I accused the President of rape and all I got was this stupid head wound

Contributed by Lindsay Hammond
blog | email

On December 3, 2002, a Texan woman filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush for harassment, assault, and rape.

Go to your computer and enter the url of your favorite search engine. Type "Margie Schoedinger" into the search field. Note the kinds of websites the search yields, and more importantly, the kinds of websites that don't come up. Note the ragtag internet forums, the unofficiated websites, the absence of even one national syndicate. No CNN, no Associated Press. Nothing.

Notice the sentences surrounding the name Margie Schoedinger: The woman whose case was dismissed by the County Clerk's Office on May 24, 2004, a year and a half after being filed. No Fox News. No Reuters. It seems nobody wants to talk about the $50 million suit against defendant George W. Bush that never went to trial, and now never will. The plaintiff died on September 22, 2003 of an allegedly selfi-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Now think about the vacuous spaces in all of the magazines and papers you've read since then, where news of Margie Schoedinger's death wasn't.

The scarcity of reporting coupled with the nature of the story make it seem like an urban legend; but every page of the lawsuit and death record are a matter of public record, and they can be accessed by anybody with an internet connection on the Fort Bend, Texas government website, located at http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/.

The issue of whether or not Bush is guilty of the acts detailed in the lawsuit seems almost negligible compared with how effortlessly the issue has slipped beneath the media's radar. It's almost inconceivable that in a political climate that demands every whisper of sexual misconduct by any public figure be placed under a microscope and scrutinized, a story of Schoedinger's magnitude has gone completely ignored by everyone except the local newspaper of the town in which she died. While a search for "Schwarzenegger" on CNN.com returns well over five stories on the first five pages about alleged harassment or lewdness, "Schoedinger" is nowhere to be found. Everybody in the country can recall the lurid details of every one of President Bill Clinton's White House transgressions, which pale in comparison to the crimes Bush was accused of.

The first impulse upon reading this story is to contest the validity of the charges, but to do so is to simultaneously miss and prove the point. The charges, as outlandish as they might seem, are impossible to argue effectively because there isn't any information available about the woman or her death. People accuse her of being mentally ill, but because there has been so little biographical information collected even after her death, it's hard to say. Statistics show that even though the number of women who use guns to commit suicide fluctuates, the preferred method is still overdosing on pills. This does not necessarily mean that it impossible for Margie Schoedinger to have ended her life with a gun, only that there exists another unexamined question in the story.

The only investigative reporting available on the internet regarding the case come from Jackson Thoreau, the last reporter to speak with Schoedinger, and a few messageboard participants who either dismiss her as unhinged or consider her the hapless victim of government conspiracy. They speculate on whether she had a valid case or severe mental disorder, and whether or not the entire thing is just a hoax that failed to capture public attention. Regardless, there remains an undeniable black hole in both conservative and liberal media with respects to the lawsuit's existence.

The implications of such a case are more far reaching than people realize. Margie Schoedinger belonged to four demographics to whom justice and the media have proven inattentive in the past. She was a woman, she was black, she wasn't rich, and she was possibly mentally ill. A woman with so many strikes against her is a prime target to be viciously violated and then ignored. Not only does the public tend to dismiss such cases as ridiculous, the system is set up to make anyone willing to align themselves with the story look like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When people are willing to excuse accusations of serious crimes on the basis they are outrageous, it makes perpetrators of outrageous crimes untouchable.

The veracity of the case will be forever unresolved, making the crux of the issue why the only attempts to resolve, or even mention it are confined to the most obscure corners of the internet and one small newspaper in a small Texas town.

The Globe and Mail reports natural birth has gone out of style

The Globe and Mail reported today that in Canada, as many as 3/4 of all births involve some sort of surgical intervention.

"C-sections, epidurals, forceps, vacuum extraction and episiotomies are all commonplace, according to a new report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information."

Scheduling a due date rather than waiting for it to come along seems like a wonderful modern convenience, but the tone of the article implies we've become overly dependent on "technology" and constantly use it to improve upon the supposed perfection of mother nature.

From the article:

"Yet, the data show that among the 330,000 births in Canada each year, the all-natural births are increasingly rare. According to the report, which was based on data from 2001:

almost one in two women receives epidural anesthesia during labour;
one in four women undergoes an episiotomy during delivery;
one in five births is medically induced, using either drugs or surgical techniques;
one in four births was by cesarean section, an all-time high;
one in six babies is delivered using forceps or vacuum extraction."

The article goes on to call the numbers "striking."

Excuse me, but why is it "striking" that a woman would opt to take advantage of safer, less painful child birthing options? The article talks about natural childbirth as if it was the kinder, gentler golden years of medicine, before this confounded "technology" came in and made women into cyborg birthing machines.

I won't go off on patriarchal dominance and its implications on medicine and the way women choose to treat their bodies, especially within the debate on reproductive freedom, but I think it is an issue here.

Sometimes I think journalists take a certain angle on an article simply because it is a common angle to take, and editors probably love the "this is how it used to be, and this is how technology has changed us in frightening new ways!" pitch. It catches peoples' attention. However, I'm betting that having a nostalgic mindset about natural childbirth is one of those luxuries in which only men indulge.

Only one country takes screaming "Oh God!" in bed literally

The United States constitution made a valiant attempt at keeping church and state comfortably separate, yet somehow (and especially under the right-wing leadership of our current commander in chief) our country still manages to make the Christian majority a national focus, and not just on the political scene. Religion has penetrated American sex lives far deeper than previously thought. A new study polled participants in 5 countries, and the United States had a whopping 39% of respondents say their religious beliefs were an important factor in their sex lives, compared to only 3% in France, 6% in Germany, 16% in the UK, and 15% in China.

So what do we have to show for nearly double the influence of religion on our sex lives compared to any other country polled?

A 50% divorce rate, frighteningly common spousal abuse, and fear of "sinful acts" that transfers into the bedroom and potentially destroys pleasure.

For all the freedom America pretends to have, it seems as though the Christian majority reigns in their own sexual freedom for the illusion of safety and promise of eternal reward.

Even more fascinating was the question of whether Americans believe that monogamy is the natural state for human beings. Only 57% of respondents agreed with the statement, even though non-monogamy is commonly considered incongruous with Christian beliefs.

Those who choose to embrace religion wholeheartedly may struggle with this issue. An all-or-nothing attitude toward the Bible and the teachings of Christianity may cause an internal struggle when it comes time to close the bedroom door - can you shut god out of any part of your life if you fully believe in Christianity? This struggle would be unnecessary, however, if Christianity (and other religions, for that matter) embraced sexuality as a naturally occurring facet of human nature and eased its grip of intense physical and emotional restrictions on the way Christians are supposed to behave when experiencing intimacy with another person.

Christians haven't closed the bedroom door to god. Christianity has closed the door to sexuality.

And the Badass Women of the Week award goes to...

Idaho natives Kerri Lippert and Barb McCall are bear trappers. That should really be enough to earn them a Badass Women award, but they actually like hunting lethal mammals.

"I've always liked horses and dogs," Lippert, 22, said while climbing through thick brush to check bear traps. "But I wanted to work with more exciting animals. Ones that could eat you."

Plus it would be pretty easy to catch a dog. Well, at least my dog, anyway.

Fear not, animal lovers. Lippert and McCall are trapping the bears for tagging and collaring for research purposes, and after the tranquilizers wear off they wake up with no more harm done than a bad bear hangover.

Scantily clad women bring attention to their own bodies... errr, the Olympics

By now, most have probably heard that several female Olympic athletes have posed in a number of recent racy photoshoots in hopes of bringing more attention to their respective sports. Five athletes grace a special foldout cover of lightweight FHM, and U.S. high jumper Amy Acuff took the plunge and posed for Playboy.

I'm torn on this issue. Part of me rants about bodily freedom, personal choices, and the right of a woman to choose her own image, especially women who are in the public sphere. Why should the perceived masculinity of athletic women not be countered and challenged by sexy photoshoot?

On the other hand, I find it brutally pathetic (of society, not of these athletes), because it puts into sharp relief the disappointing truth - women's sports still cannot get the recognition they deserve without playing on sexuality for a little "exposure."

The name game: for greater sex appeal, buy a vowel

In my neverending quest to provide relevant scientific information to help those in romantic need, I came across a recent linguistics study by an MIT grad student which attempted to prove that male and female names with certain vowel sounds made the individuals appear more attractive to the opposite sex.

"Linguist Amy Perfors posted photos of friends on the "Hot or Not'' Web rating site using different phony names each time. A clear pattern emerged from the roughly 10,000 votes cast."

The study showed that women found men whose names contained vowels formed at the front of the mouth (Ben, David) more attractive. The opposite was true for men. Males found women more attractive when they were assigned names with vowels formed in the back of the mouth (Julie, Donna).

Though the average difference in the hotness score (on a 0-10 scale) was only half a point, this slight advantage could prove invaluable when last call rolls around and you're able to mutter seductively that your name is Lucy instead of Mildred or Gertrude. But ladies, to be fair, is he going to remember your name anyway?

The business of attraction is long and complex, and the way your name rolls off the tongue, so to speak, could not possibly be more than a fractional component of sex appeal. If nothing else, linguistics has at least provided you with one more way to blame your parents in therapy for a dismal dating life.

Talking book to be distributed to Afghan women to teach them about health

The United States Health and Human Services Department has teamed up with popular educational children's toy maker Leapfrog to design and create a "talking book" to teach illiterate Afghan women about health, according to Reuters.

If you're not familiar with Leapfrog's products, the company creates educational toys that encorporate technology with traditional learning methods like counting, reciting and memorization, using electronic visual and auditory clues to help kids learn.

Afghan's infant mortality rate is one of the highest in the world, and maternal mortality rates are not far behind. HHS believes that distributing the books will help women take better care of themselves during and after pregnancy, and provide information about infant care.

"The books, which play recorded information when touched with a pen, will provide information on diet, childhood immunization, pregnancy, breast-feeding, sanitation and clean water, treating injuries and burns, and preventing disease."

HHS has set the initial distribution goal at 2,000 books, and the longterm goal at 20,000. The talking books will be distributed in two languages commonly spoken in the region.

The govenment's willingness to embrace technology as a solution to a difficult problem is a positive step. However, after having bombed Afghanistan into a wasteland, distributing books on cleanliness, immunizations, sanitation and clean water is almost cruel. They might as well have a talking book tell Afghani women that they need to fly to the moon and back. What is the point of providing a technologically advanced (relatively speaking) instruction manual for things that the majority of Afghani women don't (and likely won't ever) have access to?

Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide this information, why not pour that money into more immunization clinics, women's health clinics, and other aid programs to actually help these women, instead of just letting them listen to a story about all the things they should be doing to keep themselves and their children healthy?

Of course, it is worth noting that this administration has not lifted a finger to provide funding for programs important to women in this country. Abortion rights have been scaled back whenever possible, partial birth abortion has been banned outright, and funding for important programs for working mothers has been cut.

Just like Afghanis, women in this country don't want to be told what it is they should be doing. They need some help actually doing it.

Will NASCAR dads really affect the race?

As the presidential election draws near, speculation on which voter demographic will turn the election becomes a popular sport in the press and at campaign headquarters. Every year a new tagline is crafted in newspaper board rooms - soccer moms, waitress moms - this year, the target is NASCAR dads.

NASCAR dads? Bush has to campaign for NASCAR dads? Aren't these exactly the kind of people that already support him no-questions-asked?

The Boston Globe suspects, however, that a far less flashy group will be the one to turn the tides this November: single women.

Not "urban moms" or "corporate dads" - just single moms. Women who are under 65 and are single, widowed, divorced, or never married are being carefully observed by both sides of the political fence.

Of course, with hard hitting polls like the one mentioned in my last blog entry, it's clear that Kerry needs to appear more worthy of keeping secrets and Bush needs to get to a Starbucks immediately in order to win over the single female demographic.

However, just in case those brilliant marketing ploys don't work, maybe the candidates should consider addressing issues that all women (statistically) find important, such as increased funding for childcare programs that enable mothers to work, increased funding for programs like CHIP and other child health care initiatives, decreased costs of higher education and professional programs, and focus on retirement plans for single women.

The press also needs to ask itself if NASCAR dads are really the powerful force that will turn the election, or whether it just sounds good in the papers. Traditionally, the catchphrase demographic has been spotlighted because of its general flexibility - it is usually implied that candidates should pander more strongly to the selected group because it is comprised of a large number of willing yet undecided voters.

Doesn't it seem as though most NASCAR dads have probably already made up their minds?

Lifetime Television continues to trivialize women's issues by polling women about secrets, lattes

An article in the Chicago Sun-Times online edition today quoted a national phone poll conducted by sugar-sweet cable television network Lifetime. The poll surveyed 1,000 women to get a feel for their impressions of the president and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.

The poll, according to the Chicago Sun-Times article, was meant to "capture the political pulse."

In a move none too surprising from a network whose idea of what women like to watch on TV has become a late night stand-up comedy punch line, the poll addressed issues that were pointless at best, and completely moronic at worst.

Key questions included whether either president Bush or Sen. Kerry was more likely to know the cost of an MP3 player or a commerially prepared latte, and which political leader would she rather trust with a secret?

I find it extremely hard to believe that a poll geared towards men, or even one that hoped to appear gender unbiased, would ask such inane and irrelevant questions.

Any women phoned in this poll should have felt insulted to be asked questions that clearly have so little relevance to the actual political issues being debated on the national podium. It is a constant disappointment to know that cable TV has unlimited possibilities for providing relevant and exciting political commentary geared towards women, yet consistently panders to the stereotype and the status quo. Lifetime's poll assumes women will vote NOT based on a candidate's stance on health care or abortion rights, but who she'd rather giggle with over a latte.

-aeb-

Maybe he's just not wired right

Have you always thought your partner must just be missing the part of the brain that makes men able to understand you? You probably weren't too far off, according to a study recently published in the science journal Nature.

Using fruit flies as the stand-ins for human subjects, researchers found specific genes which control the fruit fly's ability to properly complete its courtship ritual, which includes actions like vibrating properly, tapping the female fruit fly, and making appropriate sounds. (It's obvious why fruit flies were an acceptable substitute). When the researchers mucked around in the genetic sequence, splicing here and dicing there, they found that a fruit fly who couldn't complete courtship rituals would never win a mate or reproduce.

Before you make your romantically challenged mate an appointment to have genes tweaked, keep in mind that a possible comparison to human behavior was merely speculation on the part of the scientists who completed the study.

Looks like the good ol' standby of classical condtioning is still the best way to train your mate to bring home flowers and whisper sweet nothings.

Did someone hear a bell?

-aeb-

Vatican perfects ability to condone and condemn in the same statement

It's no surprise that the papacy is not well known for being a champion of women's rights, and it certainly couldn't be labeled progressive by any meaning of the word.

The Vatican recently issued a statement titled "The Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World" that takes an uncharacteristically clear stance on advocating more support for women in the workplace. This is at once a relief and an insult. If the Pope had even so much as mentioned women in the workplace as a favorable idea 20 years ago, it would have been considered wild, progressive, and feminism might have rejoiced in an unlikely ally, so it is indeed encouraging that the Catholic hierarchy has finally realized women might play a more significant role in society than they originally thought. Today, however, "support for women in the workplace" sounds vaguely like a condescending offer to coddle and protect women, the fragile, doe-eyed creatures that they are, as they try helplessly to deal with the stress of being away from their rightful place in the home as caregivers and nurturers.

This could be an overreaction.

However, the document does rail against hardcore feminism, claiming that it polarizes gender issues and attempts to erase differences between the sexes.

Yes, yes it does, Mr. Pope, sir. But despite these painfully outdated and out-of-touch remarks, some have been able to glean from the document a faint hope that women might one day emerge from the deep cave of motherhood to join society.

"But what many are seeing as far more important is the Church's clear acknowledgement of women as being more than child-bearers, by stating that "women should be present in the world of work and in the organisation of society."

If your religious leader stating that you are more than just a baby factory is cause for celebration, you may want to consider a more unbiased official to be your middleman between you and God.

-aeb-

Niche dating websites now matching mates by comparing political interests

Almost everyone has encountered ads for huge online dating sites like match.com, which promise you the fantastical opportunity to "place an order for the perfect man" and have him served to you on a silver platter by evaluating your "29 levels of compatibility." Anyone who's had a slow day at work has probably even filled out the match.com questionnaire.

It doesn't ask you, though, who you voted for in the primaries. With the political climate heating up in the looming shadow of the 2004 presidential election, even those just looking for romance are starting to factor politics into the equation.

"Tom Swanson, a freelance Web designer in St. Louis, Missouri, launched SingleRepublicans.com seven months ago, because he found that eligible women tended to be liberal on the mainstream dating sites, such as Match.com and Lavalife.com. 'I was having trouble meeting people who thought the same way I was,' he said."

Those whose interest in the internet is community know that the secret to success is classifying yourself with a particular group, interest, hobby or fandom in order to meet other like-minded people. Why shouldn't politics be just another mandatory qualification on your personal application for love?

Why did Tom Swanson have difficulty finding other available conservatives in his quest for love?

It's all about the niche. Americans divide ourselves in all kinds of ways in real life, and virtual community is no different. Separating ourselves with filters and rules makes life like one giant game of Guess Who; it's just one long elimination process where the person left at the end is really just a mishmashed combination of specified qualities. Niche sites like singlerepublications.com defeat the spirit of why people look for love online in the first place.

And now, I must quote a favorite film that nails down this subject quite effectively:

"There were no examples set for me in the world of male-female relationships. And to cut oneself off from finding that person, to immediately halve your options by eliminating the possibility of finding that one person within your own gender, that just seemed stupid to me. So I didn't. But then you came along. You, the one least likely. I mean, you were a guy."
- Alyssa, Chasing Amy

Though Alyssa is referring to gender, you could fill in any other characteristic and the principle is still the same - I think people are wary of cutting their options in half by emphasizing one characteristic too much over others. That's why sites like match.com will win out in the end, even if finding that perfect Republican gay Jewish mate (exactly like you!) initially sounds like a dream come true.

Because, after all, great relationships are not always perfect matches.

A quote from Ann Richards on George W. Bush

"You know," she began, in that famous Texas twang, "for American women in a Republican majority, their president has been like a marriage that's gone from bad to worse. You know the story. The guy has a great line, he's sort of cute, he tells you that life together will be bliss, and then in a few years he's snoring on the couch while the TV blares on the fifth football game of the day and the neighbors are screaming about the yard that never gets mowed, and there's a car up on blocks in the driveway, and your household budget is just stretched to the limit, and he's spending all the money on hunting trips, a new shotgun and a camo jumpsuit, and you're standing there at the sink thinking, 'I must have been out of my mind!' So here we are, almost four years past our shotgun wedding with this White House, and like we say in Texas: Honey, it's time to split the sheets and sign the legal papers."

Teresa Heinz Kerry Vows to Promote Women's Voices

According to cnn.com, Teresa Kerry has vowed to uplift women's voices that have long been silenced by the Republican reign in Washington.

"My only hope is that, one day soon, women who have all earned the right to their opinions -- instead of being called 'opinionated' will be called smart and well-informed, just like men," she said.

It almost seems like there's a quiet resentment in her statement, perhaps from years of being called opinionated herself? CNN didn't do much to respect her hopes, however.

CNN referred to Mrs. Kerry as a "an unconventional and outspoken political spouse" as if it was something newsworthy. Calling a woman unconventional because she's outspoken is like saying that a black person is really well-spoken or a really intelligent. Both carry an underlying assumption that the qualities are worth noting because of their infrequent appearance otherwise.

So where does Teresa Kerry get this outspoken image? Apparently, she gets it from telling a wayward reporter to "shove it" when he asked her an inappropriate question about one of her previous speeches.

Political wives have always faced a strict and unyielding stereotype, just like their husbands. We recognize them as a sort of communal mother figure: kind, caring toward children, supportive, nurturing, and gentle. Male politcal personalities must remain serious, focused, strong, tough on crime, and in control at all times.

Why doesn't anyone believe that America would quickly embrace a bold and unexpected turn away from these stereotypes? Why doesn't Teresa Kerry say what she means, ignore political taglines and slogans, and talk about something realistic? Why doesn't John Kerry hire Mountain Dew's marketing team to make some wild and wacky commercials? Why doesn't he go bungee jumping?

Because it's all about being taken seriously. Problem is, America doesn't take anything seriously - one of the great strengths of our people is that nothing is above humor. So she told a reporter to shove it... I already like her more.

Trojan Man

One of my major issues with women's interaction with technology is the way that interaction is clumsily facilitated by advertising.

That being said, I think that the latex-clad Trojan Man is hilarious. However, his sexual pleasure solutions seem a bit lacking.

In one commercial, a young couple are sitting on a park bench and Sue is breaking the news to Brad that something is missing in the bedroom. Dadumdumdum! Trojan Man to the rescue! Trojan Her Pleasure Condoms! She likes the idea, he likes the idea, they agree that Her Pleasure is the best.

I'm no expert on condoms, but it seems to me that if something was missing in the bedroom, something drastic enough that needed to be discussed, then anything that could be attached to a thin latex sheath would not be drastic enough to fix it.

What I do like about this commercial is that it shows young people outside the bedroom discussing having a successful sex life, which I think is a healthy thing.

-aeb-

Eckerds pharmacist refuses to fill morning-after pill prescription for rape victim

From Reuters:

DALLAS (Reuters) - Eckerd Corp. said on Tuesday it had disciplined one of its pharmacists after he refused to fill the prescription of a rape victim seeking a morning-after abortion pill.

The pharmacist considered it a violation of morals to give a rape victim, with a valid prescription, a pill that would prevent her from getting pregnant due to the sexual assault, the company said. The incident took place on Jan. 23 at an Eckerd drug store in the Dallas suburb of Denton.

... The rape victim was able to have her prescription filled at a Walgreen's pharmacy in the area, they said.

Read the full article.

Morals getting in the way of good business? Ironically, shocking.

It's also interesting that this had never occurred before. Denton, Texas contains my own parents' distinguished alma mater, the University of North Texas, as well as Texas Women's University. How could a pharmacist in a town containing two reasonably-sized universities fail to come into contact with a prescription for the morning-after pill previously?

It could be assumed that he turned away others before her because of his "moral convictions" and they failed to complain, which is even more disturbing.

-aeb-

MADD: "Lots of guys say if a girl is drunk, it's her fault if she gets raped."

Yesterday, while researching a class project on soapbox websites that are so worthlessly designed that they fail to make any substantial argument for their chosen issue, I came across MADD online.

This website, while admirable in its aims, knocks feminism back a few decades. In its Under 21 section, MADD thoughtfully provides a section on "Alcohol Facts for Teens" which contains an article called "The Truth About Being a Teenage Girl".

This article is divided into artificially "cool" categories, with tips in each. For example...

Popularity puzzle
It may look like you have to drink to be popular, but think about it. Drinking gives you bad breath, makes your face puffy and your stomach bloated and gives you zits. How's that going to get you a date or make people like you? Not only that, alcohol is loaded with empty calories.

You have to wonder about the girl that already has a bloated stomach, acne, and bad breath. She might as well booze herself into oblivion, according to MADD, because no one will ever like her or date her.

Most appalling, of course, is the section on "Guys."

Guys
Maybe you're shy and think alcohol will make you cool. Or think a good time means drinking. But alcohol robs you of your ability to think or react. When you can't think clearly, it's easier for a guy to force you to have sex. Lots of guys say if a girl is drunk, it's her fault if she gets raped. Did you know one study of teens showed that almost half had been drinking and/or using drugs before engaging in sex that resulted in an unintended pregnancy? Not to mention things like syphilis and AIDS.

Lots of guys say if a girl is drunk, it's her fault if she gets raped? Is MADD concurring with the guys here? Lots of guys say it, so it must be true.

A woman is never at fault when she is raped, whether she has had one beer or twenty.

MADD's website is designed to control teen behavior with fear, instead of engaging teenagers in a thoughtful and logical dialogue about the negatives of using alcohol. MADD has sunk just as low as the "lame friends" who try to convince peers to drink, and MADD has just as little logical reasoning behind their argument as any 14-year-old teen trying to get his buddy to take a swig.

-aeb-