The neocon principle of debate: If it disagrees with you, maim it, kill it, or rape it

When I saw this comic, all I could think of was, hey, there's a man intimidating a woman with a knife while dictating his political views to her--not allowing her to actually be a part of the discussion. She even expresses her apprehension of his knife pointing at her with uneasy humor. It is also not lost on me that the creator utilized a man of color to be the vehicle for this implication of violence, but that's a whole other can of worms I'm not going to bring up here.

I doubt Muir intended this, but it probably came out subconsciously. It seems to me to express that the idea of health care reform (and, for that matter, any liberal ideas) are the product of silly emotional girls who need a MAN to tell them what's what, and then make sure to dominate her and show her who's boss; perhaps the knife, along with symbolizing the desire to do violence to liberals, also symbolizes the desire to use one's masculinity to dominate them through sex (regardless of whether there is consent involved, of course--even if there is "consent" in this kind of sex, it's often someone either too intimidated to say no, or someone complicit in their own oppression, which can happen for a variety of reasons).

To be a woman who is nothing without her husband

http://ahthelife.blogspot.com/2006/09/bringing-home-rebecca.html
This vomit-inducing blog post describes the "liberation" of a poor, downtrodden woman who has been a "wage slave" in an office. Her "liberators" are her family and husband, come to take her out of her job forever so that she can be a housewife. Aside from the grotesque appropriation involved in using the terms "slave labor camp" and "concertina wire" (there isn't any of either; they're being facetious, but it really isn't funny), these disturbed cultists spew out their fervent belief that women are actually not worth anything--at all--outside of how they can serve their husbands. This is not a joke, and not an exaggeration. The quote:

"Eve did not have a seperate function apart from Adam. Eve's function was defined perfectly in terms of Adam's function. When we understand what Adam was doing then we can understand why Eve was created...The purpose that God had in bringing Eve out of the side of Adam was so Adam would have a helper for his job, for his vocation...not a seperate vocation of her own."

There's no mention of Adam having no purpose without Eve, of course; he is valuable in and of himself. She's just there as a bonus for him. Isn't that nice?

Now, some people in this LJ post figured that as long as these women are happy, then it's not that big a deal, right? If what you really want in life is to be a stay at home wife and mother, and you really don't want to be working a crappy, dead end job, then you should have that choice. And I agree--women (and men, for that matter) should be able to choose to be homemakers while the spouse has a job. But the keyword here is choose. And this "women belong in the home" subculture doesn't give its women a choice. Their females are raised in a way that drills into them that they are worthless without a husband, that having a vocation of their own is an affront to their deity. They're "happy" to not have a choice because they've never been allowed to even entertain the thought that they could possibly have fulfilling careers that have nothing to do with their spouses.

In the thread here: http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/2003297.html?thread=35004257#t35004257 --when I read this comment by user pir_anha, "but compare a horrible job to a good marriage -- then the choice isn't at all clear anymore," I felt frustratingly infuriated.

The "rescued wife" in the blog entry had a job she hated, sure, but no one points out that jobs don't *have* to be horrible. However, this woman was more likely to have a job she hated because her religious upbringing didn't include a goal of becoming educated in something more fulfilling for her.

I have to wonder if women in this subculture are kept ignorant and encouraged to work miserable jobs for a while so that they actually set up the "hero husband" rescue situation. Show the little lady just how terrible it is to work for a living, and she'll cry tears of relief when she no longer has to do so--never knowing that not every job is like that, and that many women work fulfilling and interesting jobs that they love.

Growing up in a very secular household, I was encouraged to pursue my dreams, and gained the education and experience to do the kind of work that I truly love. I would be enraged if my family tried to take my work away from me so that I can worship at the altar of my husband's supposedly superior genitalia. I would leave him, leave my family, and live my own life if they pulled a stunt like this, if they dared to imply that I and the work I do had no value outside of how it glorifies my husband.

People can argue that "it's their culture," and "it's what she wants," but these women are groomed from early on for this to happen. They never had the chance to decide for themselves that they are worthwhile and can contribute meaningfully to society all on their own, regardless of their marital or motherhood status. And the very worst part is, some of them are going to have daughters of their own whose wings they'll carefully, deliberately, and smilingly clip out of "love".