The problem is, there is never a good time to stand up and say "no," because the fear is always that we'll lose whatever ground we've gained. As I wrote recently (shortly before Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23 race), "That's what's really at the heart of this dust-up: Whether it's more important to stand for something and lose or compromise and win -- when 'winning' means installing someone who [as Kos put it] 'would strengthen the part of the Democratic caucus that is actually the problem, rather than the solution.'" In that case, the candidate with a 100 percent pro-choice voting record dropped out, and the Democrat with a much weaker record of supporting reproductive rights won. I'm supposed to see this as a victory, because a Democrat now holds the seat -- just as I'm supposed to see it as a victory that the healthcare reform bill passed the house, and never mind that little part that restricts access to abortion in unprecedented ways.

If feminists are upset that such "victories" keep coming at the expense of reproductive rights, well, that's because we just don't understand politics beyond our silly single issue! We need to listen to the reasonable, objective pragmatists who don't get all hysterical and fluttery over negotiable details like healthcare for half the population. Jill at Feministe, Ann at Feministing, and Pilgrim Soul at The Pursuit of Harpyness, among others, all reported in their respective Stupak rants that they've been harangued by men about how this isn't such a big deal, it won't screw women over any differently than the Hyde Amendment has been screwing us over since 1976, it will be stripped out before the final bill anyway, and even if it's not, the stakes are just too high to risk taking a stand for women's rights! Don't you want poor people to have insurance, you selfish bitches? Such men assume that somehow, we just don't get it, because if we did, we'd shut our big mouths already. As Jill put it on Sunday, "What's really chapping my hide today -- almost as much as the amendment itself -- is the number of 'progressive' dudes who have lectured me in the past 24 hours on How This All Works, and the number of progressive dudes who have just stayed silent."

One who hasn't, bless him, is Meteor Blades, writing at Daily Kos.

"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Overreacting." "Hysterical."

Women recognize these words all too well. They're put-downs many of them have had thrown at them all their lives anytime they raise issues about their treatment in relationships, school, the workplace or society at large.

These words and others of similar ilk have found their way into diaries and comments here at Daily Kos yesterday and today around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Calm down, little lady, is the tone. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?

Pffffffft.

Pffffffft, indeed. Because there is another side to How This All Works, which the "Just get a Democratic majority, and everything automatically improves!" camp tends to ignore: Eventually, after we've elected enough Democrats willing to trade away women's rights -- like the 64 who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment -- women will get pissed off and draw the line. And that might just be happening as we speak.

Representatives Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter, co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, have already secured over 40 signatures on a letter to Nancy Pelosi, promising, "We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law." That's enough to block it, if it gets that far. But it might not (even though, like Ann, I'm not yet holding my breath). California Sen.  Barbara Boxer is already saying, yeah, good luck getting that through the Senate -- which "is much more pro-choice than the House" -- and as Sam Stein at the Huffington Post says, "Boxer's reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a far less pro-choice lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)" Baucus admits, "I doubt it could pass." 

Meanwhile, as Dana Goldstein reports at the Daily Beast, "Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women said Monday they would oppose any final health package that includes the abortion ban, which would apply both to private and public insurance plans. And some pro-choice leaders said they expect other influential women's groups to follow suit, potentially driving a wedge through the coalition that elected President Barack Obama and brought the Democratic Party to majorities in both the House and Senate." Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, told Goldstein, "I believe, frankly, that the women's movement as a whole will go there ... I think everybody is extremely serious about this. It's been a very strong and very quick reaction. It's the feeling that you've been rolled."

Some, including me, would argue that we were rolled with like 35 years of advance warning, but still, like the proverbial frogs in a pot of increasingly hot water, we couldn't muster the motivation to jump. Or not enough of us could, anyway. Writes Meteor Blades:

About five minutes after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion forces began a war on the rights confirmed by that decision. But their molester-enabling, coathanger-selling, health-shattering, woman-hating, forced-pregnancy campaign was two-pronged, a direct assault but also an asymmetrical war, a nibble here, a nibble there.

And at every step of the way, some people who claimed they were pro-choice said that this little nibble or that little nibble wasn't such a big deal. It only affected a small group of people or it was only the case rarely, we were told. The activists who challenged these nibbles were characterized as "hypersensitive," "irrational," and "over-reacting." Not by their enemies. But by their supposed allies.

Our supposed allies who still keep trying to convince us that one more nibble won't amount to anything much. Only this time, we're not buying it. We are ready to go there. As Smeal told Goldstein, "We didn't want to make a fuss, we agreed to a compromise that was already over-generous. And then, bango! These guys go in there like gangbusters. Pelosi was held up, like by bandits. Now the women are saying, 'That's it, it's enough.'" And it's not just the women -- or just the staunchest pro-choicers -- who are fed up with Democrats who act exactly like Republicans did before their party moved so far right it landed on a different planet. Kos himself (who's taken plenty of criticism over the years, including some from me quite recently, for exhorting women to ignore the nibbles for the greater good), is reminding people today that donations to the DCCC will support Democrats who "voted for the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment," as well as anti-healthcare reform ones. Moveon.org is also going after Democrats who voted against the bill. And gay rights activists have launched a "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign, encouraging progressives "to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends." Suddenly, for a host of different reasons, progressives are sending the message that we will not support these people if they keep breaking their promises and acting against our interests.

It's an exciting moment, and there's a chance to make a real difference if this latest swell of righteous indignation doesn't lead directly to the same old shit: Some of us panic about losing a Democratic majority and start hollering at others to quit being so picky and oversensitive about our "single issues" and take one for the team. (Again. Still. Always.) If we can work together as a bona fide progressive movement, rather than a bunch of competing groups who will all ultimately settle for holding our noses and blocking the worst Republicans, we might actually force the Democrats to give us more than empty shout-outs on the campaign trail. But if some of us will sacrifice gay rights for a chance at advancing our own agendas, and others will sacrifice reproductive rights for a chance at advancing theirs, and a ludicrous number of self-identified progressives will sacrifice pretty much everything they claim to believe in, just because the words "Democratic majority" sound so much better than the alternative, then nothing will change.

So the wise, objective, pragmatic mansplainers can go ahead and tell us little ladies How This All Works one more time, but now we're telling you: We've not only heard it, we've tried it. We've tried electing "moderate" Democrats who would be obvious conservatives in any era marked less by far-right lunacy. We've tried compromising our values in hopes of taking baby steps forward. We've tried sacrificing the rights of women and every minority group under the sun, so as not to look unreasonable or oversensitive to those who resent having to share this country at all with people they find undesirable. And we've seen where it leads: "We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure."

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us? 

As of Wednesday, the album will be restricted to under-the-counter sale to those over 18 (presumably this was already the case for the special edition box set, which comes with six hot-pink dildos modeled after each of the band members' members). The band recently sparked controversy with a NSFW music video for the single "Pussy" (sample lyrics: "you have a pussy, I have a dick-ah"), which climaxes with a montage of the band members, or body doubles, having explicit porno sex. But government officials reportedly made the decision to censor the album based on the cover artwork and the sadomasochistic single "Ich tue Dir Weh" ("I Want to Hurt You"), which features the lyrics "bites, kicks, heavy blows, nails, pincers, blunt saws -- tell me what you want." (Kudos for the hint of female consent there; it's an improvement, at least, upon the cannibalistic album cover.)

Experiencing déjà vu? Just yesterday, Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote about Marilyn Manson's torture porn music video, which depicts the singer beating to death a woman who is a (literal) dead-ringer for his real-life ex-girlfriend (whom he says he fantasizes about murdering on a daily basis). Aside from a fascination with the idea killing women, Rammstein has another thing in common with Manson: Both were linked, however dubiously, to the Columbine massacre because the shooters were believed to be fans of their music (although that turned out to not be the case with Manson). In the genre of puerile, unimaginative, attention-seeking rock music, the dead woman motif seems to be experiencing a revival, so to speak. It yanked Manson out of cultural irrelevancy for a fleeting moment of media attention, and last month it helped Rammstein's album hit No. 2  in Europe and No. 13 in the U.S., a groundbreaking success for the band. Apparently dead women don't hurt record sales.

All that said, these are performers whose fame depends on their being believable social outcasts -- we'll have serious reason to worry when violence against women loses that edge.

The cellphone video (posted below) of Geisy Arruda walking through the halls of Bandeirante University in São Paulo captures the kind of walk of shame that strikes fear into the heart of every woman who has stood in front of a dressing room mirror, trying to imagine what would be said about the hemline of a piece of clothing. ("Are you there, god? It's me, Julia. Is this H&M miniskirt too short?") Arruda was forced to leave the school escorted by police, her pink minidress covered by a borrowed lab coat, as an atrium of 700 students chanted "puta, puta, puta" with vigor. (That's "whore, whore, whore" for the uninitiated.) "I was humiliated not only in school, but all of Brazil saw my videos. They tried to put cell phones in between my legs, inside my dress. This can't happen to a woman, not with me or with anyone else," Arruda told a reporter from Globo TV.

Initially, the university expelled Arruda and suspended 10 people allegedly involved in the incident. According to one of her lawyers, Nehemias Melo, the university forced her to go through a three-hour deposition, where she was asked super-relevant questions about whether or not she was sexually active. "What kind of education is provided by a university that expels a student for the way she dresses yet grants impunity to 700 other students?" Melo questioned.

Brazil's Ministry of Education immediately opened an investigation into the expulsion and gave the university 10 business days to explain fully. Quoth the university's legal counsel: "It's not the clothes. It's the attitude that Geisy had, for example of going upstairs and stopping in the middle of the hall, lifting her skirt." University representatives were quoted on Sunday in their best legalese, stating that she "was on the premises wearing inadequate garments," and that "on the day of the event, the student took a longer route [around the school] and increased her visibility."

Monday, it seems the game changed so that Arruda and the minidressed masses can breathe a sigh of relief. Accompanied by four lawyers, Arruda gave a press conference: "I felt guilty, like trash. I felt this because the university put me in that situation, of thinking that I was guilty of all of the rioting. In truth, I was very scared. I was a victim of the situation." Likely in response to investigations opened by several federal and civil organizations, the university revoked its previously "irrevocable" decision to expel Arruda. She has said she will finish the year and take her exams in order to not lose money, but will attend a different university as of the end of the school year. On Monday, a wall at the university was found marked with the words "prejudice university." I'll say.

Stereotypes about Brazilian sexual exuberance aside, it's almost unfathomable to think that one minidress could have students storming the proverbial Bastille, and pulling themselves up to high windows for a peek. Now, how is this Brazilian girl supposed to squeeze into the ruffled black miniskirt I've owned for months and never worn? Proudly is how. Still, it's a surreal, medieval and scary world out there, and a miniskirt isn't going to change that.

(Fast-forward to 0:31 to see cellphone video footage of the riot.)

Meredith Shiner and Glenn Thrush spend two pages exploring "the GOP's women problem," which is twofold: The number of female Republican candidates for office keeps dropping, and women voters stubbornly keep favoring a party that at least pretends to care about our needs (not that they're doing a bang-up job on the follow through). "Democrats," Shiner and Thrush write, "have long maintained that the Republican Party is hostile to all but the most conservative women" -- and since I take that to be not a partisan opinion but a verifiable fact, I guess I just don't get how anyone could be confused about why the GOP alienates women who are neither ultra-right-wing nor self-loathing. But apparently, many Republicans are befuddled.

They just can't understand what's gone wrong, apparently, when they even try extra hard to "emphasize the contributions of their female members" -- like Virgina Foxx, whose remarks about the healthcare reform bill began, "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country." And Michele Bachmann who, in a characteristically paranoid and nonsensical statement, recently called a teabagger protest against that bill "the Super Bowl of our freedom." And Sarah Palin, who... you get the picture.

But what about the more moderate Republican women, the ones less likely to favor "folksy" ignorance and tinfoil millinery? Well naturally, they get punished! Maine representative Olympia Snowe has been warned that she'd better bow to the hardcore conservative base instead of continuing to take a more balanced approach to serving her constituents. And Dede Scozzafava was shoved out of the race in New York's 23rd district last week because, unlike her more conservative opponent, Doug Hoffman, she believes in gay rights and reproductive freedom. (Democrat Bill Owens won the election -- with Scozzafava's support.) Says her moderate Republican friend Janet Duprey, "It has been very difficult to watch. You have to ask some of these men, why weren't they there with our Republican candidate when she could have really used our help?"

Write Shiner and Thrush:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), one of the most outspoken feminists in the House, put it more bluntly: "This is a party that doesn't respect women, a party that doesn't believe women are equal to men," she told POLITICO. "I don't think they attract women to their party," added Wasserman Schultz. "I think they repulse women."

Ding ding ding! Treating women as baby factories repulses women. Comparing having a vagina to smoking cigarettes, in terms of health insurance penalties, repulses women. (TBogg at Firedoglake: "In all fairness, you are already well compensated by no-cover Ladies Nights and two-for-one drink specials, so let's just call this even-stevens.") Opposing equal pay for equal work repulses women. Supporting companies that cover up rape repulses women. Holding up women like Foxx, Bachmann and Palin as examples of feminine greatness repulses women -- as do claims that those of us who are repulsed are ugly, jealous spinsters who are just terrified of their success. (I admit that I find their success terrifying, but not for the reasons Bachmann thinks.) How hard is this to understand?

Answer: It's not. Which makes it difficult to take Republicans seriously when they say they're interested in recruiting more female politicians or appealing to female voters in any sense except the obvious "We would like to win more elections" one. Sure, they want our votes, but not if it means demonstrating respect for us. And in fact, instead of taking even a baby step toward respect for women, they're cracking down on female politicians who won't suck up to the most conservative, anti-woman voters out there. This is the kind of problem that could be explained to them by a lolcat, let alone a human being with an iota of political savvy.

In fairness to the GOP, they have watched Americans elect plenty of Democrats who are perfectly willing to throw women under the bus, so I can see how they might get confused. But still, if they're actually looking to improve their image in the eyes of female voters? Not repulsing us would be a good start.