Category Archives: Feminism
Yes, I will have a medium rare oppression please. With a side rack of honey glazed baby back oppression.
Meat. The tastiest oppression.
Now I dont even have to sit on public transportation with my legs apart to oppress the womynz. Just eating does that now.
It’s bacon wrapped around a turkey leg.
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
“A business where the chauvinism and woman-hating runs so deep”
and is so ingrained in their culture, that women at this establishment make 13 percent less than their male counterparts. I know of a particular bastion of male domination where the women on staff would have to work an extra 8 weeks a year just to earn the same as their male coworkers. This place is called “the White House.” – Matt Walsh
Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.
Of course, feminists would denounce such a statement of fact as a misogynistic expression of “rape culture,” but facts are facts: Alcohol is a significant contributing factor in the incidence of date rape. Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection remarks, “Never let it be said that outraged campus feminists confuse themselves with common sense,” as she highlights a Washington Post column about a recent uproar:
The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried.
A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Feministing.com. Erin Gloria Ryan, on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”
Read the whole thing. This feminist nonsense is perfectly understandable once you recognize that the whole p0int of endless ranting about the evils of the oppressive patriarchy is to absolve women of responsibility for their own failures. So the coed who starts guzzling tequila at the ATO house and wakes up the next morning sore, sticky and naked, with only vague memories of how she got that way, is not merely a victim of drunken fratboys — and we all know what deviant beasts those ATOs are, right? — but also a victim of all men everywhere throughout the course of human history. Anyone who says otherwise is just a misogynistic slut-shaming bigot.
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool,” said the sexist George Orwell.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Over at The American Spectator, Stacy McCain [tip of the fedora to Zilla][worth quoting at length]:
One of the seminal triumphs of the conservative movement was Phyllis Schlafly’s successful crusade in the 1970s that prevented ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Strange to say, Schlafly’s success has been almost entirely abandoned by conservatives who, evidently fearful of being called “sexist,” have embraced the culture of androgyny against which Schlafly rallied American women.
For years, I have sought to explain that this is why conservatives are losing — and now, appear ready to abandon altogether — the defense of traditional marriage. As I wrote in January 2009:
Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man. … This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles. To declare men and women unequal, however, puts one outside the law— you are guilty of illegal discrimination if you say that there is any meaningful difference between men and women. Yet if you refuse to argue against sexual equality, you cannot argue effectively against gay marriage, and find yourself subjected to lectures about “accessing the positive social norms”with nothing important to say in reply.
A cowardly unwillingness to confront the egalitarian myth of feminism, therefore, has crippled conservatives in their confrontation with gay-rights radicalism. The history of this intellectual surrender has seldom been examined because the conservative movement evidently does not wish to remember its former successes, which contrast so starkly with its recent failures.
Because conservatives have surrendered to the culture of androgyny, they were ill-equipped to combat the absurd “war on women” theme that emerged in last year’s presidential campaign. Rather than interrogate the fundamental assumptions of this liberal madness (i.e., that taxpayer-funded contraception is the essence of “women’s rights”), the best that Republicans could do was to answer, “But we’re for equality, too!”
Good luck with that. Feminism Lite is not a popular brand.
Because there is no longer any organized and committed resistance to the radical egalitarian demands of feminism, American society has become increasingly anti-male, a phenomenon Dr. Helen Smith describes in her new book, Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters.
One must truly pity the young fellow on today’s college campuses, where coeds are indoctrinated in misandry by Women’s Studies professors and performances of The Vagina Monologues. This deliberate demonization of masculinity is complemented by an assault on what used to be understood as the female prerogative. We can scarcely expect men to extend the traditional deference of courtesy and chivalry to militant trollops shrieking radical slogans as they march in annual “SlutWalks.”…
One could argue that the ‘traditional deference of courtesy and chivalry’ began it’s long and slow death march with the coming of the French Revolution. I do. I think Edmund Burke saw the future begin with it; he saw that it marked a disastrous turning point in the history of The West. Perhaps he would agree with me that the Revolution was the placing of the final nail in the coffin of Christendom and that the two hundred years since has been a series of hammer blows upon that nail’s head.
Here’s what Mr. Burke wrote at the time of the French Revolution:
…But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil by losing all its grossness.
THIS mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power, it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a domination, vanquisher of laws, to be subdued by manners.
But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the super-added ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns and the understanding ratifies as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion.
While we can point to many areas where Leftism has successfully caused the institutions of The West, both physical and spiritual, to implode, it is, perhaps, in the area of the Family that it has wrecked the most damage. And, as the wisdom of the ages tells us, the Family is the central core of any true civilization — certainly of the Western one and why it has triumphed in all areas over all others.
Feminism is merely one of the jump-off points for the offensive against the Family. It has helped rip it asunder. It is, by it’s core nature, anti-Family, believing as it does that the real differences between men and women and the key role those differences play in civilizing the Society, can be wished [and legislated away], as if they never existed. Once again we are confronted with the foolish belief that Human Beings can be re-engineered. Human Beings can be taught to defy aspects of their Nature, but they cannot be made to wipe their Natures from existence [this is why the Left ends-up engaging in mass murder].
Since they conceive of their ideas and schemes in the sterile laboratories of their own minds, far away from the Real World, the Left is able to fantasize, to wish into being that which, by the nature of it’s origins, is doomed to fail when applied to the world as it actually is.
The conservative believes in the Art Of The Possible, whereas the Leftist practices the Conjuring Of The Impossible.
Let me end with Mr. Burke:
On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance or in any way gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.
On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows….
Gallows that fill a vast carnival field of an Atrocity Exhibition.
From Bob Belvedere: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Women Ruin Everything: school retreat edition
A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included. Two “Band of Brothers” seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons’ lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons. A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn’t because her presence would inhibit discussion….
The woman’s son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.
This is why you cannot back down. Ever. You cannot reason with savages or reach an accommodation with them because they simply do not share your values and they do not care about anyone else. So don’t try. Not all women are savages of this sort, but every man has to be prepared to deal with female savagery by ignoring when possible and crushing it when necessary.
The school is planning a “more inclusive” event. I’ll bet the majority of the fathers who were attending the male-only event don’t show.
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama designated April 9 as National Equal Pay Day, even though 70 percent of White House staffers in the top-salary bracket were men, and male White House staffers earn on average 13 percent more than female staffers.
“To grow our middle class and spur progress in the years ahead, we need to address longstanding inequity that keeps women from earning a living equal to their efforts,” Obama said in the proclamation released Monday evening. “That is why I have made pay equity a top priority — from signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act days after I took office to cracking down on equal pay law violations wherever they occur. And to back our belief in equality with the weight of law, I continue to call on the Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.”
CNSNews.com reported on March 15 that 70 percent of White House staffers earning the maximum salary of $172,200 last year were men and 30 percent were women, according to the White House numbers posted on staff compensation. Further, men on the White House staff are paid $86,260.89 on average. Women on the White House staff are paid an average of $76,162.65. So men on the White House staff are paid about 13.26 percent more than women. Put another way, women earn 88.29 percent of what men earn.
Jessica Kennedy and Laura Kray, working out at UCLA Berkeley, are concerned about the underrepresentation of women in business schools and across corporate boardrooms in the US. This is a “problem” that must be “fixed”. Women don’t particularly want to be in biz school or stuck in a boardroom? Men would much rather be there? Too bad.
We need equality, folks! And the only acceptable definition of that term is girl-drones and boy-drones doing the EXACT SAME SHIT AT ALL TIMES EVERYWHERE. Your personal interests or inclinations are irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
Ok, all snarkiness aside, there IS a gender disparity in business, both schools and practice, and whether that is a problem that needs fixing or not, it’s always interesting to explore the reasons behind such disparities. So here is the hypothesis Jessica and Laura were testing:
Women don’t like business because they associate business with immorality and that’s unacceptable to their superior lady ethics.
Only when jobs involved making ethical compromises did women report less interest in the jobs than men. Women’s moral reservations mediated these effects. In Study 3, we found that women implicitly associated business with immorality more than men did.
Let’s start with the basic assumptions underlying the whole study:
Business = immoral
Men = business
Men = immoral
Or, in the alternate:
Women = moral
Woman ≠ business
Business ≠ moral
Either way, we begin with the assumption that WOMEN ARE MORE MORAL than men, and that this morality shows up in their reluctance to dirty their pretty little hands with the ickiness of business decision-making.
Well, the Decalog, Bushido, Mosiac, Buddist and Koranic codes were all written by women, no? Most of our laws and statutes governing morality and ethics were written by women, no? Most of the books and tracts and declarations and treatises on ethics and morality over the long history of our culture were written by women, no?
Oh, oops. No. No they weren’t. Which is not to say the ladies haven’t written some smoking books over the years. Hello, Jane Austen!
But women in general have not concerned themselves overly much with morality and ethics at the universal level. At the personal level? Oh hell yeah. Check out any junior high, anywhere, in any city, any country, anywhere on the planet.
Ladies be calling each other out on morals all the time! But codifying those morals into laws that apply equally to everyone, everywhere? Yeah, not so much.
But okay, let’s accept, just for shits and giggles, that women ARE more moral than men. According to Jessica and Laura, when women are confronted with tough decisions, like whether or not to make a cancer drug that contains a cheaper ingredient that will A) save a lot of people because it’s affordable and accessible; and, B) kill a few people because a cheaper ingredient was used, the ladies are incredibly reluctant to make the decision.
You see, at the end of the day, someone is going to have to make that decision, and when the chips fall, someone will also have to own that decision. A truly brilliant business leader will have the power to make decisions, and always have some starry-eyed lackey to blame afterwards.
Oh, boo hoo! That’s so unfair.
Welcome to life, cupcake. You don’t get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate.
Here’s another issue that sets the Moral Lady head aspinning: child labor. What if that shitty cancer drug is being made in a factory staffed largely by children? Another decision the ladies DO NOT WANT TO MAKE.
Now, having grown up on a farm where we produced virtually all of our own food, I have a very different take on the issue of child labor. You see, the way food works is that you mix some cow shit and dirt together and plant seeds and then water the little sproutlings and rip out all the bad little sproutlings that aren’t supposed to be there and the sproutlings grow into food and ripen under the sun and then ALL THE FOOD IS READY AT ONCE.
Seriously. It’s true. You have days and days and days with NO TOMATOES and then all the fucking tomatoes turn red on the same day and holy shit, what are we gonna do with all these tomatoes?
Pick them, cook them, puree them, can them.
There was no way my mom and dad could do all that by themselves, so we all pitched in. Yep, we were child laborers. All four of us. And not just us! Every kid in the county! That’s farm life, and although my parents were shitty and violent and stupid, the farming aspect of my childhood was absolutely wonderful. My fondest memories are of churning butter and baking bread and harvesting potatoes and there is nothing quite like the enormous satisfaction of knowing that you are living off the fruits of your own labor. Popping the lid off a jar of tomatoes YOU planted, YOU watered, YOU harvested, YOU cooked, YOU canned – there is nothing quite like it.
There is also nothing quite like a jar that wasn’t perfectly clean when you sealed it. The bacteria grows and grows and grows and then WHAM – the whole fucking jar explodes! Tomato grenade!
Child labor is, and has been, a fact of life for almost all of human history. Our own culture and economy evolved on the backs of child labor. Textile mills and coal pits and tanneries and chimney sweeps. We built our city with the help of kids.
The idea that childhood is a special time of life and that children should be protected from the adult world of production and labor is very, very new. And it doesn’t apply in most of the still developing world. Mr. JB and I spent our first year of married life in a rapidly developing city in China, and we have seen modern child labor up close.
Is it pretty? Not always. Lots of little shops and restaurants are family-owned businesses, and there is no question that the kids help out. While China has a technical “one-child” policy, the reality is that only people with bank accounts and tax returns can effectively be policed vis-à-vis that policy. The truly poor and the truly rich (who can pay the fines) very often have more than one child.
And those children work. Especially since only one of them, in the case of poor folks, can go to school. Is it fair? Nope. But it’s life. And that one kid who makes it through school and college and into the emerging middle class workforce takes the whole family along with him or her. The whole family rises, just as the whole family succeeded in North America, when they all worked together.
It’s the height of hypocrisy for the rich Western world to deny the developing world the same advantages they had while building their own economy. Our economy wouldn’t exist without the tremendous wealth and opportunity provided by agricultural sector. An abundance of FOOD is what made the Western world possible. It is the basis of all our success and it would not have happened without the labor of children.
Let’s go back to the idea that women are more concerned with making moral decisions in the business world. As you can see from Jessica and Laura’s work, women have no problem making decisions. They just don’t like making TOUGH decisions.
So, you’re an executive at a pharmaceutical company and you have a choice to make: produce a low-cost, accessible cancer drug that uses a cheaper ingredient that might actually kill some patients, OR produce a higher cost, less accessible drug that uses a more expensive ingredient, but that is UNLIKELY to kill any patients.
Except for all the patients who couldn’t afford the drug in the first place.
The executive has more than just one set of constraints. His first job is to ensure that the company (and by extension, all the workers) continue to exist. He needs to take care of his people. His second job is to make sure he is earning some PROFITS. That is HOW the company will survive. His third job is to produce a product that is safe, effective and sellable. And he needs to do all that with a pack of competitors snapping at his heels, ready to knock him off the top of the pile and take the lead market position.
It’s a tough call.
And that is where codified morals and ethics and laws come into play. If the FDA has approved the cheaper ingredient, then the executive would be foolish not to use it. If he doesn’t, someone else will. And that cheaper, more accessible drug will kick his more “ethical” drug onto the dirtpile of failed enterprise.
He will be out of a job and so will all his workers.
Sooner or later, someone will notice that, oh shit, that cheaper ingredient is actually KILLLING people, and the FDA will rescind its approval. Now EVERYONE has to use the more expensive ingredient. The playing field is levelled.
That’s how it works.
But knowing the rules of the game doesn’t make the game any easier to play. There is a distinct possibility that the executive will be held responsible for choosing the cheaper ingredient when he KNEW it could be lethal for some patients. He might have to face some music for that decision, and that’s where the ladies quaver.
Laura and Jessica aren’t terribly interested in the consequences of valuing morality and ethics more highly than good business decisions that keep people in their jobs and our whole society moving forward. Not surprising for some ivory tower eggheads who have probably never done a real day’s work in their lives. They would like to see some ethics training put into place, so that lady executives, when confronting the above situation, can actually refuse to use the cheaper ingredient.
And in doing so, run the risk that they destroy the whole business. Good plan.
But at least you won’t have to own your decision.
One promising conclusion from this research is that if more women do enter the business world, standards of ethics may evolve. “We need to see more women at the top,” Kray says. “I think that will change the culture of corporate America.”
Oh, you got that right. It will tie the hands of corporate North America. Boardrooms stuffed with chicken-shit ladies too afraid to make tough decisions and take responsibility for rational actions carried out in a context that has mechanisms to ensure, over time, that better and better decisions are made.
But hey, let’s not let the world’s most successful society and economy, the one that has delivered untold riches to the entire planet, keep on trucking. Let’s make everything pleasant and kind and fair and maybe put some special troughs out in the parking lot to feed our unicorns their sparkle dust.
Just be careful not to step in a big steaming pile of unicorn shit on your way to the corner office ladies.
Your superior moral decisions already stink. No need to make it worse.
Lots of love,
JB at Judgy Bitch: http://judgybitch.com/
Posted on | February 13, 2013
Monday night, after praising Jill Stanek’s reporting of this story, I found myself criticized on Twitter by Bridgette Dunlap, a law student who has a fellowship at Fordham University’s Leitner Center for International Law and Justice:
Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain
“Just a Blogger” @JillStanek does the reporting NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN won’t do! http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/02/breaking-carharts-victims-identified/ … #tcot #prolife
Bridgette Dunlap @bridgettedunlap
@rsmccain family of deceased should look into suing her for intentional infliction of emotional distress & invasion of privacy
Bridgette Dunlap @bridgettedunlap
@rsmccain family of deceased should look into suing her for intentional infliction of emotional distress & invasion of privacy
Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain
@bridgettedunlap Who inflicted “emotional distress” here? @JillStanek or the butcher who killed Jennifer Morbelli? http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/02/breaking-carharts-victims-identified/ …
OK, fine, Bridgette: Let’s have a long, ugly quarrel on Twitter where you lecture me about privacy rights and I’m forced to advocate the public’s “right to know” argument by which the New York Times justifies leaking classified national-security information.
Accuse me of disrespecting the Morbelli family’s grief, denounce me for seeking to exploit this woman’s death for the sake of politics and I will repeat what I’ve said before: I don’t care, just stop ignoring this story.
This story isn’t about me or you or Jill Stanek. This story is about an abortionist who left a woman to bleed to death. If you want to target Jill Stanek for a lawsuit, please go right ahead, Bridgette, and I’ll cover the lawsuit, because that will call attention to the shameful enormity of the bloody career of this disgraceful butcher, LeRoy Carhart.
Double-dog dare ya.
No, Bridgette, you wouldn’t dare pursue such a lawsuit, because you know as well as I do that the more Americans learn about what “late-term abortion” really means, the more they’ll be horrified to know that the United States is one of only four countries in the world — along with China, North Korea and Canada — where abortions are legal in the 33rd week of pregnancy.
This is a gruesome stain on our national conscience, and it ought to be against the law. Because you know that the truth about late-term abortion would disgust decent people, Bridgette, you’re attempting to intimidate journalists into believing (wrongly) that naming Jennifer McKenna Morbelli as the victim of Carhart’s butchery, or using a previously published photo of her is somehow unethical or illegal.
Hey, I got news for you sweetheart: I didn’t start doing this job last week, and you don’t scare me a bit.
Jennifer Morbelli’s death is now being investigated by state officials in Maryland; it is therefore a matter of public record and I defy you or anyone to argue that it is not legitimate news.
Meanwhile, your attempt to suppress the truth will only cause more people to report the truth: “Streisand Effect,” look it up.
Here’s Matt Vespa covering the story at PJ Media, and here’s Ken Klukowski reporting it at Breitbart.com. Just in case that’s not enough coverage for you, Bridgette, the U.K. Daily Mail is now on the story:
Anti-abortion activists have taken up the tragic case of a 29-year-old woman from upstate New York who died while terminating her advanced pregnancy, demanding the closing of the clinic where the procedure was performed.
On Monday, more than 150 pro-life activists gathered near the clinic in Germantown, Maryland, accusing the head of the medical center, Dr LeRoy Carhart, of being directly responsible for the death of Jennifer McKenna Morbelli last week.
‘We will not rest until this clinic is shut down and the license of LeRoy Carhart is revoked. God let it be so,’ the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said at the demonstration.
Welcome to the Information Age, Bridgette. And good luck with your career as a commissar in the Thought Police.
- Feb. 8: Doctor Death: 29-Year-Old Patient Dies After Late-Term Abortion in Maryland UPDATE: Complete Media Blackout by Feminists, Major News Organizations
- Feb. 10: Finally: Washington Post Covers Death of Woman at Maryland Abortion Clinic
- Feb. 11: Carhart Victim Identified: N.Y. Woman Sought Abortion for ‘Fetal Abnormalities’
- Feb. 11: How Many More Women Will Die Before Abortionist LeRoy Carhart Is Stopped?
- Feb. 11: Despite Death in Carhart Clinic, Fanatics Want to Open Abortion Clinic in Wichita
- Feb. 12: Media Embargo Slowly Crumbling on Jennifer McKenna Morbelli’s Death
- Feb. 12: Maryland Attorney General Investigates Abortionist Linked in Woman’s Death
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Without insurance birth control pills cost only $9 per month, Leukemia treatments are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and the last time I checked there were no religious objects to Leukemia coverage.
So she wants the federal government to trample on religious freedoms so she doesn’t have to pay $9 a month.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Planned Parenthood President: “Now We Can Count On Another Four Years Of A President Who Is An Outspoken Supporter Of Planned Parenthood”…
And dumploads of tax dollars.
(CNSNews.com) – In a letter e-mailed to supporters on Wednesday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said she was “thrilled” that President Barack Obama was reelected, because it ensures four more years of free birth control.
“After a year of relentless, outrageous attacks on women’s health and rights, I am thrilled today to be celebrating the re-election of President Barack Obama,” Richards wrote.
“Now we can count on another four years of a president who is an outspoken supporter of Planned Parenthood,” Richards wrote. “We can count on birth control with no co-pays, and increased access to affordable care.
Calling the nation’s biggest abortion provider “a voice for women’s health and rights,” Richards warned that opposition to Obamacare and its birth control and abortifacient mandate is “strong.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From Weasel Zippers
RS McCain is offering to help Democrat sluts with math problems, and the tuition? Stacy is not charging, but At $15,ooo it would still be less than the cost of that birth control you ladies want the government to pay for
The image above is one of the “e-Cards” available at BarackObama.comthat offers a phony statistical argument for ObamaCare:
Mitt Romney says he would repeal the Affordable Care Act.
So here’s a quick question:
Can I borrow $18,000 to help pay for my birth control?
Whoa! $18,000 for birth control? If that number sounds strangely large to you, join the club. Conservative college student Christine Rousselle does the math, based on the simple fact that there are 14,600 days between the ages of 12 and 52:
Because our letter-writer has been reduced to asking her mom for money, we’re going to assume that she’s not very well off and she’s a bargain hunter. On Amazon.com, one can purchase a fishbowl filled with a variety pack of 144 Durex brand condoms for $25.89. Assuming she’d use one condom per day every single day between the ages of 12 and 52, that only equals $2,624.96 for 14,600 Durex condoms. For those of you who aren’t great at math, $2,624.96 is far less than $18,000. She’d have to be using around four or five condoms a day for 40 years for that number to even approach $18,000.
Suppose our cash-strapped friend prefers to use the birth control pill instead of condoms. In 41 states, she can get the pill for $9 a month at a Target or Walmart. That totals $108 per year, and $108 multiplied by 40 is $4,320, which still winds up less than $18,000. In the nine other states, the cost per month is around $30, which reaches around $14,400 over 40 years. These figures assume that our letter-writer plans on using birth control pills over the full length of time that she is able to get pregnant.
Using birth control every single day for 40 years, a slut’s total cost is still not $18,000 in a lifetime. So even if she’s putting out like a Pez dispenser — and, after all, she’s a Democrat, IYKWIMAITYD — she’ll have plenty of cash left over for vodka and Newports.
Man , that McCain guy is a giving man!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Amazing the DNC gives this know-nothing a primetime speaking slot.
Pro-abortion activist Sandra Fluke accused Paul Ryan of supporting a bill that “would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms,” an attack on Ryan’s pro-life views.
Speaking to the Democratic National Convention, Fluke pushed her pro-abortion views saying Mitt Romney and Ryan’s pro-life views would be bad for the country.
“In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party,” she claimed. “It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
A Los Angeles high school has teamed up with Planned Parenthood in an effort to combat the number of its unplanned teen pregnancies – a unique partnership thought to be the only one of its kind, according to a profile by the Los Angeles Times.
Separate from the nurse’s office, the on-campus clinic at Roosevelt High School provides free birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screening for sexually transmitted diseases. Roosevelt is located in L.A.’s Boyle Heights neighborhood, a low-income, heavily Latino area with a disproportionately high teen pregnancy rate.
According to the Times, the partnership has been in place for several years and has been effective:
The campus began offering contraception and counseling in 1997. But in 2006, a collaboration with a local hospital ended and the school no longer had the resources to provide free contraceptives. In 2008, [nurse practitioner Sherry] Medrano said, she saw 32 positive pregnancy tests during her peak period between March 1 and June 1 – around the time of spring break and prom.
Medrano then reached out to Planned Parenthood, which now provides a medical assistant, the contraceptives and the pregnancy and STDs testing. The organization bills Family PACT, a public program that provides family planning to low-income and uninsured California residents.
In 2009, Medrano said, she saw three pregnancies during the same time period. The numbers have since climbed to about 10. Only a few parents have complained about the program since it began, she said.
Read the rest at The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
“Last week, I went on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show PoliticsNation to talk about extremism in the Republican Party. As a socially liberal Republican, this happens to be a topic I know a lot about. On the show, I told Sharpton that many Republicans treat me like a freak, especially the extreme-right members of my party. I went on to say that I don’t understand the appeal of extreme bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and the late Andrew Breitbart. That’s all I said, but it only took a few hours before my comments were posted out of context on a variety of blogs that suggested I was viciously attacking Breitbart. My Twitter feed exploded with insults, including the suggestion that I should kill myself.”
– Meghan McCain, The Daily Beast, “Cut It Out, Internet Bullies!”
Let’s start here: In what sense, Cousin, are you a Republican?
Because I’m trying to think of any recent occasion in which you have actually done anything to help the Republican Party.
Nothing immediately comes to mind.
Instead, you go on TV (and write columns of insipid nonsense for Tina Brown) denouncing Republicans and conservatives as extremists.
Michelle Malkin — extreme!
Andrew Breitbart — extreme!
In fact, I think your resentment toward them is not a matter of issues or ideology, but simply the fact that the “extremists” you denounce are actually more popular than you.
You seem to be under the delusion that you are entitled to demand respect from the honest people you insult, simply because your family is rich and your father is a senator. You are a stereotype of the spoiled little rich girl who can’t understand why people don’t automatically kowtow to her whims.
So while you’re whining about people calling you a “fat pig” on Twitter, other people are actually dealing with far more serious forms of harassment and intimidation. Yet I don’t seem to recall you saying one word about the plight of Aaron Worthing, and you were notably MIA on “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.”
Your selfishness is the root of your problems, and if you had any valuable skill or talent, I’d say you were impairing your usefulness by your ill-considered antics. As it is, you’re just another obnoxious D-List celebrity bimbo, and they’re a dime a dozen.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Get That Woman out there where she belongs – cooking your dinner and looking good!
Pics from Bob over at The Camp of The Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Thanks Bob Belvedere!
Note: We posted the video a couple of days ago here on Zion’s Trumpet. You will want to see it. ZTW
Swedish minister of culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth’s participation in what the Blacks and lefties are calling a ‘racist spectacle’ in which she carved up a cake depicting a naked black woman undergoing Female Genital Mutilation has sparked outrage and prompted calls for the minister’s dismissal.
Sabuni’s comments come following Adelsohn Liljeroth’s participation in an art installation that took place at Stockholm’s Moderna Museet in connection with World Art Day on April 15th.
As part of the installation, which was reportedly meant to highlight the issue of female genital mutilation, rampant in the Muslim world, the culture minister began cutting a large cake shaped like a black woman, symbolically starting at the clitoris.
Makode Aj Linde, the artist who created the installation and whose head is part of the cake cut by the minister, wrote about the “genital mutilation cake” on his Facebook page. “Before cutting me up she whispered, ‘Your life will be better after this’ in my ear,” he wrote in a caption next to the partially eaten cake.
But images of the event, which show a smiling and laughing Adelsohn Liljeroth slicing up the cake, have caused the National Afro-Swedish Association and its members to see red and issue calls for her resignation.
“According to the Moderna Museet, the ‘cake party’ was meant to problematize female circumcision but how that is accomplished through a cake representing a racist caricature of a black woman complete with ‘black face’ is unclear,” Sabuni said in a statement.
According to Sabuni, the mere fact that the minister particiapted in the event, which he argued was also marked by “cannibalistic” overtones, betrays her “incompetence and lack of judgement”. ”Her participation, as she laughs, drinks, and eats cake, merely adds to the insult against people who suffer from racist taunts and against women affected by circumcision,” he said. “We have no confidence in her any longer.” (Give that woman a promotion)
Speaking with the TT news agency, Adelsohn Liljeroth was sympathetic to the association’s reaction, but nevertheless defended her actions. “I understand quite well that this is provocative and that it was a rather bizarre situation,” she said. “I was invited to speak at World Art Day about art’s freedom and the right to provoke. And then they wanted me to cut the cake.”
However, Adelsohn Liljeroth said the National Afro-Swedish Association’s anger should be directed at the artist, not at her, claiming the situation was “misinterpreted”. “He claims that it challenges a romanticized and exoticized view from the west about something that is really about violence and racism,” she said.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://barenakedislam.com/
‘You Picked The Wrong Bitches to Burn.’
With polls showing Mitt Romney losing ground with women voters, many
in Washington have been buzzing in recent days over Romney’s “woman problem.”
They’ve got it backward: It is Barack Obama who has the bigger problem with
When he took office in 2009, Obama’s job approval rating with
women had reached 70 percent; today it has slipped to 49 percent — a precipitous
decline of 21 points. This is why the president has been working overtime to
court the women’s vote — weighing in on whether women should be admitted to the
Augusta National Golf Club (even though nobody asked what he thought); publicly
taking the side of a female Georgetown University law student in her spat with
Rush Limbaugh; and forcing religious employers to provide coverage for
contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.
But here’s the interesting
thing: It’s not working. As these controversies have dominated the news in
recent weeks, Obama’s approval rating among women has not gone up; it has
actually declined slightly. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because country club
membership and who pays for birth control are not the issues women voters are
most concerned about…
While I do not know Ms. Rosen,being in New York I know many like her.
They are in a perpetual war against the Ann Romney-type of American woman. They are jealous and bitter, harboring a seething hatred of what the Romneys represent: a wholesome, sincere, traditional American family. They desire to be viewed as superior to those women who, by luck of the draw, were born more lovely. They finesse their rage by asserting that they will not belong to any club that would have them as a member. — Blog: The Class War The Hilary Rosens Are Waging is Far from ‘Faux’
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Last night, my hubby turned on FAUX news, you know-that station that sucks Obama’s hoo-hah. Women, women, women.. And its not bad enough that we have to hear about leftist women, but now we have to hear about their crotches, 24/7. I just had a massive hysterectomy, so this is a sore subject to me, personally.. Gas prices are through the roof, $5.09 upstate, NY, almost $4.00 a gallon here during really lean times. Unemployment is NOT at 8 whatever %, it is 14.9 if you look at the REAL numbers. We have the murderer, Eric holder walking scot-free after LYING under oath. A “Prez” who is a foreigner, waging class warfare who is pushing through one exec order after the next. The latest is the “Peacetime Martial Law” to lock all of our American asses up. And just what is the most debated subject for weeks?
I am sorry to be this blunt, but is there any other way to put this to stop the friggin madness???? There used to be a time, when America was a decent country. Women did not go onto news stations reciting the “Vagina Monologues”. And this pretend ‘war on women‘ is a lie: Trumped up to get focus off of Obamas FRAUD B.C. and GAS prices… Aren’t you sick of it?
I think of men.. How they must feel… Having to hear all of this bs about the inner plumbing of the female vagina. So many American women seem to have zero respect for men, its maddening. What in the frick type world do we live in where women who are less than men act like they are supreme to men?!