Liz Trotta

As she wears her pearls and red lipstick, her hair perfectly done: a shining beacon of the 1950's housewife, Liz Trotta is a picture of well-to-do East Coast propriety. The former reporter and occasional Fox news contributor is approaching her 75th birthday with the grace of someone who has had a life of ease and success. Recently she made some interesting comments regarding "radical feminism" and the role it's playing in our modern military, a video of which can be seen here: http://jezebel.com/5887072/noted-asshat-liz-trotta-thinks-feminists-are-causing-military-rape

Now, perhaps this is simply my incorrect assessment of Ms. Trotta, but it appears to me that this elegantly aged woman has never been in combat, has never worn the uniform, has never fought along side men, or experienced the training one must undergo to hold those positions. She was a reporter during Vietnam and has seen her share of war, but only as an outsider looking in. Her views paint her as a bright example of a new agenda coming forward from Conservative Baby Boomers to revert to better times and by doing so, back-peddle 50+ years of progressive movement.  

Now, I understand, as she has not been in the military, she misunderstands the life and role of a woman in the Armed Forces. As I have worn the uniform, I have my opinions, and quite honestly, I don't really believe that women should be in roles like the infantry - I will admit, our biology is different, our physical capabilities are different, HOWEVER those beliefs are not based on an idea that women can't do those jobs, or that our biology makes us incapable, weak, or less than men. Simply put, I believe that men would have a hard time dealing with women in those positions due to their emotional weaknesses and biology, and that (most) women are simply smart enough to let the men do that work. That is not being said to diminish men, nor to insult women. I fully believe, and have seen women do amazing things, complete the most physical of tasks, and make the hardest decisions. I have seen men do the same. But I will attest that infantry just might be a job better left to the boys. *note: I know girls who would love to do it and who would rock at it*

As far as Ms. Trotta's claim that wartime rape is product of...let me pull out a quote, "...the environment of combat by definition sets up a situation where basic instincts rule. The niceties of male, female interaction fade in this arena and any scientist will tell you that testosterone rules." Rape is a product of testosterone! I mean, really, the only reason all women aren't being raped as they walk down any street in the USA is because men are able to control their basic instincts - because as soon as that goes, it's time for some raping. Thank god we have such amazing research journalists like Liz Trotta, who can definitively say that radical feminism and those crazy leftists have created an environment that begs for rape - I mean with all those women turning our manly military into a big-ol' spa party where the men are forced into mani-pedi's and rose petal facials...really, the rape is just their way of reclaiming their man-card. *note: I knew many male Marines who would choose to frequent salons for manscaping and the occasional mani-pedi after a long day of grunting and sweating in uniform*

I am simply appalled that  Fox News would allow such horrific views to be stated on their program. More than that, I'm horrified that a woman like Liz Trotta, whose life has so obviously benefited from the progression of women's rights, could be so close-minded as to think men are merely products of their hormones and that women are merely those that give life. Liz Trotta, I challenge you to investigate another Liz: Countess Elizabth Bathory - estimated victims: 600. Biology is never destiny.

Issa

Dear Representative Issa, 

Though I understand that the hearing held yesterday, February 16, 2012 was to discuss the constitutionality of Obama’s plan to have religious institutions offer contraception, I have to say that to disallow any woman from being heard in a discussion that primarily affects women’s reproductive rights is beyond ludicrous. I understand that religious institutions have a conflict of conscious regarding contraception, but as a woman I have a conflict of logical reasoning when men attempt to control my reproductive rights. Perhaps it is my own fallible “female logic”, but just because contraception is provided for does not mean it has to be used, having a religious institution offer that coverage is not the government saying that the people in that institution have to use it, only that they have it available. How could that ever be considered unconstitutional? Moreover, how would the lack of that coverage for women merely working for that institution (a hospital, university, or school perhaps) wherein the religious beliefs are being forced onto the employees/students thereby eradicating their religious freedoms and their rights to their own bodies?  I realize those female employees and students could simply find a clinic and pay out of pocket, but clinics are not always inexpensive nor are they always conveniently located. 

I find it disconcerting that the government is often using religion as a means to tell women what we should or should not do with our bodies. Unsurprisingly, it is so often men in government telling us how we should conduct our reproductive health. From defunding Planned Parenthood (one of the only affordable women’s health clinics nationwide) because they perform abortions – regardless of whether over 90% of what they do is simply women’s health screenings and providing contraception, to the creation of laws restricting our control over our bodies; government has slowly led the march back in time, eroding and minimizing women’s reproductive rights. I fear that any daughter I might have will live in a society where a man will decide the fate of her body. 

I am not saying you are guilty of this, but I am saying that in your decision to disallow women from having a voice in matters that affect us most, our bodies, you have passively consented to this form of treatment. You are lucky that as a man you will never understand the blessing and curse that is being a female: we are able to bring forth life, but we can also be forced to do so, we can also die doing so. If America truly wants to be the land of the free, where equality is paramount; all must be equal, and all must be free, even if our personal doctrines disagree.

OMG SOMEONE FAMOUS DIED!!!

Yesterday the world lost a truly great talent, the great Whitney Houston passed on to join Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, Etta James, Elvis Presley, and TuPac. Such a sad, sad day. Every American news agency is blasted with information and memorials of Ms. Houston, Facebook and Twitter are inundated with personal tributes to her from people who only knew her voice - how tragic!

Though I will recognize that Ms. Houston, like the other late but great's will be missed, I'm sure her family and friends are devastated beyond measure. But, here's what upsets me: Whitney Houston dies...everyone else is forgotten. According to statistics: 2,437,163 people died in the United States in 2009 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm), and take a moment to really look at that number. Every one of those two million, four hundred thirty-seven thousand, one hundred sixty-three deaths was that of a son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother, a friend, a loved one; some of them probably had amazing talents, were wonderful people, were kind, felt pain, had memories...and each of them are gone. 

More recently, in 2011 418 members of the United States Military died in Afghanistan (http://icasualties.org/) each of them also sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends, loved ones who put their lives on the line to fight for this country. Those 418 join the other 5,959 United States Service Members who have died since 2001 in the Middle East. Where was their overwhelming memorial in the news? Why weren't they a "trending topic" on Twitter? They willingly signed over their lives for the protection of this Country and the freedoms it represents - why aren't all of their names in lights? 

Currently, and this is hard to tap into, it is projected that, as of 1730, February 2nd, 2012:

6,619,740 people have died worldwide this year

113,000 just today

22,356 of those dead this year died of hunger 

889,746 of them were children under the age of 5 

40,242 were mothers bringing children into the world

114,820 were from Malaria - a curable disease...

Need I go on? (http://www.worldometers.info/) And sadly, every second that tics by these numbers grow. I am not trying to diminish the sadness of any death, famous or not, what I am trying to do is gain some perspective. Whitney Houston was a famous singer who graced the world with her wonderful talent, but who were those other six million, six hundred nineteen thousand, seven hundred thirty-nine souls? Is one soul worth remembering more than another? Does talent out weigh the tragedy that we each over look in the world around us? Or is it just easier to ignore these numbers? We'll pick and choose which death is the saddest. The fact of the matter is, most of us didn't know Ms. Houston or Mr. Jackson any better than we know the vast majority of those listed above. The only difference is we heard their name, listened to their music, helped make them millionaires...but the fact is that I doubt any of us knew them personally, shook their hands, had deep discussions with them. 

In my oddly skewed worldview, I believe that every death - near and far - should be considered a tragedy. Every person has some form of potential, and with each death the planet as a whole has missed out on an opportunity. Maybe before we go mourning the celebrities, we take a moment to mourn the deaths that happen everywhere, all the time. Perhaps, if we gain a little perspective, one celebrity's death wont be so much more saddening than all the deaths that could be prevented.

May all of the 6,619,740 people (and counting) rest in peace. Each and everyone of you will be missed.

A Letter To Rick Santorum

Dear Mr. Santorum,

I have been following the GOP campaign trail for some time now, and I must say, I'm getting a little upset with your theories regarding women. First and foremost let me explain that I am a 25 year old woman who served as a Military Police Officer in the United States Marine Corps, I am 6 feet tall and not built like some willowy, fragile super model, I can hold my own. I was trained at Perris Island, South Carolina with a program that mirrors the training male Marines undergo, and upon entering MP school, I trained right along side with the boys.

Though you have made many comments regarding women, women's rights, homosexuality, family, and religion, the first that I will discuss is the comment that came to light today regarding women in combat positions [http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/02/10/tsr-santorum-women-in-combat.cnn?iref=allsearch].

Now, I understand you were never willing to put your life on the line for your country and your convictions like so many other Americans have. I know that you have never experienced the camaraderie, the pride, or the challenge of being in the Armed Services. Men and women of all services train, work, and fight together everyday. The emotions that are felt towards one another are most often those of a family - brothers and sisters, and they fight to ensure the person to their left and right survives. Emotionality regarding gender is out of the question, you are fighting for yourself and the people on either side of you. Period. Having said that, I would invite you to spend a day in their shoes, training the way they do, the way I did. I invite you to drag your body through sand and mud, run miles, carry heavily weighted packs, and solve complex problems on very little food and less sleep. I welcome you to experience the true emotionality of war.

As far as your beliefs on women's reproductive rights go, and forgive me for saying so, but, when was the last time you had a uterus? When was the last time you could have been raped and left with a lifetime reminder - a piece of the rapist - growing inside of you? I mean, if you disagree with contraception and abortion that is your right, however my body is my right. You can claim that life begins at conception, but if that "life" is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite living off and within me then it is my choice. If you are against abortion, don't get one. If you're against contraception, don't use it. But, please, don't limit and punish my gender simply for having the organs that carry the fetus. They are our bodies, and carrying a fetus puts us at risk too. When science allows men to be the incubators, then you can decide for yourselves.

Now, as for your stance on gay marriage. First, how can love destroy the sanctity of marriage? 43-50% of traditional marriages end in divorce...doesn't that destroy the sanctity of marriage far more than two men in love would? Moreover, homosexuality was prevalent in many historical societies. Ancient Romans, for example, felt that women were so far below men that they should only be touched and used for procreation, out side of those events, men kept the company (very physical company, might I add) of other men, and often took a younger male as an apprentice who would often fulfill the older males physical needs. If we are going strictly by the Bible, is that nice suit of yours made of more than one type of fabric? Have you ever eaten lobster? Those are against the rules too according to your doctrine. Plus, we can forget about that whole "abortion-for-rapees" thing, because, again, according to your book, if that happens, the girl must marry her rapist (really, it's full of fun facts! Did you know we can own slaves??).

Basically, what I'm trying to tell you is that thinking before speaking is a lovely phenomenon, and researching your stance before proselytizing is a wonderful thing to do, and oh-so-educational! Lastly, if you dislike that your name has become this: "Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex", then stop acting like a bigoted, closed-minded, and arrogant politician who is only running for President to enact laws according to their religiosity - it's freedom of religion, not "Santorum's Religion as Law". 

Yours truly, 

E.C. Keehn

P.S. STOP TALKING!