually keep women from ever consenting to sex. How much of it is simply a fear of the dreaded female sexuality and how much of it is actually about men losing control over women?

No.. This isn't inherently fucked or anything

Inmates help bring tourism to Wilson.

It is the highest-paid job at the prison, starting at $1 a day, said Olivia Jordan, supervisor of the call center. Inmates must take a tourism class taught at the prison through Wake Technical Community College before they can apply.

Well, gee golly! $1 an hour! These are jobs that would have typically paid AT LEAST $7/hour pre-extreme outsourcing. I've worked in call centers before. $7 an hour was the worst rate I've ever been paid. It is stressful, aggravating work that - believe it or not - requires a degree of skill. I'm not going to trying to argue that call center reps require a college degree, but Christ...this isn't exactly envelope stuffing. You work answering phones for a few hours and tell me you'd happily work for a buck an hour.

Oh, but I forgot, they're all a bunch of "animals" and "monsters" who get what they deserve, right?

About 80 percent of the women in the call center are there for either first-degree or second- degree murder, usually of an abusive husband or boyfriend, she said.

Out of the prison's approximate 1,300 population, "all of it boils down to a man — about 90 percent of them."

Oh yes. What monsters. *rolls eyes*

At least I'll have something to look forward to if I ever am in an abusive situation again. I, too, can make a whopping $1 an hour!

I can't even write about this anymore.

(Article link courtesy of a Livejournal friend.)

OH NOES TEH ATHEISTS ARE TAKING OVER!!!

Oh Texas.

Candidate for the Sixth Court of Appeals, Ben Franks, is reported to be a professed atheist and apparently believes the Bible is a “collection of myths.”

During debate over a plank in the State Democrat Platform, members of the Platform Committee debated dropping “God” from a sentence on the first page of the document. The plank stated: “we want a Texas where all people can fulfill their dreams and achieve their God-given potential.”

According to an article published in the El Paso Times, Ben Franks states: “I’m an atheist…”

Oh. The. Horrors.

It doesn't look like Ben Franks is taking donations, but man oh man, if I find a place, I'm so tossing him $20. It might not be much, but it's the damn principle of the matter.

On the subject of atheists in office, this article (by Edward Tabash) is an interesting read, but I think some parts of it are a little simplistic. I'm a little conflicted because in some respects, he seems to pit atheists against women and people of color. I don't think that's necessarily his intention, and I certainly understand the reasons for his frustration, but I don't think he articulated himself in a manner that will gain sympathy. (For example, comparing oppressions. I understand why it's done. He's reframing the arguments. Aside from small pockets of the population, most people will not actively admit to be sexist or racist; he's trying to frame atheism in the same manner. But, it still has the potential to people off, which is the last thing we - us dirty filthy atheists - need. There is a reason fundamentalist Christians do so well with getting out their message. They know how to subtly work the people.) But at the same time, I'm all "WOO HOO NON-BELIEVERS."

A very specific passage that bugs me is this:

Each of us must decide on what issues we can compromise our otherwise existing requirements of a political candidate, if that candidate is an Atheist or is uncommonly Atheist-friendly, like Governor Ventura. I cannot tell any of you what issues, that are otherwise important to you, should now take a back seat, if a viable Atheist or Atheist-friendly candidate is running, who may not agree with you on such issues. I do hope, however, that we will all at least think about the issues on which we can let an Atheist or Atheist-friendly candidate slide, if that candidate has a real chance of winning a given election. Each of us will have a different threshold, where compromise will be permitted, in order to support one of our own, or a candidate supportive of our interests as non believers.

For me, I can say that I will go very far in supporting a candidate that I may not agree with on a variety of issues, in a contested election, if that candidate is the most fervent supporter of the separation of church and state.

I agree that everyone needs to compromise on one or two issues during election season because it is so rare that we will find one candidate who truly represents every view we hold. However, the tone implies that I should - for example - vote for a candidate who is an atheist, yet promotes racist or sexist ideologies. I'm not going to turn my back on feminism or the anti-racism movement just so I can say "YAY ATHEISM!!!" Maybe it's just me or I'm being a little overly sensitive, but I doubt that I am. I'd bet that most people want legislators who represent them as much as possible and don't want to concede on very strong ideologies. (And in my case, are ones that humorously do not conflict at all, yet the way certain people would have you believe, I'm the one whose nuts.)

I think I might try to keep up on ye ol' public blog, especially through the midterms this year. (What a difficult goal. I'll have to keep posting for a whole week!)