Log in

No account? Create an account
Not Just Girly Squawkings. [entries|friends|calendar]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

[30 Aug 2005|01:28pm]

We need to get more people. Unless that is the point?

Shall I make image LJ things? Or is that not cool. Oh and i'm new. very new! And i'm in love with good music, right ethics, robots, bunnys and flamingos

-Love April

post comment

[08 Nov 2004|02:43pm]

[ mood | Appreciative ]

To all of the Women out there:

"Voluntary Motherhood," do you even know what this term means? None of us have lived in a time when motherhood wasn't voluntary. Sure, sometimes there are accidents, but imagine if your uterus was beyond your control.

In the early 1900's, when many women got married, they put the control of their lives in the hands of men. If a woman wasn't in a profession of her own, she was usually a mother. Sure, it sounds like a good job, but imagine if how many children you were raising, or when you raised them wasn't in your hands.

When our great grandmothers were around and getting married, chances were they were having sex usually to make their husbands happy. They couldn't just pop on a condom, and chances were they weren't encouraged to use the pull-out method, if they knew about it at all. There were no pills but mostly, there was no information. What does this mean? No options. Most of the time, women got pregnant in marriage even when they didn't want to. Women would sometimes have three or four children, one after the other, not by choice, but by chance.

In those days, pregnancy, was just a burden most women had to bear. With each child, they gave up a little of their freedom, and gained more responsibility.

I could not imagine just having to have children. Taxing my own body while carrying another child, especially if I knew the family couldn't afford it. Now, if you were married to someone you didn't love or even could bear, imagine having to bear his children, time after time. Many women were pregnant almost every year, some giving birth constantly untill their forties. (Some babies did not live after birth, or make it through the whole pregnancy.)

It is feeling their helplessness that makes me appreciative of where we are now.

post comment

[01 Oct 2004|02:55pm]

Luckily for everyone else, I'm out of political ammo.
post comment

[22 Sep 2004|02:06pm]

A list of Flip-Flops from our Cheatin' Commander-In-Chief
post comment

[22 Sep 2004|10:26am]

1 comment|post comment

[22 Sep 2004|09:16am]

Speaking in Des Moines on Sept. 7, Dick Cheney implied that a vote for John Kerry would result in another terrorist attack on the United States. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice," Cheney said, "because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again. We'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Critics were quick to respond. Sen. John Edwards said that "Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line." Al Gore called Cheney's comments "a sleazy and despicable effort to blackmail voters with fear." The Center for American Progress, in their daily Progress Report, characterized these comments as, "Vote for us or die."

Sources: CNN, "Cheney: Kerry win risks terror attack," Sept. 7, 2004.
post comment

[20 Sep 2004|11:12am]

[ mood | confused ]

This makes no sense to me...In Oklahoma they convicted a woman for first-degree murder for taking drugs during her pregnancy and causing her baby to be stillborn. She may now serve life in prision.

Yet, in that same state, a woman, who beats her child to death, or neglects it untill it dies, only gets 2-6 years?

I don't think that it's exuseable, but still, you should have an appropriate punishment for a certain crime.

What if a woman takes medication from her doctor during her pregnancy and it dies, it it still murder?

Comments welcome.

post comment

And you wanna know why I'm so upset???? [13 Sep 2004|02:13pm]

This was an email that was printed out and copied to me, I hope all of you unmarried, liberated, happy women out there value your freedom. No matter what you are, married, unmarried, christian, not christian, sexually active or virgin, you need to take this into consideration:

**NOTE: This already may be a bit dated, Dr. Hager may already be on the committee, but you still need to know these things, and be aware that deliberate actions are being taken to threaten the rights of Americans.

"Dear Friends,

Please pay attention to the message below that is being passed along. It is vital to women's health and there is something we can do! It won't take long to read and it is very important.

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This poisition does NOT require congressional approval. The FDA's Reporductive Health Drugs Adviosry Committe makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstretics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilazation and pregnacy termination. Dr. Hager's views of reporductive health care are far outside the mainstream of setback for reproductive technology.

Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life," and refuses to prescribe contraceptiives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "STress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bbible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproducative Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Hager's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health. Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit would halth the developme3nt of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions, disproportionitately affecting women, including breatst cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome.

Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy. For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assesment of technologies that are ncessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track recorrd of using religious beliefs to guide his medical descision making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair fo this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostabge by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.


1. Send this to every person who is concerned about women's rights.

2. Oppose the placement of this man by contacting the white house and tell them he is totallly unacceptable on any level.

Please email President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov and say:

"I oppose the appointment of Dr. Hager to the FDA Reproductive Heath Drugs Advisory Committe. Mixing religion and medicine is unacceptable. Using the FDA to promote a political agenda is innapropriate and seriously threatens women's health."


Edit-I have found another source backing up these claims. You can find out about Hager as well as many other of Bush's appointments here- http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.org/appointments/index.html
post comment

Another Kerry Rant...You can all roll your eyes! [13 Sep 2004|11:31am]

You know, I hear everyone saying that Kerry would make a bad Commander-In-Chief, that he would be a bad military leader.

Here's my rebuttal-
Does anyone really expect to be in this shame of a war for the next four years? Does anyone WANT to be in a war for the next four years? There are so many issues that effect us more than war does- employment, medical care, new legislation and safety HERE in the US not just with other countries. I believe our current president and his administration is doing a poor job with the things that matter to the average Joe or Jane. I really can't say that the Kerry/Edwards team will be good military leaders, because I've never seen them in office. I do know that Bush has done a horrible job, and if Kerry was elected and did a bad job, I would do the same for him, and not vote for him.

It's not just about my dislike for Bush, it's also about taking action about a bad president, ANY bad president. If Kerry screws up, I'll treat him the same way. But as for Bush, fool me once, it's my fault, fool me twice, my bad. Two wrongs don't make it right.
post comment

Oh Howard! [13 Sep 2004|11:12am]

[ mood | exhausted ]

I was listening to Howard Stern this morning. I don't really listen to him much, because well, I'd rather listen to music. Anyway, he began talking about how he's been targeted by the FCC (A censorship group trying to keep "our airwaves clean" think, Tipper Gore and the whole Parental Advisory thing.) with excessive fines and such. Apparently, Colin Powell's son is now the chairman of the FCC and he and his little buddies have been looking up things that's been said up to four years ago to fine him for. (Apparently if you say unappropriate things on the radio, you can be fined.)

A lot of what Howard was saying was kind of stupid-I mean the only creative thing he could say to his opponents was they're "douches," "dicks," or whatever, but he said some things that made sense. Apparently, Oprah has at some point said some of the same things that Howard has, probably anti-bush stuff, and she was never fined. The FCC has said it's because she's "loved by the people." Howard himself is also very anti-Bush. If you go to www.howardstern.com you'll find plenty about it.

I guess there's no reason I felt like sharing this, but I thought it was interesting. I know Howard Stern is pretty wild, but enough with the censorship! I guess I'm just sick of all these Christian Fundamentalists trying to play it off like they're saving us from the "wickedness," of bad language, sexual content and social perversion.

If I hear one more "God bless america," I'm going to think the Saudi's are less religiously crazy than we are.

post comment

[13 Sep 2004|09:29am]

post comment

[10 Sep 2004|04:14pm]

[ mood | busy ]

My thoughts about abortion:

It's not about the babies, really it isn't. It's about a woman's right to choose.

I know this is going to sound really bad, but the world is overpopulated anyway. Everyone bitches about young mothers on welfare, yet, the current administration is doing NOTHING for sex education, and NOTHING to help these teens. I guess we want to go back to the colonial days when a woman was cast out of society if she had a baby. The way society works, is this, we want to save every baby, but we don't want that baby to grow up and have babies..but we will do nothing to help her make good choices or protect herself.

It baffles me that more insurance companies accept Viagra instead of the birth control pill. (Check out the Marie Claire October Issue.)

And a more personal rant:

It bugs me when I tell people I want to get my tubes tied or whatever, and they say "What if you want kids later?" Well, hmm, how should I phrase this? Tough shit for me. That about sums it up. I can adopt if I really need to fill a stupid "maternal instinct." And who the hell says that every girl has to become a mother?????

I'm sick of the bullshit people..really sick of it. http://www.now.org

post comment

What the Hell is Going On in This Country??????! [10 Sep 2004|02:03pm]

An Article from Bust Magazine, Fall Edition:

Busted: Vaginal Piercing Ban Gets Banned

"A proposal to ban vaginal piercing in Georgia almost snuck its way into law this spring, and the fiasco sidelined a bill intended to outlaw genital mutilation with a penalty of two to twenty years in prison. Bill 418 was introduced after a father's removal of his young daughter's clitoris in a procedure typical to his culture, brought only misdemeanor punishment in the state. The bill passed in the Senate, but when it reached the House, Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, added the piercing amendment. Although the bill had broad support, opposition soon flooded the legislature. "Women were infuriated and appalled that anyboody would deny them the ability to do anything with their own bodies," said Leah Tatum-Dick, chief of staff for bill sponsor Senator Ginger Collins, R-Atlanta. She added that the amendment was extremely sexist, since men could do anything they wanted to their genitals. Heath however, was stunned to learn that some women want piercings. "I've never heard of such a thing," he said. "I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."

The two houses removed the amendment and the Senate ratified the bill, but the House did not consider it before the spring session ended, so the sponsors must wait untill January to reintroduce it." -Jeffrey Decker
post comment

BUST MAGAZINE-For women who have something to get off their chests [10 Sep 2004|01:40pm]

[ mood | amused ]

This is round two of my recommendation, because the first one got deleted.

Like the title says, Bust magazine is for women who have something to say. Unlike many other magazines, which focus on things I can't afford, Bust focuses on what women can be proud of, instead of what women are expected to be.

While other magazines encourage us to be conformists, we are encouraged by this great magazine to be something different, and to be more than our seasonal clothes, expensive makeup and ettiqutte.

Bust does have plenty of shopping ideas, but usually things don't go over 100 dollars, (unlike 2,000 dollar purses in Cosmo,) and usually these items are unique and are made by wonderful women like ourselves. The items are quirky, creative, and worth looking at, and they're not put in the magazine just so we can all look alike and match the latest fashions.

The fall issue highlights PJ Harvey, the woman's suffragist movement, and Eddie Izzard an interesting cross dresser. Now that's something you won't find anywhere else. You have to appreciate the fact that this magazine treats it's readers like real people instead of women pretending to be metropalitan upperclass snots. Nor does it focus on having a man in our lives, or rub it in our faces like these other magazines.

I would recommend you pick up at least one issue to give it a try. They can be purchased at most Barnes and Noble and Borders book stores, as well as Tower Records. Visit www.bust.com for a good time.

post comment

"The Barbie Factor" Identifying Female Sterotypes. [08 Sep 2004|04:13pm]

[ mood | awake ]

I don't think there's is anything wrong with Barbies.

I really just want to know why does Barbie seem to have "inferiority," "stupidity," and "bimbo," attatched to it? Not just men, but women as well see these symbols as the epitome of brainless womanhood.

There are many stereotypes attatched with women. Can you recall any stereotypes attached with men that degrades them? Any major toy that is that portrays them as witless or inferior human beings?

Women constantly blame men for their bias and degrading look on women. But the truth is, we do it to ourselves as well. Why do we hate Barbie so much? If anything Barbie embodies what we ourselves have been striving for, career as well as commercial sucess.

I can hear some of you chanting, "But her physical attributes drive us crazy! Barbie teaches us to strive for an unattainable perfection"!

This is true. If Barbie were real, she'd be missing half of her human antatomy, she wouldn't be able to stand and in real life, would need that plastic to look that flawless. Let's take a look at feminism. We strive to make both men and women look past our beauty or even flaws and see our inner potential. So why are we being hypocrites? Barbie in her own right is a complete sucess! She's been just about everything, a doctor, police officer (not one of my favorites), army solider, artist, teacher, palentologist and more.

I haven't even scratched the surface. Barbie is a total iconoclast. She embodies what we can't- Total self-esteem and power.

Today's magazines- Cosmopalitan (as well as Cosmo!Girl), Marie Claire, Teen, YM and more are all directed at some stupid ideals-

-You need a boyfriend.
-Having a relationship will make you happy. (They also provide tips on snagging a mate in just about every monthly edition.)
-Beauty can be bought, and you should constantly dump your money in products to attain perfection.
-You can find your "true self" and great advice through quizzes and articles.

Barbie doesn't need Ken. This is obvious. I don't even think they make Ken anymore.

How many of us can honestly say we are confident enough to live a full life without a signifgant other? Sure, she's gone "bridal," before. But she was smart enough to get a divorce and realize that she's rockin' without Ken. I think we could all use a dose of Barbie's self-esteem.

It seems that women are ashamed to be women, and instead of taking out our aggressions on something that matters, we've pretty much disowned Barbie, the idol of our childhood.

I need to point out something, Barbie doesn't make us look bad. People who think we aren't good enough as women (usually physically) have gotten those lame notions elsewhere...usually from catty women or superficial men. We must also realize that there is a lot of money to be made off of a women's insecurity.

Women spend lots of money on treatments to look smaller, fuller, blonder, younger and sexier. Maybe it's men's apathy, or maybe they're more confident about themselves, but they don't spend as time or money on their asthetics.

We need to grow past this. We are not physically a Barbie. We don't need to become the doll, but we can be whatever she has been. We can have good friends like she had, a rewarding career and we can look good without looking like her. For some, Barbie used to be an inspirational figure, but now as adults, we view her as a degrading figure for womanhood, and ourselves. We need to embrace Barbie and realize that she isn't the cause of Women's injustice- society is.

post comment

FemmeFlamingo 101- A course description. [08 Sep 2004|04:01pm]

[ mood | mischievous ]

I've started this community because I know I am a girl of many words. I am very politcal, sometimes rant-y. I know that some things cannot be said in my personal journal. This is my powerhouse. This is where the ideas go, straight from my head, to fingers, through the keyboard, to the screen, and finally reaches it's destination to your eyes. I cannot guarantee that anything discussed will reach your brain.

I would have made this a journal, but I want others to come here. I want to speak my mind, and pour my heart out. I sometimes would like to make jell-o jigglers.

There will be anything I feel like posting; links, commentaries, opinions, rants and raves. Whatever doesn't fit in the holes of the rest of my life will come here.

These will be the only words everyone can see.

post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]