Undead sexist links

A few link that seem to fit with my Undead Sexist Cliche series:
•Virginia’s new ultrasound law forces women to endure having a vaginal probe thrust into them before they can get an abortion (even in the first 12 weeks). Economist Tyler Cowen explains with what he doubtless thinks is wit that since liberals believe consumers should have lots of information, they shouldn’t have a problem with it.
Of course, it’s not as if women are unaware that they’re pregnant or they wouldn’t be in an abortion clinic. And it’s not as if “informing women” mandates it be done by thrusting a blunt object into their bodies against their will (which the first link notes comes close to Virginia’s definition of rape). It’s just another variation of Rand Paul’s argument that if you believe in regulating consumer products, you should logically be in favor of banning abortions.
•I’m honestly not sure where to place this essay by James Paulos (link is not directly to him) as it seems kind of incoherent (as Roy Edroso points out at the link). His topic focuses on “what are women for?”—I think he’s using in the sense of “what are women good for?” (as opposed to “what policies are women for?) and concludes (I think) that it’s for popping out babies, as his assessment of Roe vs. Wade is that “The court’s solution was to bend to the public reality that millions of women had altered what it meant to be a woman — and what status that meaning conferred — by having or supporting abortions.”
As anyone who’s read this blog regularly knows, I think it’s perfectly fine for women to change the definition of womanhood from “someone who risks getting pregnant every time she has sex” to “someone who can control when she has kids” is a good thing. If a woman wants to take the Pill and avoid getting pregnant so that she can focus on her career, that’s her choice (it’s also her choice if she wants to have 10 kids, or chance having 10 kids, of course) A depressing number of conservatives disagree, as witness the current battle against insurance coverage for contraception. As witness we have Santorum supporter Foster Freiss arguing that all women need to do to avoid contraception is keep their legs closed and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops arguing that if pregnancy is a problem, just abstain!
•James Taranto, in the Wall Street Journal, also grumbles about people who think “female sexual freedom, an essential component of sexual equality, is an unadulterated good.” He then goes on to argue that “contemporary feminism is, as we recently argued, a totalitarian ideology, by which we mean one that tolerates no divergence between the personal and the political. If you are not a feminist, you can enjoy a lifestyle of sexual freedom and also take seriously the idea that sexual freedom is bad for society. If you are a feminist, that is a thoughtcrime.” As Roy Edroso points out at the link, it’s not a thought crime as much as it is hypocrisy and bullshit—e.g., Newt Gingrich, thrice married and a serial adulterer, claiming that he’s a champion of traditional marriage (of course it could also apply to umpty-zillion men who think it’s manly to sleep around but the women they do it with are all slutty).
Nobody’s threatening to throw Santorum into a re-education center for his positions. Or Taranto. Or the Bishops. Or the Komen Foundation. A lot of feminists and other leftists (and according to Taranto, more than a few conservatives) are, however, criticizing the “nobody needs birth control, just have less sex” position—and on the right, criticizing someone is routinely equated to oppression. And the belief feminists have an iron control over media/politics/the world is one that crops up a lot too (and deserves its own blog post down the road).
Given the antiquated attitudes of Paulos, Taranto and Santorum, we’d be better off if feminists did.