28 YEARS AND WARNING SIGNALS

We are so pleased that Susan McDougal was pardoned and is no longer under the threat of returning to jail or paying that huge fine. She is a poster child for anyone who has even the slightest thought that there is anything compassionate about Republicans. You can send congratulations to: susanmcdougal@hotmail.com

The Washington Post [1/20/2001] reports: McDougal said she would continue as an advocate for women in prison, pushing for improved living conditions. She said she likely would get involved in politics. "I'll be working for any Democrat who wants to run for president," she said.

More information on Susan's past ordeal at: http://www.gendergappers.org/1998-018.htm

Recently Laura Bush answered a reporter's question on abortion. She said that they should be limited but still remain legal. The media talking heads went ga ga over that. Some said it was a clear signal that women had nothing to worry about.

We also saw another signal in the choosing of John Ashcroft as attorney general. Which one, Laura or John will have more influence on Dubya? There's no doubt in our mind since we saw another very clear signal and not one media expert or talking head has even mentioned it.

It was when the new president was congratulating his wife on a speech she gave during the inauguration festivities. As she was turning to walk away, he slapped her on the ass a couple of times -- right there on the very public stage. No doubt about it, we saw the same clip repeated on another T.V. station. In that gesture, Dubya demonstrated how little respect he had for his wife as an adult -- "Daddy's real proud of his little girl, now run along and play."

It was a clear gesture of dismissal and showed his contempt for women. But this comes as no surprise. Not too long ago he was referring to women as pussy and bragging to reporters that this was what he and his dad talked about. This was after he "got religion" too. We cited it in the URL below two years ago. http://www.gendergappers.org/1999-016.htm

Thanks to all of you who wrote to comment on the last article. The following is from one of the posts we received:

But we can and should strengthen what has been the clarion call on this issue, that just doesn't cut it when weighed against talk of "life" and "babies, and that's "choice."
      "Choice" is a weak, self-centered-appearing and ineffectual concept by comparison. ("Oh let's see, should I choose the chicken or the fish this evening...") I've been saying this for decades already, and I'm angry about being in "told you so" position. As intimated by twanda's article, we must stop talking sweetly about "choices" (even the sounds in the word are whispers!) and start talking with one voice about "keep the hell out of my body."
      And with that, I think we also need to move our polite but insistent arguments on other agendas to a discussion of what IS "pro-life" and just co-opt that damn terminology. Describe YOUR programs as "pro-life." Don't worry about fall-out. You won't alter anyone's opinions on abortion. If "pro-life" starts becoming a refrain that applies to nearly everyone's platforms, it will become meaningless.
          -- liz@gate.net

Think about it. We really don't have CHOICE now. We just have a limited permission slip from the federal government. The lifers are holding a big rally in DC today, thrilled out of their skulls that a "sympathetic administration" is now running things. They are hoping it will abort Roe v. Wade before it's 29th birthday. We've already seen their sign: Abortion is not health care. They are certainly not bashful about taking words out of our mouths to continue winning the war of words.

twanda@gendergappers.org       

2001-004

Copyright 2001 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@gendergappers.org.

G e n d e r G a p p e r s   ^{T M}