As a woman in the United States, I do see a partly unintentional cultural war on my gender everywhere I turn. However, this isn’t one orchestrated by the Romney campaign. It’s one that’s deeply embedded in our culture and fueled by the media itself, the entity which often claims to champion “women’s rights.” I can’t walk through Target anymore without being bombarded with sleek magazine covers of airbrushed women who represent our cultural expression of beauty. Magazines and television shows subliminally say to women that we are not beautiful if we don’t meet the impossible standards set by our culture. They say, “You’re not pretty enough, buy this makeup,” or “you’re not thin enough, lose 20 pounds.” In short, they’re saying “you’re not perfect enough.”

I’m sick of hearing from Cosmopolitan that I’m not beautiful or thin enough. It’s insulting and degrading. Sure, the media also places standards upon men, but they are far less restrictive. In magazines and television everywhere, women face an onslaught of superficially-based warfare.

While there has been significant pushback against the plethora of airbrushing and superficial standards for women in our culture today, it’s still present. The long term effects of these standards still weigh heavily upon women. We are told by the shiny magazine covers that we must be perfect, thin, and beautiful to be “accepted” in society. As women everywhere try to achieve these standards, we constantly come short because we are seeking something we will never achieve. The “perfect” body, face, etc. is an impossible-to-attain social construct. As a result, thousands of women struggle daily with body issues, low self-esteem, and even eating disorders. Additionally, when the image of female perfection is so superficial, women are often not taken seriously because our worth is appearance-based.

In short, “beauty” is synonymous with “ability.” I can say for a fact that it is much easier to succeed as a woman if you are considered attractive. It should not be that way. This is a symbolic statement that says women should be judged based on appearance, not merit or character. America is supposed to be a meritocracy, not a nation where image is somehow a golden ticket for success.

iving as a conservative woman in the United States is even more difficult. While the National Organization for Women (NOW) will charge into battle for liberal women like Sandra Fluke or causes like abortion and birth control, they remain silent in the face of blatant attacks on conservative women. Recently, a video emerged of union members hitting a piñata with South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s face on it because of her unease with the labor movement. NOW and other feminist groups had nothing to say on the issue. Talk about being warriors for women’s rights, huh? Then, a sexually explicit photoshopped image of conservative pundit S.E. Cupp appeared in Hustler Magazine, bashing her for her “dumb ideas” such as defunding Planned Parenthood. Hustler publisher Larry Flynt responded to the wave of complaints by defending the article and saying, “that’s satire.” Again, from feminist organizations: nothing. At least several liberal women such as Sandra Fluke have come out in S.E. Cupp’s defense. Conservative women like S.E. Cupp, Nikki Haley, and myself do not receive a defense from feminist organizations (not that we need it anyway) simply because of our political stances. It is an example of another liberal double standard. NOW and other liberal women’s groups are liberal ideologues who are pursuing a liberal agenda under the guise of gender equality.

For liberal women’s groups, the answer to the “War on Women” is taking legislative and political action to support Planned Parenthood, extend abortion, increase the distribution of birth control, etc. Once again, if that’s their weapon of choice, I don’t plan on carrying anytime soon. However, for all women, not just conservative women, there is another solution to the cultural assault on women’s images and the lack of a liberal defense. We need to be the women who are so often neglected in the media: real women. We need to be women of character who hold family values while still fighting for respect from the media. We need to be examples for our sisters, friends, and children. Gender should not determine our place in society.

Culture changes slowly, but it does change. That change begins with us. Our place should be determined not based upon the media’s impossible standards or a liberal feminist ideology. It should depend on merit. I am beautiful, but not because the media tells me I am. I’m beautiful because I value myself no matter who tells me otherwise. I’m a woman, I’m conservative, and I will not take this anymore.

Even though it’s been weeks since conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called a reproductive rights activist a “slut” and then apologized, the “war on women” has not subsided.

Good. It’s high time that women on the right side of the political aisle joined the battle. And because conservative women’s long-simmering outrage was ignited by the left’s double standard in the Rush kerfuffle, liberals have been in the uncomfortable position of playing defense.

Sure, they’ve turned to an even more aggressive offensive stance (more on that in a bit), but at the outset, they were whipsawed by the reaction of conservative women who, after suffering through years of grotesque, highly misogynistic comments from liberal celebrity pundits, finally had the opportunity to present a litany of these offensive louts’ language for all to see, saying, “Yeah, these filth-spewing commentators deserve the world’s opprobrium–we’re so glad you agree with us at last.” Ahem.

(A quick aside: Politics ain’t beanbag, and when I, and other women I know, speak of “offensive language,” we’re not talking about strong metaphors. We’re talking about language that diminishes women to their sexual natures alone, language that is a variation on either “forget her ideas, she’s one hot fox,” or, “she’s no more than a c***, so why take her seriously?”)

The reaction to conservative women’s pushback during L’Affaire Limbaugh has been amusing, to say the least. The standard liberal meme has been resurrected: liberal commentators, regardless of their offenses, aren’t equal to Rush because of his huge audience and, oh, yeah, he is the titular head of the Republican Party anyway, you know. (Tell that to the various GOP presidential candidates who won the party’s nomination despite harsh criticism from Rush.)

The audience measurement argument puts liberals in the embarrassing position of showcasing “their guys’” low audience numbers, though. Beyond what Nielsen statistics say about the appeal of liberal ideas on the airwaves, however, the question then becomes: exactly where is the cutoff that gives a commentator a pass in the use of offensive language? Is it 900,001 (Keith Olbermann could draw close to 900,000, after all.) How about 1,000,001? (Bill Maher can draw a million.) Even if liberal fellows don’t understand the absurdity of that argument, most women, who’ve ever walked past a construction site to catcalls and whistles, do.

So, now that the hypocrisy has been exposed in the Rush brouhaha, the left has loaded other missiles in their Outrage Artillery to keep the “War on Women” battle alive to their benefit. They’ve been firing off shots about how conservative men want to control women’s bodies (abortion, contraception, etc.). They are dragging out a list of state bills sponsored by conservatives that seek to either limit access to contraception or force women to undergo “invasive” testing before having abortions.

As to the contraception bills, from my knowledge these are a reaction to the HHS mandate dictating that all health plans must cover contraception and abortifacients, regardless whether the coverage violates the religious beliefs of the employers. So they are attempts, perhaps clumsy and (pardon the pun) ill-conceived, to protect First Amendment rights of free conscience. If the White House made a real accommodation with religious entities concerning these mandates, the reactionary bills would probably disappear in a snap. (And, no, the WH has made no accommodation–the same mandate language HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius advanced prior to announcing accommodations is still in the law.)

On to the ultrasound bills–there’s been one in Virginia, but they’re popping up elsewhere–proposed laws to force women seeking abortions to have ultrasounds first. I’m not keen on legislating medical practice, but I am sympathetic to the pro-life point of view, even if I don’t entirely share it.

Pro-life advocates believe that abortion is murder. And just as activists such as George Clooney can’t stand idly by while watching people be massacred in Africa, pro-life champions believe they, too, must do everything in their power to stop what they see as the slaughter of innocents.

I admire George Clooney, even without agreeing with him on all his stances, and would never disparage his well-intentioned efforts. Similarly, I admire pro-life activists, even if I don’t agree with all their approaches. Can most liberals say the same?

In fact, the left’s barrage of attacks on ultrasound bills has incensed at least one pro-choice supporter, who argues, quite persuasively, that using inflammatory language (such as “rape”) to describe pre-abortion ultrasounds is harmful to women. Since the vast majority of abortion providers do these ultrasounds anyway prior to abortions, liberals are unnecessarily alarming women about their invasiveness and diminishing their value.

But that’s the real problem with this whole “war on women” the left is using to try to score points against the right. It ignores the reality of women’s opinions and lives just to trounce political opponents. It hides behind the skirts of women, in other words, to fire shots at adversaries, seeking to damage them in women’s eyes.
The reality is that women are not of one mind on reproductive issues. Gallup polls show women fairly evenly divided on abortion, in fact, with 48 percent identifying themselves as “pro-life” and large majorities supporting some restrictions on abortions that liberals traditionally fight tooth and nail– things like parental consent laws for abortions for minor girls, for example. Ironically, I’m sure mothers who hold these beliefs would look at liberal opposition as something of a “war” on them.

But you rarely hear of these divided opinions when the High Dudgeon Industry has fired its first shots. In my cynical view, that’s because those fueling the battle aren’t really all that interested in listening to what women have to say after all…unless it can be used to defeat political opponents.

So, David Axelrod can blithely criticize Rush Limbaugh in one breath, while stammering sophistry about why Bill Maher’s one-million-dollar donation to the president’s SuperPac is okay because….well, because it’s just too darn silly to even repeat here.

Don’t be fooled, sisters. There might be a “war on women” out there, but it’s coming as much from the left who want to silence the half of American women who don’t agree with liberals on abortion policy. According to their “rules of engagement,” these women–pro-lifers or their admirers– deserve to be called any name in the misogynist’s lexicon.
______

Libby Sternberg is a novelist living in Pennsylvania. She is a past member of the Vermont Commission on Women. She runs a blog titled Center Right Side. This post originally appeared there.

Time will tell if he’s got a point.

Here’s the deal:  Obama’s poll numbers aren’t good.  Oh, the media is doing its best to spin it (with measures that seem desperate and slapdash), but the economy is still miserable (especially if you’re not too big to fail), the unemployment rate is “Down” to where the Administration said it wouldn’t go above if we passed Porkulus, and that’s through the grace of the fact that no Mullah in Iran has yet walked to the shore at the Strait of Hormuz and skipped a rock across the water, sending tankers scurrying for cover and pushing oil over $200 a barrel.  Yet.  And even so, this is the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression - largely because of Obama’s policies.

People have been cooling on “The One” pretty much since inauguration day.

And The One needs to get that enthusiasm going again.

And so what better to take peoples’ minds off their miseries and rile the (female) troops?

“Republicans want to take away your contraceptives!”

Notwithstanding the fact that, as Romney noted in December when George Stephanopoulos incongruously broached the subject in a debate, the subject has never come up in GOP circles.  Period.  It’s a non-issue to the GOP.

No matter.  The media is in lock-step behind the Administration’s meme that the GOP wants to outlaw contraception.  The theatrical “walk-out” of Democrats from Darrel Issa’s hearings was a classic bit of Goebbelsian theatre; while the useful idiots in the media (in this case, the gleefully dim Amanda Terkel at Huffpo) called the hearings “about contraception” they were in fact hearings on the constitutionality of mandating that religious groups offer contraception against their beliefs.

Catch that?  The Democrats don’t even need to hijack Republicans’ meetings themselves.  The mainstream media will do it for them, after the fact.

At any rate, that’s Obama’s message to female voters:  ”Never mind the economy; never mind the unemployment rate; never mind the fiscal catastrophe waiting for you, your kids, and their kids; and above all, don’t believe your lying ears when the GOP mentions that they’ve never said word one about taking anyone’s contraceptives away.  Look!  Boogeyman!”

Women, in Barack Obama’s world, are not just dim little dolts; they seem to think that women are intellectual slaves to their reproductive systems.

Cross-posted at Shot In The Dark

So it was when the subject of women in combat came up last week — the Obama administration wishes to expand the employment of women in such positions — and please observe the predictable response from Team Romney:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell chided Rick Santorum on Monday for expressing concerns about women serving in military combat roles.
Santorum told CNN last week that having women on the front lines could lead to a “compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”
He later said he was referring to both male and female emotions.
Either way, the remark did not sit well with McDonnell, a leading Mitt Romney supporter whose oldest daughter Jeanine did a tour of duty in Iraq.
“I like Rick Santorum a lot, I just disagree with any inference he might have made that somehow women are incapable of serving in the front lines and serving in combat positions,” McDonnell said in an interview Monday with CNN’s Kyra Phillips.
“And I base that in part on my own daughter’s own experience as a platoon leader in Iraq with 25 men working with her,” he continued. “She did a great job, as in some very risky situations, and yet endured and led and I’m proud of her. So, I just wanted to make sure people didn’t think that women aren’t capable of doing the job. And I’ve got firsthand experience in saying that.”

Governor McDonnell, you’re arguing like a liberal: Taking the conservative argument about a policy and trying to portray it as being an attack upon people.

While no one has asked or authorized me to speak on Senator Santorum’s behalf, does McDonnell wish to suggest that no one can say that deploying women in combat is bad policy without also inferring that women are “incapable of serving” in such a capacity? And I personally happen to agree that it is indeed bad policy, without any such “inference” as McDonnell tries to attribute to Santorum.

McDonnell’s argument is dishonest and, furthermore, why can’t Mitt Romney fight his own fights? Should Mitt Romney wish to pick an argument with Santorum over this issue, by all means let him do so, instead of hiding behind Bob McDonnell’s skirts. Does anyone think it enhances Romney’s reputation to deploy his proxies to make liberal arguments against a conservative rival in a notoriously liberal venue like CNN? Why are Republicans doing the liberals’ work for them?

By the way, what happened to the sense of honor for which Virginians were once so famous? Why, as recently as 15 years ago, Virginians were willing to defend their state’s fine traditions, such as the all-male corps of cadets at VMI, all the way to the Supreme Court? It is rather shocking to see the governor of Virginia thus attacking Rick Santorum in such a despicable way — and on behalf of a Massachusetts liberal!

Far be it from me, as a Maryland resident, to meddle in the internal affairs of the Old Dominion, but if I were a Santorum supporter in Virginia, I’d be outraged by McDonnell’s scurrilous and unseemly attacks on Senator Santorum’s good name. I might even be tempted to contact Governor McDonnell’s office at 804-786-2211, and tell the governor to cease his mendacious campaign of character assassination against Mitt Romney’s conservative rival. If that didn’t get results, I might go so far as to contact the Republican Party of Virginia at 804-780-0111 and ask them why they were supporting McDonnell, who has so obviously hired himself out as Romney’s hatchet man.

Well, as I say, this is the course of action that might seem incumbent upon me if I were a Virginian, concerned about the fair honor of that venerable commonwealth. Were it my privilege to call myself a Virginian, I think my cheeks would blush with shame at the very thought of the dishonorable conduct of Governor McDonnell, who has defamed a fine Christian man like Rick Santorum at the behest of Mitt Romney.

*Catch the next episode at 8pm EST on radio stations across America or by way of podcast:
20111012KMC – Radio Podcast
20111012KMCVid – Video Podcast

*Find The Kevin McCullough Show on our newest affiliate of the month:
WGCF-FM – Paducah, KY
(including the ciities of: Paducah, KY., Cape Girardeau, MO., Paris, TN., Carbondale, IL.)

ON THE KEVIN McCULLOUGH SHOW:

1. THE HEADLINE ITEMS:
The “Occupy” movement steps forward the next level. In demonstrations on Tuesday going so far as to claim that violence was necessary for genuine economic help to come about. ALSO: The latest excuse for a debate was held by Bloomberg last night, yikes. The swords were out for Cain, we’ll hear from Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. kmcradio@gmail.com

2. THE PRACTICAL DILEMMA:
A piece in the Atlanta predicts the “End of Men.” A female friend from Washington DC pointed this article out to me yesterday and today we begin a very important discussion of what the essence of this column would end up looking like. Sick of men? Think everybody else is? Your replies: kmcradio@gmail.com.

3. THE GOD THOUGHT:
“There is no second blessing or spiritual experience that can magically propel us to a state where we no longer struggle with sin. That won’t happen until we finally get to heaven. Between now and then we walk the hard road to glory.” CONTINUE: “God Thought” on facebook!

Also able to be heard via a snappy smart phone listening app for the AFR Radio Network at that same time each night 8pm EST. Download Apple’s iTunes AFR’s app here. Android and other smart phones may download here.

There is no doubt, as we discussed this morning, that the decision by Elmhurst College in suburban Chicago to include a question (even voluntary) on it’s incoming freshman registration is severely misguided.

The problems with such a decision are numerous:

1. It violates the principles of the original Christian mission of the school. This is being laughed off of course as it has been with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but it is true nonetheless.

2. It draws uneven comparisons with legitimate “minority” status that might be helpful for the college to be aware of. How many times must African Americans draw attention to the obvious that genetically disposed skin color is not comparable to the issue of desiring to sleep with someone–whatever the orientation may be.

3. It further divides a school over an issue that should be relatively invisible to the issue of learning. It further separates students one from another based on random allocations of answers on the registration.

Elmhurst is hearing today from Alumni and donors over it’s poorly thought through silliness.

Let’s hope they listen!

Statements made by the student, repeated by Joe Mirabella of the Huffington Post/Change.org were knowingly false, libelous, and have likely brought him into the very short term reality of litigation. (Mirabella and Change.org could also easily find themselves attached to the same litigation, for their roles.)

Crowther has gone a few steps further however in continuing to foment anger towards and disruption of the charities’ ability to do the charitable work they do by leaving a petition published (even though its objective was met), and now making additional blatantly false statements about fictional associations between the “Charity Give Back Group” and other organizations he finds objectionable.

In yesterday’s Christian Post, Crowther claimed CGBG had a formal association with a ministry that advocated “killing gays.”

This is a libelous, inflammatory, and heinous accusation at best. But at worst a statement intended and designed to purposefully mislead readers with the intention of causing severe harm to the Charity Give Back Group–which returns a portion of a constituent’s online purchases to a legitimate 501(c)3 of the consumer’s choice.

Based on such purposeful, dishonest, and calculated falsehoods, additional retailers are being bombarded by angry, radical, activists to discriminate against Christian charities.

Crowther’s goal seeks the complete destruction of The Charity Give Back Group by seeking the cancellation of individual retailers who participate in the program. But he is using slanderous libel, false assumptions, and fictional associations to paint the picture he needs to rile up his handful of activists.

Thus far very few retailers have made the decision in favor of Crowther’s hateful activists. Many more continue to be bombarded by them.

Ironically at least two have also made the decision to return to participation in CGBG program once it was discovered that executives were being more or less left out of the loop in the decision making process to drop CGBG.

It does not make any sense for corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Gap/Banana Republic, AT&T and others to yield to a handful of angry activists, when they all risk losing the future business of the entire Catholic and Evangelical populations of a 90% (self-identified) “Christian” nation.

The retailers are being played… like a really bad joke, by the angry activists… and they have the right to know.

As to the retailers specifically, doesn’t it make the most sense to not take sides in cultural or public policy debates? Isn’t that what government and bodies of faith are there to do? Your corporations are there to sell products and services… so do that, to everyone, equally.

Don’t pick and choose, because 13,000 names on a petition and list of angry radicals will be dwarfed by millions of faith-based, God-fearing moms, who choose to spend money in your stores, and on your web-sites.

And as to Mr. Crowther… keep checking your mailbox!

What’s the newest trend in feminism today? SlutWalks are all the rage, where women dress like sluts and proudly embrace their sluthood. This will apparently have the double effect of fighting back against blaming the victim for being raped, as well as being empowering for women — because being a slut in modern feminism is supposedly empowering. Of course, all that these SlutWalks are really doing is proving that the death knell for femisogynists is continuing to ring.

Pseudo-feminists advocating for sluthood is nothing new. Instead of being looked down upon, sleeping around is considered to be embracing sexuality. It’s healthy, empowering, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynistic anti-feminist prude (and probably a right-winger to boot!) So the comment made by a Toronto policeman that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” naturally meant that femisogynists should revel in sluthood! And while the Toronto cop’s comment may have been what kicked the event off, fighting back against victim-blaming is nowhere near the only goal of these SlutWalks. Unsurprisingly, organizers want women to be proud of their sexuality and to reclaim the word slut.

Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result.

Ah, yes, the ever-present threat of slut-shaming. Why can’t more people be supportive of sleeping around with a different random guy every night? Clearly, if more people were supportive of being a slut, there would be less rape. Or something.

So far, there have been SlutWalks in Toronto, Dallas, London, Ottawa, and Boston. There are many, many more planned, all around the world, in cities like Montreal, Orlando, Tucson, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Philadelphia. This is all to the liking of many noted femisogynist leaders. Jaclyn Friedman appeared at the Boston SlutWalk as a featured speaker. Feministing has multiple posts glowing with approval of the SlutWalk. Jill Filipovic said she was with the walkers in spirit. And Amanda Marcotte offers up the most common defense of the SlutWalks: it’s, like, supposed to be funny, you humorless prudes:

I’ve been broadly supportive of this, because it brings together two of my favorite things in the world, feminism and humor.

… Of course, since Slutwalk is built around humor, it baffles the humorless. And so defenders of Slutwalk have entered into this maddening space that is the equivalent of trying to explain a joke to the humorless, and if you’ve ever tried to do that, believe me, it may be the biggest waste of time on the planet.

Oh, I get it! Debasement of women as humor! Hilarious! And it’s progress, too. It’s just what the original feminist leaders envisioned when they were fighting for equality: the right for women to be called sluts and be proud.

In reality, there is nothing feminist about being a slut. While fighting back against the vile act of blaming the victim for being raped is certainly admirable, acting as if sluthood is something to be proud of is ludicrous. There’s nothing empowering about sleeping around or being called a slut, any more than an African-American being called the n-word could be called empowering.

And while the emotional consequences of sluthood could be debated — many women end up feeling used and depressed while others don’t — the potential for physical harm can’t be debated. Consider the facts. 1 in 5 women have herpes, and the rates of most STDs have climbed since 1997. For young girls, it’s even worse — 1 in 4 teenage girls currently have an STD. Teenage girls who have sex are also more likely to be suicidal or depressed. Clearly, being a slut is not something to be encouraged — if for no other reason than to safeguard one’s own health. But that matters not to the femisogynists — in their minds, men sleep around freely, so women should, too.

Holding SlutWalks is not empowering, and there’s nothing feminist about being a slut or being proud to be called one. The modern feminist movement keeps getting more and more out of touch. The goal now is to take a term used to dehumanize and debase women and turn it into a badge of pride, so that women can embrace their sluthood? This isn’t empowerment or liberating or feminist. It’s ridiculous and an embarrassment. If femisogynists want to know why they are becoming more and more irrelevant, these SlutWalks are a shining example.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

In response to a YouTube video of a 6-year-old girl receiving a pat-down from a Transportation Security Administration officer, Congressman Jason Chaffetz is drafting legislation that will require parental supervision during the pat-down of a child.

“They claim there is a modified pat-down for 12-year-olds and younger, but when you see those videos, you realize that just isn’t true,” Chaffetz said.

The proposed legislation would require that a parent must give their consent before a child receives a pat-down, and that the child must remain with the parent while the pat-down is performed.  emphasis mine

While the outrage continues over the pat-downs of minor Americans for “security” purposes, what is ironic about this new concern is that the parental consent/notification issues are completely dismissed and ignored when dealing with abortions.  Most recently, LifeNews reported that a 16-year old girl was sent to the hospital after a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility in Everett, Washington:

The Planned Parenthood caller, in the 911 phone transcript, says, “We have a patient bleeding. She’s 16. We just did an abortion on her.”

Hubert is very concerned about the impact this revelation has on concerns about young girls getting abortions without any parental involvement.

“This is extremely important because of a massive loophole in Washington state law which means that a minor of any age who is pregnant may get an abortion without any parental or adult protections or involvement. It could be your daughter,” he explained. “There is no need for anyone to be there with a girl while an intimidating adult at Planned Parenthood bullies them, lies to them, and manipulates them into getting an abortion that will kill their baby and, as we see here, put them in hospital, possibly rendering them permanently infertile.”

It is important to note that Planned Parenthood has not come forward to say that the girl was escorted by anyone and has not been cooperative in providing that information.

The point here is to question whether Americans have become so desensitized to girls having abortions that we direct our outrage at other more “fresh” instances–like the TSA pat-downs?  Would these same people be just as outraged if a 12- or 13-year old girl had abortion without parental consent?  Planned Parenthood has been under fire for some time, but the laws in place protect their business under the guise of health care and choice.  We all know that.  But, when do parents stand up in the states that have no laws on the books for parental consent/notification and say enough with this ruse.  Or, are they only to foot the ambulance and hospital bill after the fact?

States with no parental consent or notification laws include:  CA, CT, IL, ME, MT, NH, NJ, NY, OR, VT, WA, and Washington DC. While I am not suggesting legislation at the federal level (I’m all about states’ rights) but, it is disturbing that so much emphasis is placed on the TSA (and rightly so), and the issue of minor girls having abortions and their parents’ right to know are repeatedly ignored and challenged.

Crossposted at TMR

Tuesday night, failed radio host and liberal mouthpiece Janeane Garofalo appeared on embattled NPR’s All Things Considered to review Tina Fey’s new memoir Bossypants.

As Tim Graham of Newsbusters reports, “Garofalo spent most of the review in a rut of self-pity.” And yet, there was a comedic highpoint, albeit one that wasn’t intended by Garofalo as a joke. It was when she discussed Fey’s rather hostile impersonation of then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while still a cast member on Saturday Night Live.

Evidently in the book (which I intend to read the minute I have finished removing my own spleen with a warm spoon) Fey reflects on having become a “target of ill-founded wrath” for her Palin routines. Although Garofalo fails to mention the source of this wrath, the logical assumption is that it came from conservatives, who viewed Fey’s crude sendup as an extension of the mainstream media’s systematic effort to diminish Palin as a serious contender for a job that would place her “a heartbeat away from presidency.” (Interesting that the MSM appears never to given a second thought to the prospect of Joe Biden occupying that position or fellow dullard Nancy Pelosi being two heartbeats away.)

Anyway, the money part of Garofalo’s review occurs during her personal ruminations on Fey’s wrathful treatment:

Regrettably, it’s always been easy to marshal cultural hostility toward women, especially in politics, where double standards and misogyny tend to dominate the conversation.

So Tina Fey, in Garofalo’s world, was a victim of “cultural hostility toward women” whereas the butt of her cruel mockery—which precipitated the anger toward her—is not?

Related Articles

• Bill Maher hits new low in Palin attack: Calls her “c”-word
• NOW roasts Bill Maher’s chestnuts for tasteless Palin slur
• Bill Maher weighs in on the man with “the thinnest résumé for president” (VIDEO)
• Tracy Morgan doubles down on Palin-as-sex-object comments
• Tracy Morgan on TNT: “Sarah Palin is good masturbation material” (VIDEO)

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

The world of leftist feminist extremists was rocked to its very core this week. Seven years after founding Feministing, Jessica Valenti (one of the most well-known femisogynists) announced that she was leaving the blog she created. Besides being busy with other projects, she’s 32 now, which is like, totally old, and Feministing is only for young femisogynists. And everyone knows that 32 is practically grandma territory. And while Valenti said she would still be involved in an advisory capacity, her departure caused much sadness and sorrow among lefty feminists in the blogosphere. Here at NewsReal, though, we thought: what better time than to honor Jessica Valenti’s femisogynist legacy at Feministing?

Like most blogs being written by femisogynists, you can find the typical subjects at Feministing. They write about the glories of abortion, bash conservative women, reinforce feminist myths, and defend sluthood culture. But this post isn’t about the typical Feministing posts. This is about the ones that went above and beyond, the ones that took ridiculousness and idiocy to a whole new level.

Runner-up: Taylor Swift is a sexist anti-feminist

Most people applaud Taylor Swift. She’s a young woman who has built a career on her talent alone as a singer and a songwriter. While she’s attractive, she hasn’t used her looks or her sexuality to advance her career. Her music isn’t filled with sexual themes, she doesn’t parade around on stage half-dressed like most other pop stars, and she doesn’t carry on in public sleeping around, getting drunk, and doing drugs. In short, Taylor Swift has proven herself to be a classy, talented woman. She sings, plays guitar, writes her own songs, and produces her own music. She’s become a self-made superstar, selling over 10 million albums. You’d think feminists would cheer her, right? Well, there are different rules when you’re talking about femisogynists. And in feminazi-land, Taylor Swift is sexist. What makes her so unfeminist? Well, she writes about love, and stuff. Heterosexual love. And duh, that’s sexist!

The song is typical Taylor: true love (heterosexual, monogamous and blonde love, I should say) is tested and ultimately prevails. Despite the hardships, Taylor and her One True Love make it work and make it last and have two adorable blonde babies because their love is, like, so strong. Some observers have noted that instead of daydreaming about a prom date, Swift is now singing about a husband and father to her children, a sign that she might be attempting to grow up in the public eye without taking the “sex it up” route that aging teen starlets are so prone to. All the same, this song doesn’t deviate from her tried, tested and very popular formula.

… It can be so difficult to switch of the voice in your head that says, “this is really sexist!” long enough to watch a so-bad-it’s-good reality TV show or grind to reggaeton. There are lots of critiques to be made of Taylor Swift’s message and branding and yeah, Beyonce really did have the best music video of all time.

If Taylor Swift was more “empowered” by her sexuality or something, a la Britney Spears perhaps, would that make her less sexist? Heaven forbid she write about the things she wants to write about — they might not be Feminist Approved! After all, doesn’t she know that all things female must be approved by the fascist feminists first? What’s worse is that other girls like Taylor Swift. Young girls might be attracted to the idea of true love, a husband, and a family. How horrible! All of this because a few so-called feminists said so. Traditional love, romance, marriage? Anti-feminist! Building your own career on your terms with music based on your own thoughts and feelings? Eh, that doesn’t matter. Femisogynists demand that women pass an ideological litmus test in order to be welcomed into the club, and Swift fails — by virtue of being too traditional. It’s not about women making their own choices anymore. Their choices must be approved first.

10. Hating photo models.

Meet Daniella Sarahyba, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. A few years back, she committed the unthinkable sin of partnering with Taco Bell for a promotion allowing customers to direct her in an online interactive photo shoot. Feministing was, predictably, outrageously outraged!

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell’s hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. “Direct Daniella” has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, “What this has to do with lousy ‘Mexican’ fast food is beyond me.” Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine’s swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It’s like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

Right. A supermodel willingly participating in a promotion where men get to — gasp!! — photograph her is disgusting and sexist. Of course, one could argue that the entire point of modeling is to be photographed. So what is causing the outrage here? That your average Taco Bell customer gets to be the photographer instead of a “professional”? That a woman might be seen in a skimpy outfit? That men might enjoy seeing her in said skimpy outfit?

It’s a good thing that women have been cured of all their ills. Clearly, there are no issues troubling women around the world if this is what feminists need to focus on. Oppression in the Middle East, sharia law, stonings, honor killings… nah, that stuff is no big deal. Not when you compare it to a supermodel getting photographed on a beach. Sports Illustrated, now that’s real sexism.

9. Dress codes are meant to oppress women.

In most grown-up offices, there are things called “dress codes”. For men, this usually requires dress slacks, a button-down shirt, and depending on the formality of the job, a tie and suit jacket. For women, it’s of course more complicated. Some offices, for example, want women to wear pantyhose; others don’t. For women, the rules can be much more varied — we have more fashion choices than men do, after all. Regardless of how lenient or strict the dress code is, though, the point is the same. There’s a dress code to follow, and that dictates what is and is not acceptable to wear to work.

Typically, baring cleavage in the workplace is considered a major no-no. Not in Feministing’s world, though. For them, women should be able to dress however they damn well please, dress codes be damned!

Apparently this woman’s supervisor sent this charming note because someone had been complaining (!) about her showing a bit of cleavage. According to the sender, “as I’m currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing ‘too much’ cleavage.”

Ugh.

Here is the note being referenced:

So, this woman was apparently showing enough cleavage that it was being complained about. Her boss sends her a friendly e-mail asking her to please make sure to cover up more. And the mature, professional response from the women who claim to be all about equality is… no. Because office rules shouldn’t apply to women, especially pregnant women. This woman’s (male) boss clearly is sexist. And in typical femisogynist fashion, this makes the woman in question, who found it impossible to keep the girls under wraps, some kind of “victim.” Obviously, when a woman is pregnant there is not enough cloth on the planet to cover up her breasts, so clearly she’s being victimized by the patriarchy. Right?

Despite the demands for rules to not apply to them, women are supposed to be taken seriously in the workplace. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem possible to demand special treatment and equality at the same time — and yet somehow still expect to be treated as a professional. But then, it’s a pretty fair representation of the women at Feministing. Is it really about equality? No, not so much. What it is about is whining, keeping women as perpetual victims, and demanding special treatment.

Ah, femisogynists. Keeping women empowered by making them victims who throw hissy fits when asked to follow the same rules the rest of the world has to follow. Now there’s some real progress, right?

8. Consequences are sexist.

Last year, Rima Fakih of Michigan won the Miss USA pageant. She’s a stunningly beautiful woman, who also happens to be Muslim. This caused a small measure of controversy, but it wasn’t nearly the biggest scandal surrounding Fakih’s crowning. Shortly after winning the 2010 Miss USA title, a radio station released photos of Fakih participating in a contest… a Stripper 101 contest, that is. Some people were shocked, others shrugged their shoulders. Fakih was ultimately allowed to keep her crown and went on to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. End of story.

In Femisogynist Land, though, this was an act of terrorism — gender terrorism, to be specific.

Groggy and tired, I tossed the phone back on my nightstand and returned to my nightmare, knowing full well that unlike Ms. USA and the millions of other women in America, I get to wake up from my nightmare, whereas each day, they collectively continue to live the nightmare of not having ownership of their own bodies and sexuality, and ultimately, live in fear that at anytime, anything they do, as women, is subjected to public debate simply because their bodies are seen as public property.

Although the stories of “fallen” women – women who, society sees, acted outside of their gender roles for simply embracing their sexuality, are often treated as breaking news, they are far too common and until as Americans, we reject the notion that society is the owner of women’s bodies, more women will continue to live in fear, more young lives will be ruined, and more girls and women will be sexually assaulted and not get the justice they deserve. Until we avert our eyes from the telivision, voice our opinions and give women’s bodies back to their rightful owners, the gender terrorism that takes place through the fear thrusted upon women, will continue to take place.

… It’s a familiar world – it’s a world Sarah Palin and Elana Kagan live in. It’s a world Carrie Prejean and Rema Fakih live in. It’s a world that far too many of your friends and mine, our sisters and classmates, lovers and neighbors, continue to live in – and it’s a world we each have a responsibility to change, because for too long, too many of them have been denied the rights to simply be, the rights to dress as they wish without fear, to embrace their sexuality, get justice should they be raped, and to be respected as human beings and adults, making conscious decisions about their lives.

So the new brand of gender terrorism isn’t what rational people would call it. Women being buried alive, stoned to death, killed for family honor, female genital mutilation? Nah, that’s not terrorism. Being held responsible for participating in a stripper contest? TERRORISM!

The most ridiculous part of this story, of course, is that while this was a media feeding frenzy for a while, Fakih ultimately didn’t suffer anything. She didn’t lose her Miss USA crown. She was allowed to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. Life went on as usual for her. But even if she had faced some kind of punishment for these photos, would that classify as some kind of terrorism? Um, yeah! We live in a country where women don’t have to worry about being stoned to death, or having their genitals mutilated, or honor killings. But before you go feeling all patriotic and proud, remember that women are expected to be held accountable for their actions — actions like taking place in a stripper contest — and women should have no repercussions for their actions, ever. Right?

Rima Fakih willingly participated in this radio station contest. She chose to let herself be photographed stripping, and to an extent, it came back to haunt her. For most women, this could be considered something to learn from: think before you act, especially if you plan on a career in the public eye. Participating in stripper contests where photos will be posted on the internet of you stripping is generally considered poor judgment. Women, like everyone else, need to learn that life is simply not fair, and that there are consequences to your actions. Rima Fakih got off easy. How many bosses in an office setting would fire an employee after seeing those photos on the internet? It also should be noted that in many Middle Eastern countries, Fakih would face much worse than being fired for photos like these. But again, this is America, land of gender terrorism. Islamic extremism is just a different culture, and we shouldn’t judge.

American women live in a country where there is endless opportunity. Opportunity comes with responsibility though, and having to be responsible for one’s actions is not terrorism.

7. Female soldiers’ duty is to do whatever they please.

A little over a year ago, an Army general came under fire for banning pregnancy while deployed. Feministing partnered with the ACLU to express their outrage that soldiers would actually have to be held accountable for getting pregnant while deployed.

The pregnant servicewoman is really the canary in the mine here: Inevitably her pregnancy will be revealed and she will be punished. However, the man who impregnated her will only be punished if she turns him in. Already, according to news reports, one woman who has been punished and sent home under the policy has refused to reveal who her partner was. It is reasonable to think that many more servicewomen will refuse to turn in their fellow soldiers, thereby making this an equal opportunity policy in name only.

Moreover, this policy will eviscerate existing Department of Defense policy that protects the anonymity of sexual assault victims while ensuring that they can get the services they need. Of course, Maj. Gen. Cucolo has stated he won’t punish anyone who becomes pregnant as a result of an assault, but under his policy pregnant assault victims will have to publicly come forward in order to avoid punishment.

If we really want to help servicewomen avoid unplanned pregnancies and maintain military readiness, why don’t we ensure that birth control and emergency contraception are readily available to all servicewomen, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Currently, Department of Defense policy does not require that emergency contraception be available (it’s optional); and a recent report by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America suggests that, “due to space,” other common forms of birth control are not always available either.

It does a dishonor to the more than 200,000 servicewomen who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan to suggest that they do not take deployment seriously. To guarantee that they can continue to serve on par with men, Maj. Gen. Cucolo should make sure that his servicewomen can access the reproductive health care they need, including contraception and emergency contraception, rather than punishing them for getting pregnant.

The answer, as per usual with femisogynists, is more access to birth control and abortion. Because, you know, abstaining from sex and exercising some self-control is just way too much to ask of women. And there’s also that little nugget of truth that feminazis like to ignore so often: birth control is not foolproof. It’s not a magical get-out-of-pregnancy free card. Sometimes it fails. What then? There’s also the simple issue of fraternization — soldiers are not supposed to be sleeping together, and especially not when deployed, but you bet your buns that it happens, thus requiring this pregnancy ban to come into effect.

At the time of Feministing’s original posting on the issue, there were seven soldiers punished for pregnancy while deployed. Three were men. The one facing the harshest punishment? Male, because he was married and outranked the soldier he got pregnant. With the exception of that one soldier, the soldiers were charged with fraternization and given a letter of reprimand.

Not exactly the career-ending, anti-woman crisis they were making it out to be, huh? (But we can’t let facts get in the way of an agenda.)

This whole issue boils down to responsibility, again. Even women have to be held responsible for their actions. Considering pregnancy is not a freak accident that strikes down women at random, this would be filed under “think before you act” and “accept the consequences of your actions”.

But we already determined that responsibility is just, like, so sexist and all. Why empower women when you can keep them as perpetual victims who demand special treatment?

6. Rapists are victims of the patriarchy. Just like women.

You might wonder what kind of person would think that we’re too tough on rapists. Most people see the act of rape as an act of supreme evil — and this is one of the rare things that femisogynists and normal people can agree on. But not so fast! Rape is horrible, but at Feministing, they also have a rather… unusual… point of view: we’re just too hard on rapists these days.

I think a big part of that problem is that we demonize rapists too much.

Everyone pictures rapists as psychopaths, hiding in the bushes with knives. As feminists we’ve worked really hard to dispel that myth, explaining over and over that most rapists assault someone they know – friends, acquaintances, dates, and partners.

A big part of the reason that people aren’t catching on to what that really means is that they are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt. If their friend isn’t evil or morally corrupt, he couldn’t possibly commit sexual assault.

Some rapists are just master manipulators, and hide the fact that they are vicious predators, as evil as any real human could be. I don’t really believe in evil, and I’ve known men personally who were certainly not anywhere near it, yet still committed the horrible crime of rape. A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don’t want to be sexually assaulting women.

We need to become more effective at separating the act from a good vs. evil judgment of a person. We can’t be naive and think that having a polite chat with a rapist will necessarily stop him, but we have to acknowledge the complexities of individuals. There are a lot of men who need a lot of education, but we need to find a way to talk about rape that places the responsibility for rape squarely on the perpetrator’s shoulders without *necessarily* condemning him forever.

We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape. Rape is a terrible crime with terrible consequences, I know this personally. But when so many men think that the whole sexual assault discussion doesn’t apply to them or their friends because they aren’t knowingly, intentionally, maliciously committing sex crimes, we’re losing an audience that might actually want to change.

Just as we need a performance model of sex (as articulated brilliantly by Thomas Macaulay Millar in Yes Means Yes), we need a performance model of sexual assault. The crime is about the actions of an individual, not the goodness or evil in his or her heart.

Awwww. Rapists have hearts! AND, sometimes they don’t want to assault anyone. They just, um, do it anyways. Because they can’t help themselves. We should go easy on these poor little guys!

Of course, out here in the real world, it’s understood that someone who is willing to force a woman to have sex with him against her will is not someone with a good heart, that he actually is morally corrupt and evil. Rape is indeed an evil act. Moral relativism is at play here, and it is despicable.

You cannot separate someone from their actions. Is every rapist pure evil? No, but once you commit the act of rape, you have forever lost your ability to call yourself a good person. A good person does not commit evil acts, and rape is indeed an evil act. That someone who claims to be working on behalf of women could ever, for any reason, make excuses for rapists is disturbing indeed.

5. A feminazi-mom is a bit too interested in her daughter’s sex life.

When is a mother-daughter relationship too close? At what point are boundaries crossed?

Most people can probably come up with examples of times that their mother embarrassed them. This post from Feministing puts them all to shame. (Warning: major ickiness alert ahead.)

Darling Daughter,

You have ripened before my eyes, and I marvel at the incandescent changes. Your hormones are in overdrive, and I swear that I can hear them humming as they reshape your body and wreck havoc with your moods.

As your mother, I want your journey into womanhood to be only filed with rich discoveries and free of fear; as a woman, I know that is asking the impossible. But here is what I can offer: some advice and a very practical gift.

Sex with the right partner will be tender and fun, fast and furious, dizzying and daring. But this doesn’t happen overnight. The very important first step is self-knowledge, and that’s why this note comes attached to a vibrator. Women’s bodies are mysterious and mercurial and require unhurried exploration. I want you to fully explore your own body before you share it with someone else. Why? Because I want you to discover the wonderful point of orgasm when your mind ceases to function and the growing ripples rise and erupt into shudders that will transport you. Encode that in your memory, and take notice of how your body and thoughts gradually establish their fragile equilibrium.

Please, sweetheart, don’t settle for anything less.

When you find yourself at the mercy of inexpert fumbling (and you will), I want you to have intimate knowledge of exactly what you like and want. This will be your power. Use it gently.

I’m also giving you this gift because you are kindling, and every touch, every kiss is an incendiary spark. You will not be capable of extinguishing the desire, but a vibrator gives you a highly effective option to quench your sexual thirst. Before you engage in sex, ask yourself two questions. Do I trust this person? Does s/he make me feel good about myself?

Years ago, I was in the throes of an obsessive affair, and a very wise friend sat me down and asked me. “Would you give this man the keys and the Title to your car?” It seemed a ludicrous query. Of course I wouldn’t. I barely knew him. “And yet,” she continued, “you are willing to give him your body and your heart. Aren’t they more precious than a car?”

I have ruminated over this question many times, with many men. If I can’t exclaim “YES!” definitely and unequivocally, I slow things down. I hope you will do the same.

Too many of your friends will take huge emotional and physical risks to explore intense sexual sensations. A vibrator offers you the chance to celebrate your passion, to inject yourself with a boost of adrenaline, and build the scaffolding of your sexuality without risk or fear. Experience your own impulses and appetites first; you will have years to communicate and honor these self-truths with another.

I love you.

2009-05-31

Talking to your kids about sex? Good. Giving them vibrators and gushing about how wonderful you visualize their orgasms will be? Um, gross.

Re-read the letter above, and ask yourself: does this sound like a letter from a mother to her daughter? There’s something disturbing and almost incestuous-sounding about it. This is a woman who is a little too excited about, to use her language, the “ripening” of her daughter and the orgasms she will soon experience.

The other thing I have to wonder about is if this woman ever stopped and actually thought about her daughter. How many teenage girls would read that without feeling disturbed and humiliated? How many teenage girls would be enthusiastic about using a vibrator given to them by their mother? I doubt this ever crossed her mind as the mom lovingly crafted her erotic letter of joy over the ripening of her teenage daughter.

She got two thumbs up from everyone at Feministing, though, so who cares? She can pat herself on the back for being such a good progressive little feminist, and that’s all that matters.

4. Idolizing an an extremist who dreams of gendercide.

Valerie Solanas is a feminist extremist and an attempted murderer. She was an advocate for gendercide and wanted to create an all-female society. At Feministing, this makes her a hero.

I have been a huge fan of Valerie Solarna’s for a few years now, she is as instrumental to my radical feminism and queer theory as Beauvoir or Lorde. I am curious, for most of the people on this website tend to be more of the liberal feminist types, what do you all make of this manifesto? You don’t have to read “the whole thing”, but it’s not very long so I hope I persuade you to do so by simply saying it is WORTH reading. I’d love to hear your thoughts of shock, disgust, dismay, love, laughter, joy, and how this manifesto compares to our awful contemporary postion, as womyn…in this world.

Love, Emma Goldman

Commenters for the most part were right on board with Solanas. Some dismissed the SCUM manifesto as satire; others said it was appropriate and needed to offset “the patriarchy”. But what exactly is the SCUM manifesto? (You can read it here.) Well, SCUM stands for “Society for Cutting Up Men”. She blames all men for war, “niceness, politeness, and ‘dignity’”, and “money, marriage and prostitution, work and prevention of an automated society”, fatherhood and mental illness, prejudice, religion, prevention of conversation and friendship, ugliness, disease and much more. She says that we need to eliminate men from the planet and create an all-female society. She shot Andy Warhol, and all of this earned her the respect and admiration of notable feminist extremists like Ti-Grace Atkinson, Robin Morgan, and Florynce Kennedy.

Over forty years later, she’s still being held up as someone to be admired and looked up to in feminazi land. But somehow, it’s men who are the violent misogynists destroying our society.

3. Men are slightly less valuable than dogs.

What would the femisogynist response be if men said that all wives and mothers were useless hunks of flesh? It’s quite common to see man-bashing on the feminist left, although we’re somehow to believe that they’re after equality and that they don’t actually hate men. That’s hard to believe when you read actual femisogynist blogs, though. Take this entry, where husbands are derided as useless hunks of flesh and women are encouraged to leave not only their husbands, but their children, too.

On my Twitter feed I came across this article, from a woman explaining why she was late for work. Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning:

So where the f*ck is her husband, who presumably sired the kids in question?

Women of the world: it’s time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called “husbands” and “fathers” who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.

And by the way: don’t forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don’t be.

After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.

This post was a Feministing editor’s favorite the week that it was published, by the way. Calling all men useless hunks of flesh is not only A-OK, but in feminazi land, it’s laudable. They shout about the patriarchy and complain about misogyny, yet they have no problem whatsoever with hateful, violent rhetoric against men. It’s just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they pretend to be fighting.

Today’s feminist extremists aren’t content with equality, they want superiority. They can’t see that they’re the sexist ones now.

2. All men are monsters.

In case you men out there didn’t already know it, you all hate women. Deep down inside, you all dream about beating up and raping women. You may think you’re not a sexist product of the patriarchy, but you really are. In case you aren’t convinced, it’s all spelled out for you at Feministing.

I also know that when I affirmed for myself that I wanted to partner with women, I was taking a risk and AGAIN living in opposition to the patriarchy. How dare I not be sexually available to men! How dare I not become a man’s wife!

I am also fat, and fat-loving. This, again, is not something a man wants me to be. I take up space. I don’t apologize for my size. The diet and fashion industries, largely run by men, want women to disappear (size double zero???). I refuse. I actively resist the push for me to get smaller and be quieter.

I am also masculine, and a woman. I am not transgendered, I use female pronouns and I use my girly first name. This, I think, is the biggest of the unspoken affront to the patriarchy. This is, also, the only aspect of my identity that regularly makes me afraid. I am afraid to use public restrooms-which I have to confront as my daughter is potty-learning right now. I am not afraid to be there, I am afraid of what might happen to me when someone realizes what I am. Just this week, I followed two women into the “ladies” room, and one of them did a double take at me, then went and looked outside at the pictogram on the door. As she did that, I said, “I am a woman and I am in the right bathroom.” She of course got all kinds of embarrassed and apologetic, from which I turned away. I try to tell myself her embarrassment is not my responsibility, but my fear is about what she does with her feelings. Does she go tell her male partner about me and he takes it upon himself to correct what is wrong with me? Sometimes, I think I am being paranoid. But then another transperson is killed, and I get reminded that maybe I am not paranoid. Like I said, I am not transgendered, but my gender is certainly transgressive. And rigid gender ideas are the props of the patriarchy. If we start to push the boundaries of gender, we push at the foundation of patriarchal power. I do that, everyday, with my man panties and my men’s deodorant (as if deodorant or underwear have a gender).

But ultimately, what I do that is in opposition to the patriarchy is live, and breathe and be. Men don’t like women (there I go with that reductionist shit again). In fact, men beat, rape and control women. In some places, women’s presence outside of the home is considered obscene. In other places, the qualities that women are encouraged to have (empathy, for example) are looked at with disdain and even contempt (Michael Steele, I am looking at you!).

I know that my very existence, even if I worked at the zoo, is in opposition to the patriarchy. I might not have to defend using gendered language, but I would still be afraid of what might happen when I use the bathroom. I would still not be a man’s servicer. I’d still get pegged as a humorless, strident man-hater. I’d still get called a bitch, a dyke, a whore and a cunt. I would still fear for my sexual safety. And even so, I would still get up every day, put on my man panties and go out into the world. That audacity is how I live my life in opposition to the patriarchy, just like every woman does.

Right. Every woman has to live in fear because men are EVIL. Men beat and rape and abuse women. Not some men, not a few men. Nope, all men. Men either beat and rape women, or they wish they could.

Now, let’s just imagine that some male blog ran a feature saying something similar about women. Femisogynists would be up in arms — but spouting this kind of hateful rhetoric against men is not only allowed among feminist gender bigots, it’s commonplace. These aren’t a few fringe postings that pop up every now and then. The feminist movement once fought for equality, but thanks to sites like Feministing, it’s filled with nothing more than hypocrisy and hatred nowadays.

1. Even men who treat women well are evil.

Hatred of men is never-ending for feminazis. No matter what you do, you’ll never be good enough. Men will always be rapists and batterers — women never do anything wrong, don’t you know? — and it doesn’t matter if you think that you’re a good man or not. Everything you do is sexist, whether you know it or not.

Am I saying that all men are terrible rapists and batterers? No. Really, I am not. But just like I benefit from my white skin without knowingly doing anything actively racist, men benefit from the rape and battery of women whether they are actually rapists or batterers.

… But, if we look at misogyny as a continuum, where the far end is the extremes of rape and battery, I bet we would be hard pressed to find a man who hadn’t participated at some point on that continuum of the hatred of women. No, he didn’t rape anybody, but he likes to look at “barely legal” porn. No, he hasn’t beaten his girlfriend, but he doesn’t speak up when his buddies tell blond jokes. No, he doesn’t force anyone to watch him masturbate, but he can’t look at a woman’s face when he talks to her. No, he doesn’t demand to be served by his wife, he is even a volunteer at a rape crisis center-where he dominates every conversation and talks more than he listens.

So blond jokes equal assault, pornography equals rape, not looking a woman in the face equals forcing her to watch him masturbate, and talking too much cancels out volunteering at a rape crisis center.

It doesn’t matter if you treat women with respect, if you never rape, beat, or abuse anyone, if you volunteer to help women in crisis. You’re a violent, sexist, cruel man no matter what you do.

These posts, by the way, were not dismissed on Feministing. They were cheered and applauded. Sexist, hateful rhetoric against men is not condemned or dismissed. It’s described as beautiful, courageous, honest, and deep. It’s not only accepted, but it’s honored — because it’s fighting the patriarchy, of course.

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that there is all of this hateful, violent, anti-woman rhetoric swirling around. The answer to this, for man-hating feminists, is to sink down to that level. Rather than being the better person, women are told to lower their standards and to be just as violent and sexist towards men. The phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” is apparently not applicable in the battle against the imaginary patriarchy. They are just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they claim to be fighting, but they’ll never see that. They live in an echo chamber, where the same violent, hateful, anti-male thoughts are just bounced around over and over and over again.

Feministing proves that today’s femisogynists are not feminists at all, but angry, bitter, immature women who wouldn’t know equality if it bit them in the face. They demand special treatment, demonize men, and make women into perpetual victims. Yet they somehow can’t understand why, outside of their own little echo chamber of the femisogynist blogosphere, they have no relevance in the real world whatsoever.

This is Jessica Valenti’s legacy after seven years of Feministing. She created a community where angry, bitter women can indulge themselves in whiny overreactions, violent rhetoric against men, sexism, and constant victimhood. Tell me, how exactly does any of this help women achieve equality?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

One week later, Amanda Marcotte is right back to the playbook, this time blaming the murders committed by pro-choice abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell on conservative pro-lifers:

That shady abortion providers get patients at all is something we can safely blame the anti-choice movement for. Most doctors in this country are pro-choice, and many would like to provide abortion, but as Slate‘s Emily Bazelon demonstrated in the New York Times, the stigma of doing so makes it that much harder to do.  Good medical care costs money, but very few women seeking abortion can get coverage, in no small part because of anti-choice initiatives like the Hyde Amendment.  If you’re seeking an abortion but can’t afford it, going to a doctor who provides substandard care on the cheap is certainly going to be an attractive option.

But she goes a step farther, suggesting that women were forced to go to Dr. Gosnell because a pro-lifer killed Dr. Tiller:

These particular charges involve late-term abortion, and all I could think upon reading the news story was, “I wish these women could have gone to Dr. George Tiller,” because he was renowned for the quality of care provided at his Kansas clinic.  But sadly, that wasn’t even an option, even for those who could afford it, as Dr. Tiller’s life was taken by an anti-choice extremist in 2009.

This obviously isn’t meant to be a logical response. Dr. Tiller has been dead a year. What about the other 30+ years Dr. Gosnell ran his clinic? What about the dozens of other clinics within half an hour of his site? What about the fact that many of the abortions he performed were illegal? Here’s her final line:

When vacuums are created, we shouldn’t be surprised when they suck in a bunch of junk.

Or in the case of an abortion center, a bunch of baby body parts.

When you think of a “sex establishment”, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? If you answered something along the lines of a strip club or an adult novelty store, then congratulations — you’re a normal American. Usually, an establishment needs to actually sell sex-related goods in order to be considered a sex establishment. For the National Organization of Women, that’s just far too narrow a description of a sex store. To them, all that’s needed for an establishment to be accused of selling sex is attractive female employees — and so, of course, they’re targeting Hooters. Apparently, by hiring attractive women to work in the restaurant wearing skimpy clothes, Hooters is not only selling sex, but they’re selling sex to children. Oh, the humanity!

The rabid femisogynist leading this ridiculous charge is Patty Bellasalma, pictured above. (Does the difference in the two pictures explain her hostility towards Hooters?) Patty is the president of NOW’s California chapter, and she is just trying to look out for the children. They aren’t looking out for the womyn this time — nope, it’s for the kids.

The National Organization for Women filed complaints against local Hooters restaurants Thursday, but not for exploiting its scantily clad waitresses by subjecting them to leering and groping customers.

The subject this time was Hooters’ catering to children.

The restaurants in San Francisco, San Bruno, Sacramento and Orange County are classified as “adult entertainment” establishments but also serve minors, NOW’s California chapter said in papers filed with police and prosecutors.

What’s more, the organization said, Hooters provides child menus, high chairs and booster seats, and sells T-shirts in children’s sizes that identify the wearer as a “Future Hooters Girl.”

Patricia Bellasalma, NOW’s California president, asserted that Hooters is violating state and local laws prohibiting sexually oriented “adult” businesses from serving minors. The chain is also violating federal employment standards, she said.

Hooters’ stance on the subject is that they do not cater to children and families, but that they serve everyone who comes into the restaurant. The horror! Don’t they know that they’re selling sex to children?!

Oh, wait… they don’t. Apparently, they’re just too ignorant to understand that skimpy clothes automatically equal sex. So, of course, NOW will be campaigning to keep children away from beaches and swimming pools next, right? After all, women wear far less to the beach than any Hooters girl wears, so naturally that’s a sexual environment as well. And I guess we should also add in television, pop concerts, the mall, fashion billboards … anything else that features scantily-clad women? We can’t have children in a XXX environment, after all, and NOW’s new position is that women in skimpy clothes are obviously sex workers.

Is there really any wonder why femisogynists are so scorned in today’s America?

British feminazis recently tried to block the opening of a Hooters, complaining that Hooters is worse than Playboy. Right — a restaurant whose waitresses wear shorts and tank tops is worse than a magazine that features graphic pictures of nude women. Is the real issue here that man-hating femifascists cannot stand the idea of an establishment that — gasp!! — caters to men? Obviously, if femisogynists don’t like something, no one should be allowed to enjoy it.

And this boils down to the heart of the issue. It’s amazing how anti-choice feminazis are, considering how they claim to be such champions for choice. True equality for women means that women can choose to forge a life for themselves, whether that means being a stay-at-home mom, building a career in corporate America, or working at a place like Hooters. It isn’t something that femisogynists should have any say over, but make a choice that they disagree with and you’ll be shamed right out of the sisterhood. Dress in a skimpy outfit in a restaurant that largely caters to men, and you’ll definitely be out of the club.

What Ms. Bellasalma can’t seem to wrap her puny mind around is that parents have the choice to take their kids with them to Hooters. While no one would ever call Hooters a classy establishment, it’s not nearly as bad as NOW is trying to make it out to be. It’s a sports bar with mediocre food and attractive women wearing shorts and a tank top. Children don’t get exposed to sex at Hooters anymore than they would seeing women wearing bikinis at the beach. And while I would never buy my daughter a shirt that says “Future Hooters Girl,” I would also never try to ban other parents from doing so. Advocating for real choice means that you don’t get to dictate the choices people make, but that goes against everything that today’s modern feminazis stand for.

Nevermind that women willingly work at Hooters. Nevermind that some parents willingly patronize Hooters with their children. It’s not their choice to make — it’s NOW’s choice to make. (And you thought modern feminism was about women being able to make their own choices!)

It’s rather disturbing that femisogynists can, with a straight face, campaign so rabidly for abortion and yet somehow still claim to be fighting for the children. It’s also disturbing that an organization that claims to work on behalf of women would waste their time on something so insignificant, while continually ignoring the abuses and oppression forced onto women in the Middle East, thanks to the barbarism of sharia. Women are forced to endure beatings, oppression, female genital mutilation, and even stoning — yet the National Organization for Women is wasting its time going after an American sports bar.

And they call themselves feminists. It’s a clear example why most parents would rather take their daughters to Hooters wearing a “Future Hooters Girl” shirt than take them to a NOW rally wearing a “Future NOW Member” shirt. At least at Hooters, women can make their own choices. You can’t really say the same for the mindless sheep led by Patty Bellasalma at NOW.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”
– Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape (2008)

“Nothing catches an editor’s eye like a good rape.”
– Hunter S. Thompson, Hell’s Angels (1966)

In London today, a left-wing group calling itself “Justice for Assange” is protesting to demand the release of Julian Assange, who has been arrested on a warrant accusing the WikiLeaks founder of having committed sexual assault against two young women in Sweden.

Most of the people who want to see Assange locked up believe that the 39-year-old Australian has committed wrongs far more grievous than those allegedly suffered by these 20-something Swedish women, but it is quite often the case that serial wrongdoers are eventually jailed for relatively minor crimes.

 Al Capone finally went to prison on tax-evasion charges, you know.

Any charge that puts Assange behind bars will do just fine, so far as I am concerned. If he jaywalks, litters, smokes in a restaurant or fails to properly signal a lane-change on the freeway, lock him up and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. Assange is a menace to society — “a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda,” as Christopher Hitchens says — and I heartily approve any law-enforcement effort that would prevent him from further undermining the interests of America and her allies.

Not even my eagerness to see Julian Assange doing hard time in prison, however, can compel me to endorse the silly nonsense of feminists like Jill Filipovic.

You see, the Swedish crime for which Assange has been arrested is something akin to what we Americans would call “date rape,” except it’s even more ambiguous than that. Assange is accused of “sex by surprise” and perhaps the Swedish term loses something in translation, but in essence the two women say that while they consented to sex with Assange, the way he had sex with them somehow violated the terms of consent.

The fullest account of Assange’s alleged sex crimes was reported in August by the British Daily Mail, with all the nudge-nudge, wink-wink salaciousness one expects of the Fleet Street press. To summarize briefly:

Assange flew into Stockholm to speak at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Swedish Social Democrat party. A 20-something woman who worked for the party invited Assange to spend the night at her one-bedroom apartment and they had sex.
The next day at the conference, Assange was approached — “stalked” might be a better word — by an even younger 20-something woman who had seen him on TV and was evidently quite starstruck. A couple of days later, Assange spent the night at the second woman’s apartment and they had sex twice.
Subsequently, the two women talked, each shocked to learn that the other had also slept with Assange, who of course hadn’t told either of them about his other amorous adventures. Comparing notes of their experiences, they realized a common theme, namely Assange’s evasions of their requests that he wear a condom during sex.
The two women then went to the police to accuse Assange of the crime for which he has now been arrested in London.

At least, that’s the way the Daily Mail tells the story and, if that’s all we’ve got to go on, then clearly Julian Assange is not guilty of “rape-rape,” to borrow Whoopi Goldberg’s memorable phrase.

What we seem to be dealing with in this case, as is true of nearly all accusations of date rape, is one of those “he-said, she-said” situations, in which there were only two witnesses to the alleged crime, one of whom is the plaintiff and the other the defendant. And, as is so often true in these cases, those who plead for the acquittal of the defendant will call attention to the belated nature of the accusation. Neither woman had accused Assange of any crime until afterward, when each woman learned she hadn’t been Assange’s only Stockholm girlfriend. This fact makes it look a lot less like rape and a lot more like buyer’s remorse.

If being a two-timer is now a felony in Stockholm, the Swedes will probably need to build a lot more prisons.

The nature of the accusations against Assange, however, inspired Jill Filipovic to lecture her Feministing blog readers on the proper pro-sex feminist protocols for consensual hook-ups:

Consenting to one kind of sexual act doesn’t mean that you consent to anything else your partner wants to do; if it’s agreed that the only kind of sex we’re having is with a condom, then it does remove an element of consent to have sex without a condom with only one partner’s knowledge. To use another example, if you and your partner agree that you can penetrate her, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she has the green light to penetrate you whenever and however. . . .

OK, let’s all agree: ”No” means “no” and “stop” means “stop.”

And if she says, “Slower, and a little to the right,” you’d better comply instantly, buddy, or you can expect to find yourself in court explaining to a jury why you didn’t provide her with exactly the sort of sexual experience to which she consented.

Filipovic seems to imagine not merely a “world without rape” (to borrow the title of the Friedman-Valenti feminist manifesto to which she was a contributor); she is also imagining a world without confusion or misunderstanding, a utopia in which strangers who hook up for one-night stands are in such a perfect accord of mutuality that they can negotiate the terms of their actions with calm precision.

The point of dispute here is not whether Assange is a selfish, sexually exploitative creep — he certainly is, if the Daily Mail account is true — but, instead, how best to protect women from such creeps.

Conservatives who reject and condemn casual promiscuity would argue that the hook-up culture tends to reward and encourage predatory creeps, providing them with an endless series of willing (or perhaps, half-willing) conquests like these two young Swedish women who were evidently eager to have a go at the nearly middle-aged bachelor, Julian Assange, and only regretted that he didn’t live up to his end of the implicit bargain of “consent.”

Critics of the hook-up culture would say that women who engage in such behavior are exposing themselves to all manner of risks, not only the risk of assault, nor merely the risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy, but also emotional and — is it still permissible to say this? — spiritual and moral risks. The best way to avoid the physical, emotional, spiritual and moral hazards of casual hook-ups is simple: Don’t sleep around.

For saying such things, however, conservatives are condemned by Filipovic’s feminist friends as promoting “an extremist ideology that enables rape and . . . a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted.”

But whose ideology is it that truly “enables rape”? Is this an accusation that can be fairly made against conservatism? Or is it more proper to cast suspicion on the so-called “pro-sex feminism” of Filipovic & Co.? Theirs is the ideology that urges women to reject the “supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure,” instead encouraging women to pursue non-marital sex By Any Means Necessary — up to and including their endorsement of the sort of sexual services that Monica Lewinsky provided to President Clinton. (Nina Burleigh: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”)

This, then, is the ideology of the “pro-sex feminists,” who invite all women to share their vision of a world of hook-ups without hassles, without risks, without misunderstandings, without any possible negative consequences — at least for women. Men participate in this carnival of concupiscence at their own risk, subject to arrest and prosecution whenever one of their one-night stands goes awry.

And men also dare not call attention to the impossibility of the feminist utopia, lest they be accused of misogyny and the tacit endorsement of rape.

Such was my predicament when I decided to mock Jill Filipovic on my own blog and discovered that my meaning was misinterpreted even by some conservative regular readers. A clarification was necessary and, in the process of making my meaning clearer, I wrote a sentence that I think summarizes what’s fundamentally wrong with “pro-sex” feminism:

“The International Society for Running Around With Sharp Sticks cannot also command respect as the International Society for Eye Safety.”

For the record: I’m against rape. While we’re at it, I’m against pre-marital heavy petting and also take a rather dim view of kissing on the first date, so how the heck can I be accused of being pro-rape?

Never mind. They’re feminists, and it’s unfair trying to confuse them with facts.

• Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Feministing founder Jessica Valenti likes to write about just what makes a “real” feminist, and what doesn’t. Obviously, being a conservative is an instant disqualifier in her book, because why on Earth should a movement that seeks equality let women actually have differing points of view? Right at the top of her list of women not allowed in her ultra-exclusive girls club version of feminism is Sarah Palin. Sure, Sarah Palin may be a successful, accomplished woman who took on Alaska’s boys club and won, but who cares? She doesn’t get a tingle up her leg at the thought of killing babies, so she’s not allowed in the clubhouse. This week, when given the chance to debate a real live Valenti-approved anti-feminist, though, Jessica Valenti took the opportunity… to tuck her tail in between her legs and run as fast as her legs could take her.

While Palin is femisogynist Enemy Number One, she’s just at the top of a long list of hated conservative feminist women. Express an opinion that Valenti & Co. don’t agree with, and you’re smeared as anti-feminist and anti-woman. Of course, calling a woman anti-woman makes about as much sense as calling a Jew anti-Semitic, but what do they care about things like common sense, logic, and intellectual diversity? Amanda Marcotte, for example, recently said you can’t be a feminist unless you are a left-leaning liberal who advocates for universal health care, abortion, and other liberal extremist pet causes. Marcotte also recently argued that women are too stupid to tell the difference between the evil fake conservative feminism, and the Amanda Marcotte Approved real feminism. Jessica Valenti wrote a piece filled with rage at the idea that anyone could call Sarah Palin a feminist, because Palin doesn’t pass Valenti’s Official Feminist Litmus Test. Believe something different than what Valenti believes, and you’re out of the club, lady. As I said in response to Valenti’s anti-Palin hit piece, all of this boils down to having the “correct” political beliefs. Equality has absolutely nothing to do with Valenti’s brand of feminism anymore.

Change your name to your husband’s when you get married? You’re a slave to the patriarchy and an anti-feminist. Personally and politically pro-life? Anti-woman! Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST! Believe in closing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws? Don’t believe in universal health care? Think global warming is all a fake? These all make you an anti-feminist, too.

And while the femisogynist crowd acts as if conservative women are stealing feminism, you can see that the truth is that we’re reclaiming it — reclaiming it as a movement for equality, reclaiming it from bitter, angry women who hate men and marriage, and reclaiming it as a movement for all women, not just women who pass an ideological purity test.

No, we’re not stealing feminism. We’re putting it back in its rightful place.

But let’s say, just for fun, that Valenti’s version of feminism is the only correct form of feminism, and us conservative women really are evil, anti-woman harpies. Valenti should have no problem debating us on the issues, then right?

Wrong.

Jessica Valenti has no problem whatsoever writing screech-filled missives about conservative feminists, hiding behind her computer screen. When she got the opportunity to actually debate a real live conservative feminist, she ran away as fast as she could — based on her “feminist” principles, of course.

Wednesday of this week, MORE magazine held a panel for young feminists, which Jessica Valenti was invited to be a part of. When Valenti found out that someone who didn’t rigidly follow her extremist orthodoxy to the letter was going to be part of the panel, well, she just wouldn’t be a part of that.

I was originally slated to be a part of this panel, but when I found out that Allison Kasic – who works for the virulently anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum – was also a panelist, I decided to pull out.

I’ve been writing a lot lately about the faux feminism of the Right – how conservative women who have long fought against feminist ideals and goals are now identifying as feminists in an attempt to woo women’s votes for the GOP. I think it’s an incredibly dangerous trend facing the movement – if those who work actively against women’s interests can claim feminism as their own, the movement will become meaningless.

Given all that, it felt hypocritical for me to be a part of a panel that named Kasic a feminist leader. I didn’t want my presence to lend credibility to the false notion that people who work against women’s rights are feminists.

Yes, I could go on the panel to argue about the definition of feminism and the co-opting of the movement. But when I agree to be on a panel I’m accepting the terms of a debate – and it’s not a debatable point whether people whose policies actively harm women are feminists. I don’t want to validate that this is a question open for reasonable conversation. (Especially given that the success of anti-feminist women and orgs like IWF is largely based on their ability to get on panels and make this an open discussion – it’s part of their strategy.)

Oh no!! Someone who disagrees with Jessica Valenti might be part of a panel discussing feminism! And they’re a — gasp!! — conservative feminist!! Clearly she can’t be a part of that, right? Jessica Valenti’s credibility would be damaged, and that would hurt the feminist movement!

Because, you know, Jessica Valenti is the sole voice of what feminism stands for and its credibility.

Now, every other speaker on this panel is a liberal extremist femisogynist, including Courtney Martin, who blogs at Valenti’s website Feministing. Allison Kasic was the one conservative voice. But this just can’t be allowed, can it? In Valenti’s world, apparently not only should feminists with differing opinions not be allowed a seat at the table, they shouldn’t even be allowed to speak, much less debate their views.

Of course, one might wonder why Valenti would be so worried about debating Kasic. If Valenti’s version of feminism is indeed so intellectually superior, then why would it matter if Kasic was on the panel or not? This would be a perfect opportunity for Valenti to show how wrong conservative feminists are. But oh no, she’s making a principled stand! Or something. Because Kasic’s employer, the Independent Women’s Forum, is (in Valenti’s words) “virulently anti-feminist.” So why not debate her, and show her for the virulent anti-feminist that she really is?

The only reason that femisogynists like Valenti try so hard to shut down conservative feminists like Palin and Kasic is because they’re intimidated by them. Women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann resonate with women more than women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte ever have — or will. The average woman doesn’t identify herself as some kind of helpless oppressed victim of the patriarchy. The average woman doesn’t see marriage as a form of institutional slavery. The average woman doesn’t believe in universal health care or abortion on demand, or half the things that radicals like Valenti advocate.

Feminism has turned into a dirty word for most women, who won’t call themselves feminists anymore. And that’s thanks in large part to the work of women like Gloria Steinem and her 60s era radicals, as well as the work continued by women like Valenti and Marcotte today. Sarah Palin has more American women realizing that feminism could actually speak for them than Valenti ever could, and part of the reason is that Palin has never called for an ideological litmus test in order to be a feminist. Feminism didn’t start as a movement that only spoke for certain women. It spoke for all women. The women who fought for feminist and equality for women didn’t fight so that certain women wouldn’t be allowed to express their views or excluded.

But funny, that’s exactly what people like Jessica Valenti, who call themselves feminists, are fighting for. And when conservative women finally stop letting themselves be pushed into the shadows, and reclaim feminism for themselves, it opens a huge crack in the facade of fascist feminism that the femisogynists have created.

It turns out that Valenti is nothing more than a giant intellectual coward. If her credibility on what feminism really means is so strong, then what does she have to lose? If she was the superior one, then she wouldn’t demean feminism by debating Kasic. If her views were correct, then Kasic would be the one who would lose credibility. Kasic would be the one who would be embarrassed. So what is Valenti so afraid of?

This isn’t a principled stand by Jessica Valenti. This is a woman who is afraid she’ll be made a fool of. This is a woman who can’t stand for women with opposing viewpoints to express them because she knows it threatens what she stands for. She even said herself, this is strategy for her, a tactic — a tactic to drown out opposing voices. Jessica Valenti couldn’t make it any more clear: she’s nothing but a coward and a fake who wouldn’t understand what feminism is if it hit her in the face.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Of course they would. And did.

A mere 24 hours after Jerry Brown was caught calling Meg Whitman, his opponent in the race for California Governor, a “whore,” they endorsed him. Proof positive once again that Leftist feminists, including their cult-like organizations, will stop at nothing, even rewarding sexism, to further their true agenda. An agenda which is not one of concern for women at all.  To the contrary; leftist feminists actually use women, solely as a way to further this agenda. And heaven forfend if some women don’t fall for their lies nor allow themselves to be used. Then, they are called whores or brainless sex objects only. If trying to diminish one through sexualization fails, they’ll move onto trying to take her gender away totally by calling her “a big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Or “Pat Buchanan in drag.” Or a host of other garbage spewed forth in venom-filled animus meant to demean and dehumanize the offending woman. By offending, I, of course, mean free thinking conservatives.

Like Meg Whitman, an accomplished and smart woman who actually exemplifies “having it all,” yet is called a whore. And NOW gives their approval by endorsing the man who called her that. Perhaps Whitman is not pro-choice enough for them? It has been reported that she supports parental notification laws as well as protections for unborn babies from partial birth abortion. How dare she!  If only she was more like the pro-abortion Barbara Boxer, Ma’am, who believes that babies have no rights until a mother chooses to bring him or her home from the hospital.

Surely that can’t be all. Jerry Brown must be a super champion for women, right? Well, except for that whole not believing that health insurance should cover mammograms deal. Preventative Shmentative! I mean, it’s just women, am I right fellas? Apparently so, as just last year a government panel also decided that there is no need to waste rations money nor time on silly old mammograms and the boondoggle of the health care bill that the Democrats passed is rife with anti-woman conditions. Government Health Care, run by Senators; the only way we dames can expect to get a breast exam is via a “waitress sandwich.” 

But, hey, what’s a little breast cancer, as long as NOW gets some sweet, sweet liberal policy out of it, huh?

A little – or a lot of – sexism doesn’t matter either. Because you know who else NOW just endorsed? The always-frothing-at-the-mouth Alan Grayson, who just last year said of Fed adviser Linda Robertson, “this lobbyist, this K street whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

An adviser to Fed Chair Ben Bernake. And Alan Grayson called her a whore for daring to try to teach him about economics. How can some dumb broad teach an oh-so-smart man and all? Women can’t know about economics. That has nothing to do with uteruses!

Even members of his own party called him out as sexist and offensive.  Even partisan Liberal Anthony Weiner was forced to concede he was “one fry short of a Happy Meal.”  Because, cuckoo pants. Yet, there was one organization ready, as usual, to defend the indefensible — NOW, of course, endorsed the sexist pig Alan Grayson.  You see, they aren’t for women at all. They are for a leftist agenda only and always have been.  The only kind of women they are for are Nannies. And, even then, only if those nannies come in the form of a Nanny State Big Daddy Government. Patriarchal oppression is okay, then, it seems.

Next, the National Organization for Women will try to further prove themselves good Leftist “little women” by rushing to iron Jerry Brown’s and Alan Grayson’s shirts.

Meanwhile, the media constantly feeds into, and helps to promulgate, the lie that NOW is the “voice of women.” All women, they claim. The Media Research Center found that when NOW was mentioned in articles, it was only referred to as liberal in 2.4 percent of them. Yet, when Concerned Women for America was referenced, it was described as “conservative” in 41 percent of the instances.

Of course, the media only likes “certain” women as well; Conservative women need not apply.  Chris Matthews, ever willing to diminish women, recently implied Conservative women are brainless beauties. Condescendingly calling them “irresistibly cute” and totally “just having fun.” Thinking is hard! They are just out for a good time, natch.

NOW proved themselves to be merely useful idiots in service of the left.  Again.  Time to hand in your “feminist” cards, ladies. They’ve expired and we free thinking women won’t allow you to renew them. We’ve had enough. Empowerment for everyone -  male or female – is found in individuality and in freedom, not Leftist policy. That’s what I call hope and change, baby.

—

Cross-posted from Breitbart’s Big Journalism

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her stuff at NewsReal, Snark and Boobs,  Red State and Human Events.

Quick: name the most dangerous kind woman in the world to a femisogynist! If you said a beautiful woman who embraces her femininity and sex appeal and enjoys pleasing men, then you win. Women aren’t supposed to enjoy making themselves look beautiful and sexy, and especially not for a man. They’re especially not supposed to enjoy catering to men. Smiling, flirting, joking, all for the entertainment of a man, is akin to blasphemy. Considering that, it’s no surprise that a British woman and so-called feminist would find Hooters to be the most offensive bar in Britain.

Hooters is everything that man-hating femifascists hate. An entire restaurant centered around the pleasing of men? With pretty, sexy girls whose jobs involve serving men, it’s no wonder it makes their heads spin. And while Hooters is not classy by anyone’s definition, is it really fair to call it the most offensive bar in Britain? What is so offensive about Hooters, anyways?

I remember, as a student in the Seventies, interviewing one of the last Playboy bunnies at the club on Park Lane.

I asked the young woman in fishnet tights how it felt to be part of a dying breed.

Peeling off her false eyelashes, she said the world had moved on – women were no longer to be viewed as objects. Fast forward 30 years and, again, I’m talking to a young woman in tights with false eyelashes.

But while there was something tongue-in-cheek and marginally glamorous about the bunny outfit, the clothes the women working in Hooters are wearing look cheap and nasty.

Orange Lycra shorts, low-cut T-shirts with Hooters’s slogan ‘delightfully tacky’, white socks and plimsolls and, of course, a wide smile are all obligatory – it is just so awful.

Right — Playboy is not as bad, because it was “tongue-in-cheek.” Hooters is skankier than Playboy, even though Hooters waitresses don’t bare all in a magazine for millions of men to see. The Playboy comparison makes no sense whatsoever anyways, when you consider that Liz Jones, the author, talks about Playboy as part of a dying breed and refers to it in the past tense. It’s ridiculous when one remembers that, oh yeah, Playboy is still around, and Playboy models get completely naked, whereas Hooters waitresses just wear slightly slutty outfits.

Jones then bemoans that Hooters would have the audacity to open a second location in the UK. After all, if femisogynists don’t like something, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist, right? Who cares about stuff like the free market? One might think that if Hooters was really so offensive, they wouldn’t be such a successful restaurant, but that’s just the patriarchy. Or something.

There are now 455 branches worldwide, including four in China – but only one branch in the UK, here in the Midlands.

A second branch is planned for Bristol, at a site leased to it by Marks & Spencer. The city council has already granted the U.S. chain planning permission, saying it ‘offers something different’, despite local residents and women’s groups mounting a campaign.

Sian Norris, founder of the Say No To Hooters In Bristol protest group, says: ‘People claim it’s a bit fun. But it’s part of a culture where women are only seen as sexual objects, not as full human beings.’

And thus we come to another disturbing aspect of today’s feminist extremism. If a woman dares to let herself be seen as sexy, then she is solely a sex object, and nothing else. And not only is she a sex object, but she’s also either a willing tool of the patriarchy or an idiot who doesn’t know she’s being used. After all, a woman can’t possibly be sexy and beautiful and intelligent at the same time, right?

But wait a second — are the Hooters uniforms really even that scandalous anymore?

That is the Hooters uniform, as most of you probably already know. Here is how Hooters describes their uniform requirements:

The Hooters Girl uniform consists of: White Hooters tank top, orange shorts, suntan hose, white socks, solid white shoes, brown Hooters pouch, name-tag and of course…a smile!

… There is no set requirement in order to be a nearly World Famous Hooters Girl! We look for the All-American Cheerleader / Surfer-Girl-Next-Door image to fill our restaurants. In other words…Very bubbly, outgoing personalities!

So they want friendly, outgoing, smiley women. The uniform, meanwhile, covers up more than most outfits girls wear out to clubs on a Friday night. They wear pantyhose, for chrissakes. It’s meant to be sexy, of course, but let’s not get out of hand here. Hooters is a restaurant that caters mainly to men, which I suspect is the real problem: that the women look sexy for the enjoyment of men. (I wonder if the femisogynists get offended when men look sexy for the enjoyment of women, a la Chippendales dancers.)

And of course, who can be OK with the way that Hooters abducts women off the streets and forces them to work there and look sexy and flirt with men?

Wait, that’s not the way it happens?

Why, then, do women who work at Hooters sign a contract that states ‘I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile or unwelcome’?

Kimberley, 28, has worked here for two years. Is she ever harassed by the punters, leered at or disrespected? She is careful in her reply.

‘There are always men from management who are keeping an eye out,’ she says (I didn’t encounter a bouncer when I arrived, which makes me wonder who will keep out or eject the drunks; there are children in here, too). Is there a strict dress code?

‘I need to look groomed, but not tarty. Hair has to be down [strange, given they are handling food], nails clean. No piercings.’

Does she not feel exposed, knowing all these men are looking at her bottom and cleavage? ‘I feel quite covered up,’ she says. ‘This is no worse than what you see young women wearing here in Nottingham, out shopping or clubbing.’

This is true, but that is their choice. Here, exposing your thighs and cleavage is compulsory.

SEE?? Hooters is forcing these poor women to show off their bodies and be friendly to men! It’s an outrage, I tell you, an outrage!

Wait, you mean women choose to work at a place like Hooters all on their own? It’s apparently a shocking thought, that women might not mind working at a place like Hooters, catering to men and all.

The waitress Jones interviewed, Kimberley, is a marketing graduate who makes minimum wage, plus tips, at Hooters. The British national minimum wage varies depending on your age, but if you are 22 and older (as most Hooters waitresses likely are), it is £5.80 per hour. That converts to roughly $9.16 per hour. Not bad, huh? Then there are the benefits. Hourly Hooters employees are eligible to receive an array of benefits, like health insurance, dental, vision, and even tuition assistance. But who cares about stuff like that? Hooters is an evil, sexist, patriarchal organization that’s even worse than strip clubs!

Again, the fact that no one is ever forced to work at Hooters or patronize the restaurant is completely overlooked. Not that it matters — if fascist feminists are offended by something, it shouldn’t be allowed to exist. Choice, free will, the free market, none of these things matter, because the femisogynists just know better than us! Women choose to be sexy and friendly to men? Blasphemy!

Call me a slave to the patriarchy, but I’d much rather spend an evening at Hooters than in the company of a self-righteous, know-it-all, humorless, holier-than-thou feminist extremist.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

So what’s wrong with equating politicians with prostitutes? After all, it’s a quick and vivid way of accusing legislators of selling their votes (and presumably their principles) for money. Countless political cartoons have portrayed supposedly greedy and ethically-challenged politicians in fishnet stockings and garters. Since when did this amusing metaphor hurt anyone?

The problem is, the accusation conjures up an image almost exclusively of women — typically streetwalkers, but sometimes high-class escorts… Also, the term seems to flow so easily off the tongues of men seeking to degrade successful, powerful (perhaps “uppity”?) women. Not long ago Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl.) called Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street whore,” and he was rightly criticized for doing so. Whore, prostitute, hooker — it’s time to retire these sexist terms that only encourage our society to see women as commodities to be bought and sold.

Just kidding! That was what they said when Glenn Beck called Mary Landrieu a “high-class prostitute” for selling her healthcare reform vote in the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” deal.  Instead, they quickly endorsed Brown.

The use of the word “whore” is now highly specialized.  Calling a politician selling a vote a whore is evidently out of bounds for most of us.  And so is calling prostitutes whores, unless you actually are one.  The new, politically correct term is “sex worker.”  The San Francisco Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival presented a one-day class titled “Whore College” which covered “effective marketing, stress reduction and legal issues” for women making the oh-so-empowering choice to sell sex.  We also can’t use the word whore in context of a woman indulging in frequent, casual sex.  As decades of feminism have taught us, that’s all about the “sexual empowerment” too.  Liberal feminists have wailed for years about Freud’s “madonna/whore” complex where any woman exercising her right to what she fondly supposes is consequence-free sex is classified as bad or unworthy of commitment.

Just as “the N word” is reserved for use by black entertainers, “whore” and similar insults are reserved for use by feminists.  Sometimes as an exercise in hipster irony – blogs by feminists that incorporate the word “whore” in their names abound – and sometimes as an exercise in shunning a woman who dares to have a differing opinion.  As Lori Ziganto notes,

Alleged feminists are some of the worst offenders, spewing sexist and outright misogynistic garbage at conservative women.

NOW has certainly proved that.

** I hit Publish too soon and made a few minor corrections.

By: Lori Ziganto and Jenn Q Public

1. Jessica Valenti’s Femisogynist Spirit: Rooting for and Rejoicing at Abortion for Convenience.

While Leftist “Feminists” sneer condescendingly at the idea of post-abortion syndrome, it does exist. And if they actually cared about women, they’d admit that fact. But, see, they can’t. If they did, it would mean that they’d have to stop encouraging women to have abortions without disclosing the trauma that can occur to the woman. Many women who abort their babies suffer intense pain and immense guilt. Their entire lives.

It’s clear that they don’t care about the dead babies, but they also need to stop insisting that they are For Women ™ , when they are anything but. Jessica Valenti’s response to an ad campaign from AbortionChangesYou.com proved once again that Leftist Feminists, or Femisogynists, care only about an agenda and not one whit about actual women. The Abortion Changes You ads served to aid women. Femisogynists sought only to diminish that aid. Truth doesn’t fit with their meme. So, they defaced the ad, as pictured above. Jessica Valenti called the original abortionchangesyou.com ad “heinous.” But what did she say about the defaced one, promoting abortion for convenience? She called the vandal a “pro-choice hero” who “wasn’t having it” and then said:

Love. It.

Loves encouraging abortion for convenience. Loves encouraging abortion because a baby, a human life, doesn’t fit in with one’s super fun college plans.  Loves denying the harm and the trauma that abortion causes to women. And rejoices at the thought of killing a baby who isn’t timely.

That, Jessica, is heinous.

In a follow-up response to my post, Valenti also said the following:

So yeah, I guess I would “rejoice” over women obtaining abortions when it’s convenient. (The inaccessibility of abortion for too many women makes actual rejoicing impossible.) Whether it’s for health, financial, and educational reasons – or simply not wanting to have a child yet – it would absolutely thrill me if women’s life decisions were respected, accepted and supported.  But instead, we live in a world where a woman’s desire for something as basic as education is mocked as selfish.  And we’re the ones who are “anti-woman”?  I think not.

Or simply not wanting to have a child yet. Silly me. I thought that if you didn’t want to have a child, one would use birth control or, you know, not have sex. When does that choice come into play, Jessica? It seems to me that you are the “anti-choicer” because you don’t believe that women can possibly be smart enough to act responsibly and make choices all on her very own. By the way, I write while also home schooling my child. You see, not only can a Mother obtain an education herself, but she can educate others. That’s a concept lost on Femisogynists  like Jessica Valenti.

2. Helen Benedict Terrorizes Women and Diminishes the Seriousness of Rape By Lying About Military Sexual Assault Statistics

In 1994, Christina Hoff Sommers told an interviewer about an interaction with a young woman at the University of Pennsylvania Women’s Center:

I think she thought I was one of the sisterhood. And she said, “Oh, I just suffered a mini-rape.” And I said, “What happened?” And she said, “A boy walked by me and said, `Nice legs’.” You know? And that — and this young woman considers this a form of rape!

This is the sort of fabricated and exaggerated victimhood that nourishes the feminist Left. Without frightening statistics and horrifying sob stories of oppression, their movement would cease to exist.  After all, how could the Left justify further government intrusion into our lives without fantastic stories of poverty-stricken women who can’t access health care to treat the mental anguish of mini-rapes they suffer when they walk uphill both ways to escape the racist food deserts they call home?

Lefty whining about our embellishment to begin in 3 … 2 … 1 …

Some supposed feminists have based their entire careers on seeding academia and the mainstream media with ginned up scare-tistics that pave the way for new laws and policies that are harmful to women.  Helen Benedict is among the worst.  Her statistics on military sexual assault have been repeated hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in books, articles, and blog posts.  Only problem is, she lied:

Consider these statistics published by Benedict in a recent Huffington Post piece:

Nearly a third of military women are raped, some 71 percent are sexually assaulted, and 90 percent are sexually harassed.

Benedict’s piece is entitled, “The Pentagon’s Annual Report on Sexual Assualt [sic] in the Military, or, How to Lie with Statistics,” and how to lie with statistics is exactly what she demonstrates.

The sexual assault figure is the most preposterous, and spelling assault wrong doesn’t get her off the hook.  It is an outright lie that some 71 percent of military women are sexually assaulted.

The statistic comes from a study of PTSD sufferers published in Military Medicine in May 2004.  The research sample was not, as Benedict would have you believe, culled from a general pool of female veterans or current servicewomen.  Instead, participants were selected from “an eligible pool of 4,918 representatively sampled veterans seeking VA disability benefits for PTSD.”

Benedict shows a reckless disregard for the truth with her inflated data on military rape and sexual harassment.  Over and over, she  cherry-picks figures, misquotes sources, and tortures the numbers until they confess to her anti-war, anti-military agenda:

Do the reasons soldiers rape have anything to do with the nature of the wars we are waging today, particularly in Iraq?

Robert Jay Lifton, a professor of psychiatry who studies war crimes, theorizes that soldiers are particularly prone to commit atrocities in a war of brutal occupation, where the enemy is civilian resistance, the command sanctions torture, and the war is justified by distorted reasoning and obvious lies.

Thus, many American troops in Iraq have deliberately shot children, raped civilian women and teenagers, tortured prisoners of war, and abused their own comrades because they see no moral justification for the war, and are reduced to nothing but self-loathing, anger, fear and hatred.

Benedict’s dishonesty isn’t just harmless chicanery in the service of a feminist cause.  Her lies are destructive to women and America.  In addition to trivializing actual experiences of rape, smearing our troops, and undermining our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Benedict is dissuading women and girls from pursuing military service and terrorizing those who are currently serving.  In the process, she isn’t just harming women, she’s damaging our country.

But, yeah, grrl power!  Woo hoo!  It’s a good thing the compassionate “feminist” Left is looking out for women.

3. Chappaquidick a “Fortunate Fall” for Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne Just A “Footnote” Who Would Have Felt Her Death “Worth It”

Leftists, despite all their sanctimonious, holier than thou grousing at the right for its perceived “insensitivity”, has an odious disregard for any human life, besides their own, natch. Few things prove this more than the vile comments made about Mary Jo Kopechne upon the death of the “man” they so lionized: Ted Kennedy. Eleanor Clift weighed in, ideologically insane, as always. She said that she was “willing to measure the benefits that Kennedy brought to countless people through his politics, and give them proper weight on the scales of the man’s record.” Leaving a woman to drown? No big whoop, since it resulted in sweet, sweet lefty policy. Author Joyce Carol Oates called Chappaquiddick a “fortunate fall” . It was just a little “notorious behavior”, you see. No biggie, because Ted Kennedy then totally refashioned himself into a super cool Uber-Liberal. Isn’t that all that matters?

Melissa Lafsky’s article at the Huffington Post, entitled The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted’s Career, however, wins the prize for the most disgusting entry:

Not just a footnote, but a “controversial” footnote.  There is no controversy, only facts. She was left to die. The man who left her to die did no jail time and instead lived the good life while doing great harm to this Country for decades more.

We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don’t know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

Yes, we do know. He was affected not at all.  He had the audacity to serve in the senate for four decades. He stopped windmills from being built that would ruin his quality of life – his view from his luxury boat as he was flitting and sailing around the Nantucket sound.  He buddied around with Chris Dodd, making “waitress sandwiches”. He enjoyed a “good laugh” over Chappaquiddick jokes. He spent his last days not making amends or in any way repenting, but rather he spent them conniving, trying to change the laws to suit his own purposes and ends.

Still, ignorance doesn’t preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn’t automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.

Nice snide little Palin reference with the aerial-wolf-hunting mention. So much for your feigned Ra-Ra Empowered Woman stuff. And, no Melissa, we can’t know what Mary Jo Kopechne would have thought about the life and career of Ted Kennedy. Why? Because he left her to die. Alone. In a sinking car. In the dark. For hours. She didn’t drown, you know. She suffocated; she was gasping her last breaths as the tiny air pocket left in the car was used up.

While Senator Kennedy chatted with buddies. And slept. Likely peacefully.

So, no. We don’t think she’d think it was “worth it”.  We don’t believe her family and loved ones would either. We do not think it was “worth it”; to the contrary. And the value, or rather the lack thereof, that YOU and many on the Left place on human life that is in any way inconvenient to you or to your narratives is disgusting.

4. Alice Walker Disowns Her Daughter For Embracing the Anti-Feminist Act of Motherhood

Author Alice Walker spends her days cavorting with Code Pink, demonizing Israel, and caricaturing the people of Africa.  Important work, to be sure, but awfully time consuming.  If she wanted to live out her dream of becoming an anti-Zionist activist, she had to cut corners somewhere, and disowning her daughter seemed like a good start.

Alice severed ties with her daughter Rebecca in 2004 after learning that her 30-something daughter had committed the most heinous of anti-feminist acts: procreation. On purpose!

I was at one of her homes, sitting, and told her my news and that I’d never been happier. She went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then, she asked if I could check on her garden.

After a exchanging a series of emails, Alice wrote to Rebecca to say that their relationship had been “inconsequential for years” and that she was no longer interested in being a mother to her daughter.  She later cut Rebecca out of her will.

As Rebecca has since revealed, Alice’s lip service to choice, opportunity, and freedom for women doesn’t allow room for her own daughter to choose motherhood.  Unsurprising from a woman whose greatest act of motherly concern was arranging an abortion for Rebecca when she became pregnant at 14. Being a mom might be okay for unenlightened non-Westerners, but damn it, she raised her daughter to abhor motherhood just like she did:

“I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother – thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman,” she revealed to British newspaper Daily Mail.

“My mom taught me that children enslave women,” she continued. “I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.”

Rebecca shares the painful experience of discovering her mother’s disdain for being a parent:

“I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers,” Walker noted.

According to Rebecca, Alice spoke of how “Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely,” then calling her a “delightful distraction, but a calamity nevertheless.” It was something that she said was “a huge shock and very upsetting.”

Alice Walker built her career on striking blows against The Patriarchy ™ on behalf of oppressed women around the world.  But even if her feminist credentials weren’t sullied by idealization of Islam, Israel hatred, and lies about the liberating powers of abortion, Alice’s shelf-life as a “feminist” expired when she rejected her own daughter’s choice to embrace motherhood.

5. Worshipping At The Shrine of Multi-Culturalism And Feigned Tolerance Are More Important Than Women Themselves

Actual misogyny perpetrated against Muslim women gets a pass from Femisogynists because George Bush. Also, racism. This line of alleged thought was on gross display this past year, several times in a few month span alone.

One of the most egregious was Amanda Marcotte, once head blogger for John “Two Americas and Two Broads” Edwards, and her defense of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ attempt to embrace genital mutilation. The AAP, like the UN, started referring to female genital mutilation as merely “cutting” because mutilation sounds icky and may be offensive and insensitive to other cultures. They then went one further and said a “little nick” is a nice compromise. No big whoop! Sacrifice girls and allow a misogynistic practice to occur, all in the name of appeasement. We  don’t think the girls who are barbarically maimed feel very appeased, do you?

According to Marcotte, this can be explained away because American cultural practices are icky:

And it’s not like Western culture is so free of blatantly misogynist traditions, either.  Part of me wishes that we had a two minute nicking at the doctor instead of the entire painfully misogynist wedding tradition that persists in the name of tradition.

Oh, just a little two minute nicking, says Marcotte. It’s not like it’s as awful as getting married and sharing your life with a loving partner! I can maybe see where Marcotte is coming from, personally. As self-loathing as she is, she must feel that marriage is a horrid punishment—for the man.

Marcotte again apologized for misogyny when excusing an Iranian cleric’s claim that earthquakes are caused by “immodestly dressed” women (you know, women who dare to actually show their face or an ankle). The ever inane Amanda Marcotte claimed that we are worse for insisting that an embryo is a life.

But we have plenty of woman-hating religious claims in our culture that are taken seriously.  Take for instance, the claim that an embryo is a fully formed human being with rights, and so women’s bodies have to be routinely commandeered against their will in order to gestate them.  That’s a religious claim, as much as anti-choicers pretend otherwise.  It’s based in the idea that godsaidit—god said it’s a person, so sorry, women!

Yes, Amanda. Being against infanticide is exactly the same as raping and torturing women for speaking. There was one thing on which Marcotte remained silent, as did most Femisogynists. The fact that the UN gave Iran a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women. Yes. IRAN. The State Department had this to say:

“We’re not going to stand up and cheer,” the official said. “By the same token, that is less onerous than the Human Rights Council because women in Iran, relative to other countries in the region, actually have greater rights.”

Oh, well, as long as you don’t cheer. It’s not like it’s human rights and all. It’s just pesky women! All who remained silent on this, including the Obama Administration, in effect condoned the appointment of Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women. As a way of “tolerance” and appeasement. See, pointing out true evil doesn’t fit the “progressive” meme. Instead, subjugation and misogyny must be invented out of whole cloth regarding things like marriage, but the very real—and often deadly—subjugation of women under Islamic law must be tolerated and ignored. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance have reached epic levels.

6. The Burqa is Sexy and Other Celebrations of the Islamic Veil

Earlier this year NewsReal Blog debuted the Naomi Wolf Award, also known as The Howler, to recognize “the failure of feminist commentators to identify Muslim veils, particularly the burqa and the niqab, as powerful symbols of extremist ideology and instruments of subjugation.” Naomi Wolf, of course, is among the worst offenders when it comes to justifying the entombment of women in these dehumanizing fabric crypts.

After a delightful jaunt through a Moroccan bazaar in a headscarf she wore by choice, Wolf wrote, “I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.”  Never mind the medical problems related to burqa-induced vitamin D deficiency. Disregard the fact that in parts of the world, the alternative to donning the veil is death.  Naomi Wolf had a gay ol’ time obscuring her femininity from the nasty male gaze, so the veil should be celebrated!

Jamie Glasov took Wolf to task for her abandonment of persecuted Muslim women, and Phyllis Chesler skewered her for the ridiculous suggestion that “shrouds are sexy,” and the ultimate feminist choice.  Wolf’s predictable response was to demand apologies from those stupid-head meany-pants anti-jihad bloggers, because naturally she’s the persecuted one.

With the French burqa ban making headlines this year, the feminist Left made far too many journeys into the land of cultural relativism and moral equivalence to recount.  Among the most absurd was when Jill Filipovic twisted the burqa into a “freedom of choice” issue, treating it as a mere article of clothing equivalent to a modest “flowery dress.”

Summary: I think it’s silly, an affront to basic freedoms, and ultimately more damaging to the women it claims to protect. Now France is at it again, trying to ban the wearing in public of any item of clothing that covers your face. The law is clearly targeted at French Muslims and Muslim immigrants.

I understand that many people perceive the burqa, or any full-body covering, as a symbol of female submission. Heck, I perceive the stereotypical conservative Christian floor-length denim or flowery dress the same way, so I get it.

Other so-called feminists defended the burqa from conservative racists and painted the full veil as a delightful mobile playground for Muslim children.

Way to strike a blow against the patriarchy, ladies.

7. Maureen Dowd Excuses Sharia Law In Order to Mock Catholicism

In an April 10th Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Maureen Dowd finally lost that last tenuous grip she had on her sanity. In the article, she attempted to equate the suffering of women living under radical Islamic law in Saudi Arabia with being a Catholic woman. In America. No, really:

How could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?

I was puzzling over that one when it hit me: As a Catholic woman, I was doing the same thing.

I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.

I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.

I, too, rationalized as men in dresses allowed our religious kingdom to decay and to cling to outdated misogynistic rituals, blind to the benefits of welcoming women’s brains, talents and hearts into their ancient fraternity.

Since thinking appears to be rather hard for you, Maureen, I will spell it out for you with bullet points for easy reference. Here is just a partial list of things that women cannot do in Saudi Arabia, under Sharia law:

They cannot drive cars

They cannot get too many jobs

They cannot wear their own selection of fashions (forced to war body covering abayas)

They aren’t allowed to speak in public

They have no right to vote

They are not welcome in government

They have no freedom of movement

They have their genitals mutilated as young girls

They are beaten by husbands routinely and have no legal recourse to stop it

They are beaten on the streets by “religion police” if they seem to be violating Sharia “laws”

They have little recourse to prosecute attackers for raping them

They cannot travel abroad without permission

They cannot join the clergy

Of course she is partially basing  her alleged arguments on the oh-so-tiresome “reproductive rights” card.  Under Sharia law, that isn’t a problem, Maureen! Just lop it off and get a clitoridectomy! And, in Saudi Arabia, if you get pregnant out of wedlock or by rape, you can simply be stoned to death. Problem solved! Perhaps Maureen should step out of her ivory tower and speak with a woman who knows about true oppression and subjugation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Ms. Ali, the author of Infidel,  had to flee the Netherlands under threats of death by radical Islamists. The reason? She spoke. She spoke about the atrocities committed against women under fanatical Islamic faith. She spoke out against the physical mutilation of women by radical Muslims. She renounced the faith. For that, she lived in constant fear for her life.

You, Maureen, are allowed to speak freely (sans burka, no less), always, even if what you spout is utter nonsense. As is every other woman in this country, Catholic or otherwise.

The same can’t be said for women under Sharia law. Ever.

8. Bonnie Erbe: Michelle Malkin Invited the Playboy Rape Fantasy

Playboy writer Guy Cimbalo’s roster of women he wanted to hate f*** was online for less than a day before it was pulled. At the top of his serial rape fantasy list was Michelle Malkin, described as a “‘highly f***able Filipina’ and purveyor of ‘frothing idiocy’ Her hate f*** rating? ‘Worse than f***ing Eva Braun.’”  He even imagined that Malkin was somehow asking for it:

Malkin’s “tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”

Hoping that some among the feminist Left would condemn the article’s misogyny, Smart Girl Politics director Teri Christoph contacted syndicated columnist Bonnie Erbe:

Knowing that Bonnie Erbe, a blogger at USNews, was a passionate defender of liberal women (such as Nancy Pelosi), I wrote to her in the hope that she would use her pulpit to rally to the defense of her right-leaning sisters. Instead of refuting the noxious ruminations of Cimbalo, Ms. Erbe piled on with more of her own.

Erbe called the article disgusting, sexist, and in Malkin’s case, well-deserved:

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her “routine” are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Michelle Malkin invites sexual degradation because of her viper-like tongue? This is feminism?

No. In fact, Bonnie Erbe is exactly the sort of woman she once contemptuously described like this:

Anti-women women have existed since time immemorial. Another way of putting it is, women have been smart enough for decades to make their living by telling other women to stay home …

Hateful harpies like Bonnie Erbe can spend all day trying to get Michelle Malkin to stay home.  Not. Gonna. Happen.

9. Gloria Steinem Decides Pro-Life Women Don’t Count and Can’t Be Feminists

As if we’d want to be “feminists” anyway. Regardless, this shows the utter disregard for women that Steinem Stepford Feminists actually have. They don’t actually care about women; they care only about their pro-abortion agenda. That has always been the case, but the emergence of conservative women to the forefront recently has made them particularly unbearable, as they strive to, in every repugnant way possible, diminish said women. This is just the latest from one of them, Miss Gloria Steinem, who unfortunately resurfaced from whatever Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower she was hiding in to have an interview with the equally asinine Katie Couric:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

You can’t be a feminist if you oppose abortion. Can’t be one. That’s crimethink! Sorry, Steinem Stepford Feminists, but we don’t care if you don’t consider us a part of your cultish club. You see, we have minds of our own. And, unlike you, we respect women and don’t think that they are too stupid to handle life on their own without Big Daddy Government hand holding. Nor do we think that women are perpetual victims who must be saved from things like “inconvenient” motherhood. That is what the entire modern day Faux Feminist ‘movement’ is about; those punishing babies.

Just ask Amanda Marcotte, who said:

If there’s ever a conflict between the baby-making functions and a woman’s hopes, dreams, responsibilities, or well-being, the former will always win with anti-choicers.

There’s the difference right there. We believe there is no conflict. A baby does not crush a woman’s hopes, dreams or well-being. Motherhood enhances your life in ways that can’t even fully be described. A woman can have it all, and should.  As women who respect and support other women, because Pro-Life is Pro-Woman, this is what we “can’t be real feminists” women do. We unhinged nutty nuts help women, instead of urging them to abort. We help them truly have it all, education, career and motherhood via personal responsibility. We trust and have faith that they can do so, unlike Femisogynists who don’t believe women can actually do much of anything at all without constant grievance mongering.

This is a blessing in disguise, however. Feminists continue to walk in Stepford Feminist lock-step, constantly extolling their delusional wonders of abortion, while the rest of the population now looks on in horror. And not just due to their hairstyles and their creepily smug faces, although that is part of it. We see through the lies.

You are already irrelevant, Feminists. But do you know who will never be irrelevant?

Moms.

10. The Hypocritical Dehumanization of Conservative Women

The Left salivates over opportunities to dehumanize conservative women. It’s easy (and completely gross) to imagine Keith Olbermann sloshing around in his beloved bathtub each night, eyes glued to Michelle Malkin’s image as he relives the time he called her “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

But while “feminists” often excuse Bathtub Boy’s misogyny and find numerous justifications to continue watching his nightly hate fest, they don’t publicly embrace him as one of the sisterhood.  But they might as well if they’re going to embrace his hateful misogyny.

In her important column of the stages of “conservative female abuse,” Michelle Malkin lists dehumanization as the fourth and final stage:

Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”

Sarah Palin has been the target of many of these attacks.  Wendy Doniger wrote in the Washington Post that Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”  And Cintra Wilson began a Salon piece by saying that “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.”

As explained when Keith Olbermann used his “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” attack on Michelle Malkin:

Attacks like these are designed to dehumanize the target by casting her out of her very gender, rendering her less than woman, indistinguishable from a “bag of meat” were it not for the facade of womanhood she paints on with her lipstick each morning. Makeup is deemed the only thing that sets her apart from an inanimate sack of undifferentiated flesh.

It’s one thing when the Left attempts to exclude conservative women from feminism — that’s a ridiculous political tactic, hateful but not misogynist per se — but it’s another when leftists try to exclude us from our gender. No matter how hard Femisogynists wish otherwise, conservative Christians, gun totin’ hockey moms, and smart ass conservative blogger chicks still qualify as women.

—–

Follow Jenn Q. Public and Lori on Twitter and read more of their joint NewsReal stuff here

There is no limit to the amount of control that feminazis want to have over our lives. If women do not adhere to the unbelievably strict rules set down for us by the fascist feminist Left, then they are labeled anti-feminist and anti-woman. The latest example of the femisogynist litmus test is Taylor Swift, denounced as unfeminist… for writing about true love and having a wholesome image. The nerve!

Taylor Swift isn’t even 21 yet, and she’s already a force to be reckoned with. She became a superstar in 2006 at the age of sixteen, and today she’s sold over 10 million albums and appeared in several major motion pictures. She’s written her own music and said that most of her songs are autobiographical. She not only sings, but she also plays guitar and has produced much of her own music. Does any of this matter? Nope! Her latest song, Mine, has the femisogynists up in arms.

This song is rife with freaky-deaky, weirdo language that frames Swift as someone perpetually under the ownership, or at least care, of a male authority. The lyrics describe her as not a woman, but as a “careless man’s careful daughter” that her new boyfriend has “made a rebel of.” This is problematic to me, in the sense that it implies a transfer of her ownership from one man to another. I think it’s weird in this song that she doesn’t seem to have any sense of her own identity away from the love interest, or her father. I do, however, give her props for the use of the line “we got bills to pay.” Though grammatically incorrect, it implies that Taylor will be helping to pay the bills though some means of gainful employment. Let’s go back in time 50 years so that I can congratulate her on being progressive!

The other thing I found noteworthy was how Taylor was dealing with the transition from teen star to general entertainer. As much as she infantilizes herself, Swift is distinctly more adult here as compared to her previous videos. She’s got bills to pay! She has children! Usually when you see “teen” stars (she’s 20) make the transition from adolescence, they do it via the sexy route, à la Britney, LiLo, and Miley. This video is unique in the sense that Taylor Swift appears to be trying to age herself into a more matronly, albeit still conventionally attractive, role. It’s not often that we are encouraged to make an association between young pop starlets and motherhood….

Aside from completely misconstruing the lyrics, why does it matter what Taylor Swift writes about? Here is a self-made woman, someone who has built a career for herself, and done it in a classy, age-appropriate manner. For most rational, normal people, Taylor Swift is considered a role model. But it’s not good enough for the feminazis. Heaven forbid someone writes songs about their own feelings without consulting the fascist feminists about whether or not it’s considered Feminist Approved.

Feministing also jumped on the anti-Taylor Swift bandwagon, because Taylor Swift — a woman — is somehow “sexist.” And the reason that she is sexist is because a few femisogynists decided that the message of her music is somehow bad. Traditional love and romance is considered the most sexist thing ever when it comes to these enlightened beings. (After all, why should a woman be in a traditional, loving, respectful relationship?) When you consider that, as stated before, most of Swift’s songs are autobiographical, as in, based on her own experiences in relationships, it’s even more ridiculous. The feminazis claim that the issue is that music should speak to people, but obviously her music does speak to people, or she wouldn’t be selling millions and millions of albums. The issue here isn’t that women and girls don’t empathize with Taylor Swift’s lyrics, it’s that the feminazis want to decide what kind of relationships are sexist and not sexist.

The issue here is not about Taylor Swift. It’s about the monster that these feminazis have turned feminism into. Equality has gone completely out the window. It’s just like how pro-abortion advocates call themselves “pro-choice”. It isn’t about women deciding what choices to make for themselves. Taylor Swift, for example, is a successful, independent, wealthy woman who has accomplished so much at an incredibly young age. But because certain women who have hijacked the term feminist don’t like what she sings about, she’s automatically labeled as sexist and anti-feminist. Wouldn’t equality mean that a woman could choose to write whatever kind of music she wanted to write about… and that women could choose to listen to whatever kind of music they like? Feminism is not about a litmus test for how a woman lives her life, and it isn’t a list of rules. Feminism is about equality… something that the women who claim to be fighting for women’s right threw out the window a long time ago.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

What particularly caught my eye was a questionnaire from a “Women’s” group. What were the questions? The majority of them were about abortion, gay marriage, and how much we should expand big government spending.

In the midst of the deepest recession in living memory and international uncertainties, those don’t strike me — or most people — as the issues keeping women (or men) up at night.

Where were the ideas of economic freedom and economic opportunity? Where were the questions about challenges that women business owners face in small business start-ups which are the mainstay of Main Streets throughout the country? Where were the questions about the national debt and its impact on our children’s future? Where were the questions about how we best educate the children of our country so that we have a qualified and well positioned workforce? This list goes on and on.

This self-described “women’s” group and many like it are more interested in litmus tests on liberal social issues than on what will materially improve women’s lives in the real day-to-day world where we are raising kids, struggling to make ends meet, and hoping that we or our spouses don’t lose their job (or will find one soon).

For decades now we have talked about the glass ceiling women once faced, and to a certain extent still do. But I am more worried about the glass box that liberal feminists have placed women and “women’s issues” in, all tied up with a pretty pink bow. That glass box is all about keeping women and “women’s issues” firmly in their place on the left side of the political spectrum.

Well, I for one, think that the real opportunity for female candidates and officeholders is not to define themselves as concerned about these supposed “women’s issues,” but instead to focus on the bread and butter issues that concern everybody in these troubling times.

The feminists of the past and present should be appalled that these self proclaimed women’s groups are doing in relegating the support of women to second tier or third tier issues which will not design a successful future for our country no matter what your political leanings might suggest that means. Finding and supporting strong, smart, and bold women of diverse thought ought to at least be as important or even more important to a feminist group claiming to support women candidates.

It should not be a surprising that women are actually very free thinking, engaged in complex issues in different ways, have significant experience and varied backgrounds, and don’t all think alike—what a shock! California, for example, has two very strong women running for office. California candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman exemplify what women’s groups should want in their candidates: strength, experience, tenacity, capability, and individuality. Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin are further examples of strong women who test the bounds of traditional thought. Whether you agree with them or not on policy, it is clear these are all women who do not easily fall in line with the social agenda of the left — or the establishment on the right– for that matter.

Women’s groups have attacked these high profile women, and others like them, who are not playing nice by being a typical female politician who will politely stay within the little glass box of issues pre-packaged up for them by the left. These women will shatter that little glass box and the step beyond the typical toward the possible.

Unfortunately, too many women’s groups attack candidates –women candidates– with excessive and stunning vitriol, if the candidates dare disagree with their group’s social agenda. Rather than lash out, they should be focused on encouraging diversity of thought by women and strong debate rather with than squelching it.

Liberal women’s groups seem to have an affinity for something akin to a Stepford Wife – a female candidate who will simply fall in line and think alike rather than female candidates who might challenge that agenda and take on the political establishment through varying experience and approach.

It is time groups like this think of women as true candidates with an important set of skills to bring to the table rather than as simply a demographic to be either used or won over.

Women’s issues are everyone’s issues. Everyone’s issues are women’s issues. If feminists truly want to promote women in politics and bring a feminine touch to state capitols and to Washington DC, they should understand that not all women think alike—that is something they should cherish, not lament. Then, women candidates will have succeeded and the country will win by having women of all political viewpoints at the table.

Sarah Palin has had the femisogynists hopping over the past year. The media tried to destroy her in 2008 and failed. Since then, she’s become a force to be reckoned with.

She’s been sweeping the country, becoming influential in elections, writing a best-selling book, and becoming a Fox News contributor. Lefties were furious that they couldn’t keep this woman down. But nothing got the feminazis’ panties more in a bunch than when Sarah Palin called herself a feminist.

She has been empowering conservative women to get involved, calling for all of the “mama grizzlies” to rise up and defend the future of their country for their children. Furious that someone else was speaking for women other than Feminazi Approved Womyn, the leftist EMILY’s List decided to make a video trying to hijack the term mama grizzlies from Sarah Palin.

This plan radically backfired, and they’ve been the laughingstock of the blogosphere ever since. After all, who had the idea that dressing up like Ewoks to diss Sarah Palin would be a good one?

EMILY’s List is a pro-abortion group, and their number one beef with Sarah Palin, like most femisogynists, is likely that she’s pro-life. On top of that, she doesn’t like government run health care! Egads! Apparently, these are the things that “real” mama grizzlies — i.e., lefty mama grizzlies — care about. How could little bear cubs survive without knowing they can have an abortion when they’re 16 while their mothers proudly look on?

One of the biggest problems with lefty women trying to co-opt the phrase mama grizzlies is that … well, come on — who would ever see one of them as a mama grizzly? When you think of a pit bull or a grizzly bear, you think of strength, independence, ferocity.

I’d love to name one of today’s so-called liberals that could be described as strong, independent, and fierce, but there aren’t any. When attacked, lefties automatically go into whine mode. When in doubt, accuse someone of being a racist and scream that IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!. Then they’ll demand that the government step in to right the injustice, because the notion of handling your own problems for yourself is an idea that lefties just can’t understand.

When you need a nanny state government to take care of you cradle to grave, you can’t exactly then turn around and label yourself as a strong, independent, capable American, can you? People have been laughing at this, because who would ever describe today’s femisogynists as strong, kick-ass women? They probably don’t even understand why people are laughing at them.

A lefty feminazi attack when her cubs are threatened? Ha! Their version of “attacking” would involve a rally for NOW and whining for President Obama to do something.

But that’s only scratching the surface. The EMILY’s List ewoks got an epic fail for more reasons than just unintentional hilarity.

Let’s consider the creepiness of wanting to fight for the right of your daughter to choose. Think about that. They want their daughters to be able to have abortions. There’s something inherently twisted about that.

How could a mother want her daughter to have an abortion, to kill her future grandchild? Abortion is inherently anti-woman. There’s not much more harmful to women than the glorifying of abortion. Abortion actually is in fact harmful. Yet these women see taking away abortion as the number one threat to their daughters? That’s twisted and sick.

On top of that, the hyperbole is disturbing. They claim that if Sarah Palin had her way, health care wouldn’t exist in America … because, you know, before Obamacare was passed, no one had health care in the United States.

They’re for some reason mum on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to decertify Avastin, a breast cancer treatment drug, for cost reasons. But hey, Sarah Palin wants to take away ALL HEALTH CARE. Obama is God, and Sarah Palin is the devil.

Oh, and Sarah Palin (and most conservatives) doesn’t want to take away unemployment benefits. We just don’t want bloat those benefits by putting even more debt onto the shoulders of not only our cubs, but our grandcubs and our great-grandcubs.

Despite all of this, the truth is that yes, Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for these women. Sarah Palin is a pro-life conservative Republican. These women are pro-abortion lefty femisogynists. The major difference? Sarah Palin wouldn’t likely tell these women that they can’t call themselves feminists or that they aren’t true women.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happened to Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin was told that she wasn’t a real feminist because she wasn’t pro-life. Women who voted Republican were told that they weren’t real women.

The original feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life. They didn’t advocated feminist litmus tests or demand that voting women only vote a certain way. Today’s femisogynists couldn’t be further away from what feminists actually stood for, yet they’ve hijacked the movement and sought to silence strong conservative women.

When that didn’t work, they tried to hijack Sarah Palin’s massively successful mama grizzly campaign. Even the XX Factor, Slate‘s so-called feminist blog, called this a win for Sarah Palin. Even people on their own team saw this for what it was: an epic fail for the EMILY’s List ewoks.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

There’s a new nightmare on the block for femisogynist moms. Now that they’re all grown up and settled down with teenage daughters of their own, they’re shocked to find out that the sexual empowerment they’ve been championing for decades has backfired on them. How has it backfired? Well, the femisogynist moms are finding out that sexual empowerment has really turned their daughters into slutty teens.

Canadian magazine Maclean’s examined the phenomenon in a controversial article titled “Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters: How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?” Confused moms who label themselves as feminists can’t understand why their daughters label themselves as sex objects, sleep around, and demean themselves yet call it empowerment.

But the generation that grew up reading Our Bodies, Ourselves is most apoplectic over what they see as the unrelenting pressure on girls to be sexual, and not on their own terms. “I’m so deeply pained to see where women are today and how girls—and I mean girls—are being groomed to believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings that please men,” says Nancy Vonk, the co-chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto and the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ”

Kate Lloyd, the director of program and service development for the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario and an academic coach to teenage girls, says the heightened sexual activity concerns her. “A blow job is just like shaking hands. It’s ridiculous,” she says. “But their attitude is: ‘We’re emancipated; we’re liberated; we’re in control, don’t worry.’ They see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.” But one 19-year-old girl sees the double standard facing girls as more complex. “If men have a lot of sex it’s a good thing, but if women have a lot of sex it’s a bad thing,” she says. “Men have a biological imperative to spread their genes. But that should not be a reason to control women.”

So basically, the 60s era of sexual empowerment was OK, because they weren’t trying to “please men”. They were taking control of their own sexuality. Wearing skanky hot pants was groovy back then. But these girls, they’re just sleeping around! They dress like whores! They’re slaves to the men!

It was just fine for the femisogynists to dress and act like sluts when they were growing up. It’s not OK for their daughters to do it, though. What’s the difference to them, though? And why are they so confused about how it happened?

One culprit for why girls are so hyper-sexualized these days can be traced right back to the extreme sex education being taught in our schools, with the charge being led by femisogynists to keep the sex ed coming. Girls have been taught by the adults in their lives to embrace their sexuality, have been lovingly encouraged to explore their sex lives in new and innovative ways. The feminist extremists gush about the brilliance of giving their daughters vibrators, they teach middle schoolers how to have good sex. Planned Parenthood distributes sexually explicit brochures to Girl Scouts and teach 10-year-olds about anal sex. Children are inundated about sex from extremely young ages about sex, something that the femisogynists encourage, and yet they can’t understand why teenage girls are sleeping around?

Consider how one feminist blog recently praised the sex ed programs in the Netherlands. What exactly does this consist of? Pretty much exactly what you would expect.

Next year, 12-year-old Sasha explains to me, they will learn how to put a condom on a broomstick (she says this without a trace of embarrassment, just a polite smile). Across the city, nine-year-old Marcus, who lives in a beautiful 18th-century house on a canal, has been watching a cartoon showing him how to masturbate. His sister, 11, has been writing an essay on reproduction and knows that it is legal for two consenting 12-year-olds to make love. Her favourite magazine, Girls, gives advice on techniques in bed, and her parents sometimes allow her to stay up to see a baby being born on the birthing channel.

Then there is Yuri, 16, who explains to me in perfect English that “anal sex hurts at the beginning but if you persevere it can be very pleasurable.” When I ask whether he is gay, he says “no” but he has watched a documentary on the subject with his parents.

This kind of sex ed is apparently going to be compulsory for all children beginning at the age of 5 this year in the Netherlands, and this program is being praised as the kind of program we need in the United States.

When this is what we are teaching our daughters, then how can there be any surprise when they turn out to be putting that knowledge to very good use? The other problem is that we have given our children a complete lack of boundaries when it comes to sex. Take abstinence before marriage, for example. It has become socially unacceptable for parents to tell their children to wait until they’re married to have sex. It’s not the “cool” thing to do, just like it isn’t “cool” to expect your high-schoolers not to drink. They’re going to do it anyways, so might as well teach them to be safe, right? But here’s a question.

If we take away the boundary of abstinence before marriage, then what’s the next boundary? 18? OK, so maybe that’s too old. Let’s say 16. But what if the teen says they’re ready for sex at 15? What about 14? Or 13? Where do you draw the line? The reality is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It is inappropriate for children to be having sex, but we’ve been indoctrinating our children that sex is OK for decades.

And we’ve also been indoctrinating girls to believe in some other harmful things as well.

The femisogynists gender bigots have been trying fervently to brainwash girls that men are oppressors, that the male patriarchy is trying to keep them down, and that chivalry is sexist. Forget restricting sex to marriage — if you believe all of that, you don’t even need to restrict sex to love. Nowhere in the article did any of the mothers even mention the words “love”, “marriage” or “family.”

The fascist feminists have been engaged in serious social engineering over the past few decades, subverting marriage and family. The word “father” is also noticeably absent. Femisogynists have tried very hard to make sure that fathers no longer have any say in a girl’s sexuality. But now that some of those activists have grown up and started families of their own, they’re realizing that they maybe don’t like the results so much.

And of course, we can’t forget about abortion. Abortion opened the door to sex with no consequences. It opened the door to men being able to use women and not have to deal with the responsibility of the possibility of a child. We let the sex genie out of the bottle, and for a while, femisogynists cheered it. But it seems like some of the femisogynists moms aren’t liking what they’re seeing.

It used to be that men had to prove their love and commitment before having sex. But femisogynists instead told women that they were better than that, that having sex like men made you empowered. Decades later, we’re seeing the results of this social experiment.

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very people who manufactured the social experiment are now the ones complaining about how it all turned out — and, as usual, taking absolutely no responsibility for the disaster.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

American women have some of the best lives in the world. We can literally do whatever we want. American women can go to school where we want, we can go to college, we can work wherever we want, we can marry whoever we want, and we can choose to lead whatever kind of life we want to lead. Millions of women in oppressed countries around the world cannot even imagine the freedom that American women so enjoy — and take for granted. We’ve come a long way in less than one hundred short years, but a lot of women can’t see that.

We’re constantly told that we’re victims of an invisible patriarchy, that we’re slaves to our hormones, that without abortion on demand we can’t fully be women, that we don’t need a man but we need the government. The people that tell women these lies are the same people who pretend to be fighting for us, who have hijacked feminism: the fascist feminists. Whereas once feminists fought for equality, today the femisogynists fight for things like taxpayer funded abortion and universal health care. They fight for women to be able to sleep around like men and ignore the consequences. And most of the time, women don’t even know they’re being manipulated and lied to. Thankfully, once the lies are exposed, it’s easy to see the con.

Here are eight ways that fascist feminists are ruining America’s women.

8. Encouraging Promiscuity

Once upon a time, men had to earn sex with a woman. He would have to take her on a series of dates. He would have to enter into a relationship with her to prove his commitment to her. He would have to invest time, money, and emotions into their relationship. The woman held all of the power. Now, men don’t even have to take women onto dates. Often, dating happens after a couple has started sleeping together regularly. Men barely have to put any effort into it anymore, women just give it up hours after meeting random guys at a bar or a party.

This, according to the femisogynists, is called being “empowered”. It’s being in charge of your sexuality. As far as they’re concerned, all that you need to do is get yourself some birth control and you’re A-OK. Emotional consequences? STDs? No problem! As long as you don’t get pregnant, sleeping around is just fine, even if you’re still in high school.

The problem? Most women don’t feel this way, and especially not young girls. Two-thirds of teenage girls who have sex in high school go on to regret it. Teenagers who have sex are much more likely to be depressed or suicidal. 1/4 of sexually active teens have an STD. A whopping 8,000 teens get an STD daily. And, even when you use contraception, pregnancy is still a possibility. Teenage mothers have higher likelihoods of poverty and dependence on welfare. But do the fascist feminists care about any of this? Nope! It’s sexual freedom, baby. Who cares about the consequences? If it feels good, just do it. The problem is that sex has become so devalued that celibacy has actually become trendy. Women are realizing that sleeping around all the time with tons of different men does not bring you strength or empowerment or freedom or love. But femisogynists don’t want women to know that.

Feministing founder Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book about it called The Purity Myth. Expecting women to be abstinent is ridiculous, virginity is weird, and fathers wanting their daughters not to have sex is creepy. But casual one-night stands? Hook-ups? SO awesome! Just use a condom, because they’re totally foolproof. Abstain? Hold out? So for our grandparents’ generation and un-empowered, frigid, prude chicks.

7. Sanctioning Victimhood

If a woman loses to a man in an election, it’s because she’s a girl. If a woman doesn’t get a promotion, it’s the patriarchy trying to keep her down. If a man winks at a woman on the street, he’s just trying to keep her in her place. If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, her life is forever ruined and her only option is to get an abortion.

These are some of the attitudes you’ll find in the fascist feminist set.

Rather than encouraging women to take control of their own lives and be truly empowered, the femisogynists are forever trying to make sure that women always wallow in victimhood. Everything is sexist, everything, from jeans to office dress codes to the obvious fact that men like to look at boobs. They complain that there aren’t equal numbers of men and women committing suicide. Even having babies is considered sexist (but more on that later). Radical feminists see sexism everywhere, and the patriarchy is always trying to keep women down. But how does this do women any favors?

The reality is that sexism is not everywhere, and women cannot be truly empowered if they see themselves as consummate victims. The reality is that the victim act is really just an excuse for fascist feminists to be greedy little whiners who get special treatment.

6. Dabbling In Misandry

Feminism has gotten a nasty reputation. Radical feminists are to blame for this of course, and they whine about it incessantly. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the word “feminism”, and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters”. And there’s a good reason for it, too. When radical feminists hijacked feminism, a great many of the people involved in the radical feminist movement do indeed hate men.

A large part of the man-hating movement from the fascist feminists involves domestic violence and rape, which are, of course, horrible. The vast majority of men do not beat or rape their wives or daughters and find men that do despicable. But fascist feminists paint all men with a broad brush, so that even men who don’t engage in domestic violence or rape are still somehow responsible for it. And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women. You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist feminist movement. The depths of the anger that these women possess is disturbing. Maybe they didn’t have a father growing up, maybe they had a boyfriend who did beat them, but for whatever reason, many of the fascist feminists truly hate men. The only men they approve of are feminized-beta male-Michael Cera-types, who I guess pose no threat to them because they’ll roll over and do anything a woman wants them to do.

It’s sad and ridiculous that femisogynists spend so much time accusing American men of oppressing women, and then completely ignore the actual oppression women face in the Middle East. The radical feminists are almost completely silent about that. They’ll throw it a bone every now and again, but by and large, they ignore it. Women in the Middle East are raped and have no way of getting justice for it; they are sold into slavery through forced marriages when they are still children. Oftentimes they cannot get an education or work among men. They cannot wear what they want, practice whatever faith they want, or make their own decisions. And this is all because of actual sexist men. But radical feminists ignore them and set their sights on American men, some of the most enlightened men on the planet.

Ask any American man who has a daughter, a sister, or a wife what he wants for American women, and most of them will say that they want girls to be able to get an education and be whatever they want to be. In this last presidential election, Hillary Clinton came extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination for president — that alone shows how far we have come. But fascist feminists ignore that, because they have an anti-male agenda to push.

5. Destroying Chivalry

One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions. Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman. Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth. But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack. Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.

Why not? Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism. Chivalry has been dubbed sexist. There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man. Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful. So why should men continue to be chivalrous? Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady. And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist. Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning. It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down. They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor. How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well? Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that. Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it. They still crave it though. They’re wanting something better.

Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after. If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her. Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it. It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.

4. Attacking Motherhood

What would women say their most important role is as a woman? Could it be high-powered careerwoman? Sexually liberated minx? Pro-abortion activist? Maybe these are the most important roles a radical feminist could play, but for most normal women, their most important role is that of mother.

Think about it. Motherhood is biologically hardwired into us. Most women feel called to have children, and feel that there is nothing more beautiful or precious than a child. It’s why so many women are devastated when they miscarry or can’t have children. It’s also why so many women are destroyed after an abortion — they realize that they’ve just killed their baby.

Fascist feminists, though, want to free women of their motherhood chains. Having babies is sexist and breastfeeding is creepy. Nuclear families are dangerous, and motherhood destroys your life. It’s their own agenda that is being pushed, not what women actually want or need.

3. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test

Nothing angers leftist feminists more than combining the words “feminism” and “Sarah Palin” in a sentence. When Sarah Palin defined herself as a feminist, Jessica Valenti and the feminist left lost their minds. That’s because to the fascist feminists, only certain women count as “real” feminists. Amanda Marcotte even helpfully defined the specific issues that women are supposed to care about. Only women who cater to the liberal extremist agenda can be called feminists to women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.

Consider Sarah Palin, a feminist if there ever was one. She’s an empowered, self-made woman with a high-powered, successful career. She also has five beautiful children, and a loving, supportive husband. She’s even admitted to struggling with the thought of having an abortion, but chose instead to give birth to her son Trig. But because she is a conservative, and because she is pro-life, she is shunned by the fascist feminist set.

The truth is, they’re likely intimidated by strong conservative women. Conservative women don’t live in a world of constant victimhood. They don’t define themselves by their gender. And when conservative women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley endure disgusting misogynist attacks, they don’t wail about the patriarchy keeping them down. And conservative women actually represent feminism and the average American woman, whereas femisogynists represent only themselves and their own pro-abortion, sexist, anti-male, victimized agenda. When faced with true empowerment, fascist feminists can only try to tear the empowered women down.

2. Promoting Lies and Manipulation

The lengths femisogynists will go to in order to keep abortion legal and commonplace are shocking and despicable. The abortion lobby, and Planned Parenthood in particular, profits off of the lies and manipulation of women. Live Action has exposed the dishonesty in their Rosa Acuna Project, which shows how far clinics will go in order to convince a woman to get an abortion. They’ll tell women that there isn’t a baby inside their womb, they’ll lie about the heart beating, or how developed the baby is. Clinics routinely give out medically false information to women, and radical pro-abortion feminists never say a word about lying to women in order to sell an abortion.

But if you really want to anger the fascist feminists, bring up mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds, which they call emotionally torturous. One mother interviewed by the New York Times about seeing an ultrasound before her abortion said that women “almost have to think of it as an alien” in order to keep the images from haunting them. Of course the images haunt women — it’s an image of their unborn child that they’re about to kill! Seeing that image will convince many women not to have the abortion. And this is why the pro-abortion feminists are so vehemently against making women see an ultrasound first. They claim to be pro-choice, but how can anyone be pro-choice if they can’t make an informed choice?

The femisogynists don’t want women making their own choice when it comes to abortion. They want women with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion, always, and never to keep their babies. So they excuse the lies, cover up the manipulation, and fight an ultrasound which would force abortion providers to be truthful about the baby they’re about to kill. If women are going to have abortions, then abortion providers and the pro-abortion feminists owe it to those women to at least give them medically accurate information.

1. Glorifying Abortion

There is perhaps nothing more anti-woman than abortion. But the pro-abortion radical feminists have flipped that onto its head, claiming that to be against abortion is to be anti-woman. And this may be the number one way that fascist feminists are destroying women.

Right now, 22% of all pregnancies will end in abortion. But how does abortion hurt women?

Well, first there are the physical risks. Abortion triples the risk of breast cancer, and abortions also increase the risk of future miscarriages. Emotionally, there are also some horrific consequences. Women who abort are much more likely to commit suicide, with a suicide rate three times higher than the general suicide rate. Women who have an abortion are at a higher risk for long-term clinical depression. There is also a link between abortion and substance abuse, and it can even have an effect on the children who were not aborted (called Survivor Syndrome). There’s also been a connection found between abortion and subsequent child abuse.

But all of this is denied by the fascist feminists. Abortion is important, because an accidental pregnancy will ruin your life! It’s horrifying how much the radical feminists actively try to convince women to have an abortion, that it’s no big deal, that you won’t feel guilt, sorrow, and regret for the rest of your life. The facts are clearly against them, which is why they try so hard to cover those facts up.

The truth is that abortion is not just some normal little medical procedure; it’s a tragedy. Most women intuitively know that; it’s why so many women struggle so much after aborting their children, especially when they realize they’ve been lied to or manipulated into doing it. That is anti-life, and it is anti-woman. It’s a tragedy, for the life that was lost and for the women who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

The radical pro-abortion crowd fights for abortion “rights” because they have an agenda to push. They don’t care about how harmful it is, and how it can absolutely destroy a woman.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

There is a new ‘hot topic’ at various alleged Feminist sites that exemplifies yet another reason why leftist self-named Feminists should really be called Femisogynists. Their agenda is purely a political one and it’s one that is actually harmful to women. The end now justifies the means to the point that the new in thing to do in Leftist Feminist/Femisogynist circles is to “embrace sluthood”. No, really. A most recent example from that hotbed of objectification and subjugation of women disguised as feminism, Feministe.com:

I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.

Um. Where to begin? Her article, term used loosely, entitled My Sluthood, Myself, is meant to show how empowering and wonderful it is to embrace always-have-antibiotics-on-hand sluthood, yet, in reality, it shows anything but. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was feeling icky and hadn’t showered nor shaved in days, I’d, you know, shower and shave, for starters. I would not post a random “hit me up for a booty call, total stranger” ad. As you read on, her own words belie her “I’m so empowered” false persona: she admits she is desperately craving being wanted and loved. How on earth does random sex, with strangers no less, achieve that? It doesn’t. What it does achieve is objectification, in the really bad way.

I’d like to think that old school feminists, many of whom were honestly trying to achieve some good, didn’t burn their bras in the hopes that women would start unhooking them for every Tom, Dick and Harry in some demented quest for acceptance and fulfillment.

The article goes on, filled with cliches such as “triggers” – femisogynist new-speak for “I want to read this so that I can get outrageously outraged and claim victimization” – and more words that belie the author’s intent. Or what I can only assume is her intent. It seems as if she was trying to make a case for “sluthood”, but she only managed to prove why it’s harmful to women as a whole and that her grip on sanity may very well be Andrew Sullivan-esque. Her conclusion contains this (bleeping of cuss word, mine):

I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “f**k like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.

Firstly, a total straw-man – excuse me, straw-woman – argument. People who are against free (as in tax payer funded) universal birth control for all, of course, want girls to die! Because they are mean old Rethuglicans and subjugate-y old prudes and stuff. Probably racist somehow, too. Sigh. Secondly, it did not appear to be very healing or soul-fulfilling to the author, her false face of bravado notwithstanding. The good old “liberating” line is a fallacy as well. It’s just the new version of “sexual empowerment” which has done far more harm to women than good.

Once again proving their idiocy, leftist feminists/femisogynists cry “patriarchal oppression” at the drop of a damn hat, yet they choose to embrace lifestyles, under the self-defeating veil of sexual empowerment, that are actually geared toward and beneficial to men. And, you know, totally harmful and denigrating to them. This encouragement of “sexual empowerment” or “liberation”, the obsession with “it’s okay, just use birth control and do whatever feels good”, the pro-abortion agenda that treats a pregnancy as an inconvenient punishment that must be aborted, and the trying to turn sluthood into a politically correct lifestyle, all have resulted in the dehumanization of women and the denigration of womanhood itself.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: By encouraging women to focus on sexual “equality”- or now “liberation” – they’ve taken away any requirement that women be treated as something other than a sexual toy. Why would anyone respect you as a human being, if you don’t respect yourself? Jaclyn of Feministe,  who defines herself by her sexual acts only and with the words  My Sluthood, Myself, has yet to learn that lesson. As do the leftist feminists who encourage and enable such dangerous – emotionally and physically – thinking.

—–

(Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her newsreal stuff here

The femisogynists just cannot let Sarah Palin go. Ever since she came out of the closet as a feminist, their heads haven’t stopped exploding. When you add in the number of strong, successful, conservative female politicians who have emerged in the past year, it’s no wonder that the fascist feminists have been going through a major identity crisis. The Sarah Palin feminist story is actually pretty old news, but the feminist left just can’t stop bringing it up. The latest to join in on the cacophony of complaints is the executive vice president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Bonnie Grabenhofer. The problem? All these gosh-darned conservative women, led by that dastardly Sarah Palin, just don’t realize that they’re victims and slaves to their reproductive rights. How dare a woman think she paved the road to her own success and be pro-life??

Grabenhofer starts with the trite and beaten-to-death meme that Sarah Palin is not a feminist.

NOW executive vice-president, Bonnie Grabenhofer, told The Daily Caller that to her, “feminism is a social justice movement aimed at getting social, political, and economic equality for women. We work for the advancement of women on multiple fronts.”

… According to Grabenhofer, Palin doesn’t qualify as a feminist.

“I do not consider Sarah Palin to be a feminist,” she said. “She has benefitted from the work of feminists but she has not worked to advance the rights of women. She works against the progressive ideas meant to help.”

What, exactly, disqualifies Sarah Palin from being considered a feminist? She’s a self-made women with an impressive career. For those unfamiliar with Palin’s career pre-politics, she first worked as a sports reporter; after marrying her husband, Todd Palin, she worked with him in the commercial fishing industry in Alaska. She got into politics pretty much at the lowest possible level: at the PTA. She then ran for a seat on the Wasilla city council, eventually moving on to become the mayor, and then governor of Alaska. The rest is history. She was forced to step down as governor, but her career has been far from over. She’s now a bestselling author with an upcoming second book to be released later this year, a Fox News contributor, and a public speaker. She’s the clear breadwinner of her family, but by all accounts seems to have a happy, healthy marriage with her hunk of a husband, Todd. They have five beautiful children together. One would think this would be the perfect definition of a feminist is. But, of course, there’s a litmus test that you have to pass in order to join the Fascist Feminist Club, and Sarah Palin failed. It doesn’t matter how self-sufficient she is, or how equal a partnership she has with her husband, or how hard she worked to forge herself a spot in the boys’ club of politics. Because she’s pro-life, she can’t be considered a feminist.

Grabenhofer continued, saying that in order to be a feminist, a woman must support abortion rights.

“If you cannot control your reproductive rights, you cannot fully participate in society,” she explained.

Abortion is the end-all, be-all for the femisogynists. It is the sacred cow of their movement. If you don’t support abortion, then you aren’t a real women. Not only are you not a real women, but you are anti-woman, and an anti-feminist. There’s no room for dissent in today’s extremist feminist movement. But there’s a slight problem with their orthodoxy. Grabenhofer’s argument, that if you cannot control your “reproductive rights”, you cannot participate fully in society insinuates that a pregnant woman cannot is not capable of participating fully in society, thus the need for abortions.

Isn’t that a little insulting to all mothers, everywhere?

Out: Camp fires and swimming. In: groupthink! Yes, now femisogynists are weaseling their way into the realm of summer camps:

Lots of kids go to summer camp to roast hot dogs and learn how to canoe. Others go to get really good at tennis or to immerse themselves in musical theater. And now, you can go to camp to learn how to be a feminist.

A camp. To learn how to be a feminist. I know, I thought the same thing — who on earth would want to be a feminist, much less attend a camp rife with them? Turns out, it’s the kind of people who actually choose to label themselves and who take some sort of strange pride in being a part of an irrelevant and self-diminishing groupthink.

When Sara Myles, a student at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, has trouble launching herself onto a trampoline, she shouts to rev herself up. “I can do this. I’m a feminist!” That declaration is one of the overarching themes of feminist summer camp: declaring one’s feminist status proudly, and then figuring out how to put that pride and energy to use.

Hey, here’s an idea. How about being proud of yourself as, you know, a person? You see, you kind of defeat the purpose when you take actual pride in having a victim mentality and participating in the perpetuation of lies and faux oppression. This line of alleged thinking continues with the workshops that are offered, including the following:

Activists Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards started the program for college students after visiting university campuses around the country and realizing that lots of women’s studies students wanted to work as feminists, but didn’t know where to look for jobs. They planned the week in order to introduce the campers to as many different feminist organizations as possible: They vary from the Guttmacher Institute, which collects statistics about things like the number of abortions performed each year, to Babeland, a female-friendly sex toy shop.

Work as feminists? That’s an actual job now? Well, I suppose we should be grateful that they are finally admitting that. It is a job; feminism is a cottage industry that has nothing to do with actual women. In fact, their entire agenda is harmful to women as their own workshops indicate. Surprise, surprise — abortion is a key study area! Because, remember, you can’t possibly be a feminist if you are an icky pro-life woman who believes that killing babies is not something to be embraced and touted as a way to achieve a corrupted form of equality.

Good old “sexual empowerment” is covered as well via the workshops on sex toys. Either that, or the camp counselors are pervily hoping to see young women at slumber parties having pillow fights in their panties — now with “appliances”! I only hope that they have a workshop on bashing cheerleaders. No feminist camp could be complete without the demeaning of women who aren’t the “right” kind of women!

Once again, feminists prove that they are actually femisogynists who do not have the best interests of women nor womanhood itself at heart. It’s all about perpetuating a victim class and pushing an agenda harmful to all, but particularly damaging to women. Groupthink and self-labeling, good. Individuality, bad.

The entire concept of this “summer camp” is cuckoo pants.  The alleged goal is to teach women to find jobs in the “feminist” field. If they were really concerned about “equality”, why would they pigeonhole young women into jobs that only serve to foster a victim mentality? Shouldn’t the entire goal of actual feminism be that there is no longer a need nor a desire for “feminist” jobs?

But, then, it’s not about empowering women to them, is it? It’s about keeping the Left in power.

—–

(crossposted from NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her Newsreal posts here

You’ve come a long way, baby. But make sure you keep babies off my “fun bags.” Or so says Kathryn Blundell, editor at the parenting magazine, Mother &  Baby.

Under the headline “I formula fed. So what?”, Kathryn Blundell says in this month’s Mother & Baby that she bottlefed her child from birth because “I wanted my body back. (And some wine)… I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach.”

She goes on to say: “They’re part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.”

She concedes that “there are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby. But even the convenience and supposed health benefits of breast milk couldn’t induce me to stick my nipple in a bawling baby’s mouth.”

Thanks bunches, ’sexual empowerment’! You’ve now made nurturing a child “creepy”. Many websites, like Lactivist, are upset over the negative, and misleading, message that the above article sends about breastfeeding and the benefits thereof. That is an issue; breastfeeding is frowned upon far too often and many women succumb to the pressures of family or work, and wean their babies earlier than they actually want to.

I breast fed my daughter for nearly two years. She weaned herself but, admittedly, I would have likely cut her off at age two regardless. Because, unfortunately, if one breast feeds older babies, they are often looked upon as if they should be wearing Birkenstocks, making tie dyes, and following around Lilith Fair in a volkswagen van.

But, there is another issue here that I find equally disturbing. What bothers me immensely is the fact that women now see their breasts as “fun bags” and as something meant for “lovers” only and not as a part of nurturing and motherhood. This concept epitomizes the very worst in female and motherhood degradation and it shows just how much damage the “sexual empowerment” fallacy, pushed by the Leftist Femisogynists, has caused. The thought that women should exist solely as sex objects is now rampant — even amongst women themselves.

The theory behind this whole article, in a woman’s parenting magazine, is that motherhood and nurturing a child is, as they always claim, a punishment. Something that results in the cramping of one’s “empowered” style. Sex is super fun! Motherhood? Not so much. Also, creepy. And anyone who says otherwise is a nutty wing nut liar!

They have ended up diminishing women and womanhood itself with these constant attempts to demonize motherhood and to try to turn it into a punishment and a detriment to one’s happiness. Instead of realizing that being a life bearing nurturer is one of the very best things about being a woman and is an attribute in and of itself, they constantly try to take that away, all in the name of some delusional perceived equality via sexual empowerment.

They’ve dehumanized women, as Kathryn Blundell’s article shows, by encouraging women to focus on sexual “equality”.  That has now removed any requirement that women be treated as something other than a sexual toy – even by themselves. And now, this has culminated in the idea that being a sex object is more important than nurturing a child.

But oh-how-wrong they are. Guess what? Those concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. A woman can be a mother and a sexy and sexual being. A woman can nurture and breast feed her child, bonding  in a way that brings so much joy that it honestly cannot be fully described, and still be sexually enticing. Considering yourself, and your body, as only a vehicle for sexual amusements is not empowering; it’s oppressive. Resenting the natural functions of your female body is not empowering; it’s enslaving.

Breast feeding isn’t creepy. What is truly creepy is when women dehumanize themselves and demean motherhood to the point where they see their breasts as nothing but “fun bags.” Not creepy, and actually empowering, is embracing all aspects of your feminity, including being a life bearing nurturer. That is sexy. Moms can multi-task, you know. We can be barefoot, in the kitchen and still practice getting pregnant.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her NewsReal posts.

Amanda Marcotte

About a month ago, Sarah Palin had the gall to describe herself as a feminist. Then, a crop of Republican women rose to prominence — most notably, Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Sharron Angle — by winning primaries across the country. Nikki Haley in particular, an Indian-American Christian conservative Republican woman, was the victim of horrendous attacks from the good ol’ boys club in South Carolina. But she was able to rise above the crude attacks and still win the gubernatorial primary in her state.

Suddenly, conservative feminism is everywhere. Women have become more and more politically active, and they’re rejecting the hijacking of feminism that’s been going on for several decades. Fascist feminists have come out in full force against it, digging their heels in deeper and deeper. The idea that women could make up their own minds about political issues and actually believe in conservative principles infuriates them, because women are supposed to toe a very specific ideological line.

After several weeks of conservative feminist bashing from the leftists Lori Ziganto has dubbed femisogynists, Amanda Marcotte has chimed in, with a column saying that conservative feminism is the idea that women are too stupid to know the difference. And, as per usual with any fascist feminist, the nonsensical argument revolves almost entirely around abortion.

Marcotte argues that abortion is not harmful to women (without citing any references to back up her argument, we should believe that it’s the truth because Amanda Marcotte Says So) and that conservatives do not see women as equal to men.

Common sense would demand that one not agree that there could be a kind of feminism that would declare the entire female sex incapable of handling the right to bodily autonomy. But the anti-choice feminists swear they have an argument! The argument is that Abortion Is Bad For Women, because it thwarts women from their true desires—so deep and true that many women don’t even realize they have them—to bring every pregnancy to term, no matter how much they think they don’t want it. They marshal all sorts of made-up evidence to support this argument, claiming incorrectly that abortion causes depression and breast cancer and probably ingrown toenails. The conclusion is that women have to be forced to bear children against their will for their own good.

. . . .

But setting aside even these historical realities, the argument underpinning anti-choice “feminism” is one based on the very un-feminist belief that women are simply too stupid to know their own minds. The narrative that suggests that women only think they want abortions, but will see the light if forced to bear children is to paint half of all adults as basically very tall children, except that it’s legal to have sex with them. In the anti-choice view, every single woman who enters an abortion clinic and asks for an abortion is really just a victim of her own stupidity and gullibility, and only after she has the abortion will she see how wrong she was. (They need to believe this so badly they simply overlook the evidence showing that most women who have abortions feel relief, and even those who feel sadness often don’t feel regret.) Any feminism that starts with the premise that women aren’t equal to men, because women are too stupid to make their own decisions, is simply not a kind of feminism. This is definitional—feminism starts with the belief that women are equal to men, especially with regards to intellectual and moral abilities. A feminism that doesn’t accept this is like a humanism that believes that human beings are fundamentally wicked and undeserving of rights—that is, it doesn’t exist.

I generally ignore the irrelevant bint known as Miss Gloria Steinem, but Katie Couric interviewed her on Tuesday and thrust her back into the mock-worthy spotlight.  Plus, I’m sick fed up with her and “feminists” like her. The emergence of conservative women to the forefront recently has made them particularly unbearable, as they strive to, in every repugnant way possible, diminish said women. This is just the latest from one of them, Miss Gloria Steinem, who unfortunately resurfaced from whatever Birkenstock-clad, soy latte drinking ivory tower she was hiding in:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Firstly, good grief, Katie Couric. What an inane question: “Can you be a conservative feminist?” As if conservatives women are some odd, only woman-like creatures. Miss Steinem’s response? You can’t be a feminist if you oppose legal abortion. Can’t be one. That’s crimethink! She caps it off with the utterly ridiculous statement that one in three women need an abortion. Now, it’s not the nebulous “choice,” it’s an actual need? Because it never really was about choice, was it? They strove to make abortion the default option.

Well, guess what, Stepford Steinem Feminists? We don’t care if you don’t consider us a part of your cultish club. You see, we have minds of our own. And, unlike you, we respect women and don’t think that they are too stupid to handle life on their own, nor do we think that women are perpetual victims who must be saved from things like “inconvenient” motherhood. We are also tired of your bastardizing the term feminist beyond any recognizable meaning. You are antithetical to feminism and can no longer claim that term as your own. We are taking it back. Not to use, as it’s unnecessary; we know that we have equality already. But, only so that you can no longer use it as a way to promulgate lies in order to further an agenda harmful to all, but particularly to women.

Recently, another Stepford Feminist, Amanda Marcotte, claimed that Sarah Palin – and every other Pro-Life woman – thinks that women are stupid and doesn’t want to offer them a “choice.”  She based this on an honest statement that Palin made at a Susan B. Anthony dinner, wherein she openly and honestly stated that the idea of an abortion had fleetingly crossed her mind. She then said this:

“So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman’s, a girl’s temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she’s not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process.”

To the agenda tunnel-visioned like Marcotte, that meant that Palin thinks women are dum-dums and she then asserted this:

I’ve seen everything from mild cases of morning sickness to months confined to bed in service of bringing a baby into the world, and these kinds of sacrifices should be freely chosen out of love instead of foisted on the unwilling. To suggest that all women are equipped to make these sacrifices at any point in time is to insult those who take on the burden because they want to, not because they have to.

Oooh, the terrible sacrifice of morning sickness. Yeah, avoiding that is way more important than, you know, a life.

What’s insulting is that Marcotte and Steinem and other Stepford Feminists believe that women are incapable of being responsible for their own actions. That if they have the simple human emotions like fear of the unknown or self-doubt, then they should be relieved of that icky burden immediately because surely they can’t handle it. Motherhood is a punishment and a burden that only certain women can be expected to handle. Some aren’t “equipped” to do so, you see.

They are also the ones who want to hide information from women, for fear that women are too stupid to handle the truth; they don’t even want women to see ultrasounds before aborting their children. They have so little respect for women, that they deny the very existence of post-abortion syndrome. To them, it’s inconceivable that any woman would actually feel remorse or be racked with guilt, her entire life, after having an abortion. She got rid of that pesky, burdensome, “just a clump of cells”,  inconvenience! If she doesn’t feel joyful relief, she can’t be a “real” feminist-y woman!

This is because they feel scorn for the very act of Motherhood itself.  Gloria Steinem once said “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” Another “feminist”, Simone de Beauvoir said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

Hey, you know who that sounds like?

“The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.”
~ V.I. Lenin, International Working Women’s Day Speech , 1920.

You don’t understand that being life bearing nurturers is something that makes women special, not lesser. You, instead, think that women are stupid, shouldn’t be “trapped” by a child, and should be protected victims of their own actions, feminists, yet you were the useful idiots. Useful to the Left at one point, but no more – now that we all see you for what you are.

Plain old idiots.

As women who respect and support other women, because Pro-Life is Pro-Woman, this is what we “can’t be real feminists” women do. We unhinged nutty nuts help women, instead of urging them to abort. We help them truly have it all, education, career and motherhood via personal responsibility. We trust and have faith that they can do so, unlike you. I’ll tell you about one such place, as it’s in the icky South so I’m sure you’ve never heard of it.

GREENVILLE, S.C. — A building that used to be an abortion clinic has a new tenant. Little Steps has taken a lease out on the downtown Greenville property. The teen parent program offers parenting classes, mentoring, support groups, supplies and childcare to young moms and dads….

Mandy Black knows the move is a bit of a political statement but she says the space really is a perfect fit to provide classrooms, playrooms and mentoring stations. “I don’t want to forget what happened here,” she said. “There were a lot of lives lost and a lot of lives changed in this building. We don’t want to forget that, but at the same time we want to move from that and say here is what can happen now.”

A place where babies were sucked mercilessly from the former safety of their mother’s wombs, never once feeling a loving touch, never receiving succor, considered, instead, expendable for the sake of convenience, is now a place that will foster love. A place that will support women and motherhood itself, instead of diminishing it. A place that acknowledges that women aren’t helpless victims, in need of saving from their own decisions. A place that will save the lives of countless children — and their mothers.

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child. But, conservative women know that sometimes it takes one to save a child’s life. Or, 50 million of them.

So, you see, Miss Steinem – Women, and their children born and unborn, need feminists like fish need bicycles.

——

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her posts at NewsReal

Sorry, Tina Brown, but feminism is already dead. And I say, “You’re welcome.” As perpetual children, you self-avowed feminists may not thank us yet. You may continue to stomp and whine and throw your little tantrums, petulantly holding your mouths closed to the icky vegetables known as truth, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, but one day you will thank us.

See, one day you may live without bitterness and without the irrational feelings of perpetual victim-hood. One day, you too may embrace your gender fully and realize that you already are equal to men. That you are equal, yet different, and that’s a good thing. That will be a nice change, no? Hopeandchange, even!

Tina Brown, the editor of the Daily Beast, spouted her oh-so-insightful and well-thought out ‘conservative women are meany pants and icky’ opinion on Good Morning America today, in a segment discussing the primary wins of many GOP women, including Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Nikki Haley, on Tuesday night. I wrote about this yesterday and discussed how the self-avowed “feminists”, also known by me as Femisogynists, were up in arms over these wins.

Like the children that they are, they could only turn to lame attempts to smear conservative women, using Sarah Palin as a scapegoat once again. Geez, lefties. Isn’t it about time you thought of something new? It’s incredibly tiresome. At least try to mix it up a little, keep it interesting? Tina Brown can’t, apparently, she said this: (Via Newsbusters):

TINA BROWN: Yeah, I mean, it was. I mean, in some ways, it’s, again, representation that people are looking for otherness. You know, they’re so disgusted with incumbents, they’re looking for something completely different. And, as it happens, of course, women usually are seen as, you know, an alternative because many more men are in there. But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.

Oh, really? I must inform you, Miss Brown, that I am a woman and these women represent the things that I fight for, as a person. To me, there are no women’s issues. I don’t think women are stupid and, therefore, can only focus on made-up, busy work issues like the nebulous “reproductive rights” and faux environmental issues. Women like me are fighting for smaller government and against a Big Daddy government (we, unlike you, don’t feel as if we need “saving”) . We are fighting for the future of our children, alive and unborn, and we want them to know the America we know. We are fighting for freedom, not relying on protected victim status.

Tina Brown went on to say these two gems:

BROWN: Women, too, can be wing nuts, is the point.

…. What really killed? It was so yesterday. It wasn’t just women. It was rich women. That’s the point.”

Oh, well, wingnutty women and rich women. They don’t count, clearly! I suppose they don’t have estrogen nor female  parts? In the minds of the Femisogynist left, that doesn’t matter. You see, it’s never actually about women to them, as I’ve said time and time again. It’s all agenda driven. It’s all a way to perpetuate a victim mentality. It’s all a way to actually subjugate the women with whom the left disagrees, in order to further that agenda.

The leftist agenda, which is the femisogynist agenda, is harmful to all – men and women – but has been particularly harmful to women in one aspect. The pushing of the abortion agenda has done more to harm women and motherhood than anything in recent history. The entire pro-abortion movement has demeaned women by diminishing motherhood to the point that it is considered a punishment and a detriment and that a life itself can be an expendable inconvenience.

The sweetest irony is that Sarah Palin has done more to expose that than anyone else has in a long time. She epitomizes this very fact: Women can, and do, have it all. The only people who think otherwise are, ironically, those who claim to be feminists themselves. Thus, the femisogynist “feminist” movement was hoisted on it’s own petard, by exposing themselves with their own reactions to Palin, among others. People now see them for what they are; agenda pushers who are the antithesis of actual feminism. Here is the difference between Femisogynists and conservative women in a nutshell.

In primaries, female candidates didn’t make gender an issue

With victories by several prominent women in Tuesday’s primary elections came the familiar declarations that a “year of the woman” is underway. But in at least five races, something even more remarkable occurred: The candidates’ gender never became much of an issue.

Because it should not be one. There is no need to constantly bring up gender as if that is why they should win. Conservative women know that. They don’t rely on their gender to somehow protect them nor to get them ahead. They are, you know, grown-ups. They rely on themselves and on the love and support of their families and friends, not the government.  They embrace their gender and use its strengths to make them the people that they are. They should, and did, win for those very reasons. They won because of the people that they are and for the policies they will strive to set forth.

I said last week that feminists/femisogynists have hammered the final nail into their own coffin. Tina Brown is merely attending the funeral.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of posts at NewsReal

So it isn’t altogether surprising that these fascist feminists would show such vitriol towards conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. They denounce them for their conservative views, while saying that no one can make a litmus test for true feminists. They say that they champion strong, empowered women, yet they consistently try to instill a victim mentality in women, telling them that the patriarchy is always keeping them down and that everything women have accomplished is thanks to feminism. (Apparently, for these fascist feminists, women aren’t strong enough to accomplish anything based on their own merits.)

Given all of this, Tina Brown’s reaction to four wins by conservative women over male opponents on Tuesday is unsurprising. Because these women are conservative, their successes are considered “a blow to feminism”.

As Allah pointed out, these women won based on merit, and not because of their gender. Fascist feminists want gender to be the sole focus… well, gender and espousing liberal “women’s issues”. The thought of women caring about things like less gun control, a stronger military, closing the border, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government sends them into a self-righteous rage. And so, they’ll engage in… misogyny! They’ll demean conservative women, insult them, refuse to defend them when they’re attacked, smeared, and sexualized, and sometimes even take part in the abuse. All of the misogynistic rage on the part of fascist feminists is always in the name of feminism, because somehow, people like Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Amanda Marcotte, and this Tina Brown have become feminism’s gatekeepers. Believe abortion is wrong, like, say, Sarah Palin? Even though Palin is intelligent, powerful, accomplished, and empowered, they’ll still discredit her. They’ll scream in outrage about Palin calling herself a feminist, and all because she has the audacity to be pro-life. They engage in sexism to defeat her, just because she thinks for herself instead of letting Valenti & Co. dictate how she should think.

[W]hen Wonkette and the merry band of leftist misfits diminish a gorgeous, POWERFUL, conservative woman the day after she has demonstrated proof of said power by drawing attention to her breasts, they are being sexist pigs. Even if they’re feminists. Even if they’re women.

They are using this age-old tool to diminish and degrade her power as a politician and human. They are no different than the sleazy boss ogling the assistant and making a comment about her nice new blouse (wink wink) after she has asked for a raise for doing excellent work.

What is appalling is that these same sexist dirtbags will cry foul about anyone making a comment about Elena Kagan or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama’s changing appearance. In addition, these are the same people who have worked out multiple ways to restrict and diminish free speech so no one gets offended.

And then, when useful to them, they turn around and use the very same rhetorical device to destroy a political opponent.

This is why I call them fascist feminists. If you want to have a home in today’s feminist movement, then you cannot think for yourself. You have to have the exact same ideals, values, and principles that the fascist feminists have. If you don’t, then they will try to destroy you by any means possible, even while they say they’re working for women.

It’s condescending, really. Basically, these feminists are saying that it’s OK for men to have different thoughts and perspectives, but women must all think exactly the same and only care about a certain set of “women’s issues”.

This is why when women like Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Sharron Angle, who think for themselves and don’t toe the fascist feminist line, are victorious, feminists are furious. They aren’t out for the advancement and success for women. They’re out to advance their own radical agenda, an agenda that most American women don’t agree with. Women may be wing nuts? Well, feminists can be misogynists. Tina Brown, Amanda Marcotte, and Jessica Valenti are perfect examples.

These feminists don’t speak for women anymore. And unless these fascist feminists change their ways, they’ll find themselves fading more and more into obscurity and irrelevance.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Quick, name the one thing sure to fill a liberal feminist with rage! (OK, well, besides the idea of women choosing to keep their babies.) If you guessed catcalls, then you’re right.

Today’s extremist feminists absolutely seethe with anger if a man whistles at them, if he catcalls, or even says something nice to them. And God forbid you ask a woman to smile! It will bring on long-winded rants about misogyny and the patriarchy and harassment and how all men do this to keep women down. Jessica Valenti-style feminists only have room for one kind of man, and those are the ultra-feminized, ultra-”progressive,” girly doormat kind of men. Alpha males who ooze masculinity are bad, bad, bad.

I suppose it was only a matter of time, then, before a video game exacting murderous revenge upon the evil misogynist men who dare to whistle at women was created.

Meet “Hey Baby”, the video game for disgruntled, angry women everywhere.

Ever had one of those seemingly endless days?

All you want to do is to get home… You’re the last one out of the office. Its getting dark outside…

You walk down the streets and realize the streetlights are burnt out. There’s no one around. You hear a footstep behind you. The light flickers.

You turn and he says, “I wanna lick you all over…..”

And then you remember, you’re packing a 3′ long .80 caliber machine gun that’s locked and loaded.

Ladies, are you sick and tired of catcalling, hollering, obnoxious one-liners and creepy street encounters? Tired of changing your route home to avoid uncomfortable situations?

IT’S PAYBACK TIME, BOYS…..

But it’s OK. This is allowable because it’s therapeutic.

The rage behind the game might be a little too real for some tastes, but there’s no question many women will find it thrilling, maybe even therapeutic. Personally, I can’t say I’m particularly fond of the “all men as potential attackers” mentality that the game engenders, even if it does make for interesting commentary about the ways street harassment warps women’s views of men. Ultimately, though, considering the existence of first-person sexual assault games like “RapeLay,” it’s about damn time someone introduced a street harasser shoot’em-up game.

Because there are some games that perpetuate violence against women, its OK to perpetuate violence against men? The phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” comes to mind. The rape game mentioned above indeed is despicable. It was denounced by Salon, Feministing, and Shakesville. The violence against women is disgusting and despicable to them and to all decent human beings. But somehow, all Salon can muster up when the violence is against men is that they don’t like it much, but it sure makes for interesting conversation!

I wonder what the reaction of the radical feminist Left would be if someone said that “RapeLay” was wrong, but makes for interesting conversation.

What we’re basically seeing is that, to these extremist feminists, violence in video games is A-OK as long as it’s violence against men. Samhita at Feministing, for example, had a big problem with Grand Theft Auto. Killing pimps and drug dealers? No big deal. Killing prostitutes? Absolutely misogynistic and offensive! Violence in video games cannot be accepted … unless you’re murdering men who whistle at you, and then it’s empowering and therapeutic.

And of course, the greater message of this game is that men who give a harmless catcall deserve to be murdered. It says a lot about the mentality of the women who have hijacked the feminist movement. If a man says something to a woman she doesn’t like, he needs to be taken out, apparently. It’s not entirely surprising, considering the latent hatred and anger towards men in the leftist feminist movement.

How is this empowering?

First of all, strong women do not hide from their feminine nature. It does not make you a weak victim if you’re attractive, or if—gasp!—men notice that you are attractive.

Which leads me to my next point. Why is it that supposedly strong, empowered women are reduced to sniveling children just because some guy said something to them that they didn’t like? There’s no strength or confidence in that. It certainly doesn’t help women to tell them that they need be offended at every little perceived insult they come across. Strong women—strong people—are confident enough to not let rude comments bother them. When you’re reduced to a seething ball of rage by one comment, then I think the problem is not the rude man calling out to you while you walk down the street.

Case in point: a self-described feminist gamer/blogger who just loves the idea of this game. She apparently gets catcalled all the time, and it fills her with outrage.

Plenty of people do do it “the nice way” — they patiently and politely insist on just talking to me for a minute, or they just want to step into my path to tell me my eyes are nice. And can’t I take a compliment?

To that, I say, why don’t I have the right to go to my corner store and home again without feeling obligated to be friendly to strangers on the sidewalk just because the strangers are physically attracted to me? Do I owe them something? Yes, it’s rather nice that the workers in my bodega all want to shake my hand and ask me all about how I’m doing and what I’m up to every time I go in in the morning, it’s so good that they’re friendly, but maybe I just want to buy a damn pack of cigarettes without having to explain what I’m all dressed up for.

You can’t even be friendly to her without getting her angry.

It’s latent misogyny that happens in big cities; it takes my power away. It makes me an object in front of people I don’t even know, and that’s not okay whether they’re nice about it or not. It is nothing less than a slow-burning chronic trauma.

My favorite catcall in the ‘Hey Baby Game’? “Smile for me, baby.” It fills me with rage that a stranger on the street feels at liberty to demand that I smile. I smile when I feel like it, and I sure as shit don’t want to do it for you, buddy.

So someone’s made a game that’s an outlet for that rage, that wants us to discuss that rage.

Takes her power away? Please. I would think that anyone with an iota of real strength and confidence and power would not be reduced to a whiny powerless child simply by a few rude comments.

And yes, I understand and agree that women should be able to walk down the street without getting hit on constantly. I also think that men should be able to speak to women without being accused of misogyny. I think that men should be able to get married without worrying that their wives will take them to the cleaners after a divorce. But guess what? Life’s not fair. How you handle that reality says much more about you than it does about the world at large.

It’s a perfect example of how modern extremist feminism does not, in fact, empower women. It encourages women to be forever offended and to always think of themselves as victims. And of course, this game is just one more example of the hypocrisy of the feminist Left. A game that makes women the targets of violence is bad, but a game that makes men the targets of violence is fine. It’s just a conversation-starter.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Image Courtesy of RedState

Your college dollars at work, parents! At Ohio University, the cuckoo pants is in full swing. Ohio University has a student-run magazine called Backdrop Magazine. They decided to have a little fashion spread in their Spring issue. No big whoop, right? Wrong:

Enter OU hyperfeminist Bethany Francis.  Francis is a theater production major, and apparently, a giant whackadoodle.  When Francis picked up the Spring issue of Backdrop Magazine , she saw the coming of the Fourth Reich in the student-run pop-culture magazine.  Why?

Because the magazine’s spring fashion shoot didn’t include, in her estimation, the proper quota of non-blonde girls.

That’s right. Because there were too many of those icky, pretty blonde girls, Miss Francis, in her childish and perpetual victim mentality head, said to herself  “Brunette h8rs!!!11 You are just like those Nazis that I kind of, sort of read about but clearly don’t remember it or I wouldn’t compare a fashion spread to mass genocide.” She was so upset, that she made it her super cool cause and enlisted fellow insane college “feminists” via Facebook.

Then I saw the summer fashion “article”: eight identically bodied, white, blonde – excuse me: one brunette – very athletic/thin, women who looked so similar, they could be interchangeable. I can assure you, the first thought I had when viewing this shoot – in which the girls go nameless, mind you, a step down from the magazine’s previous “article” about “Women Who Work It” with no written component, aside from a minimal blurb about Ms. Lisa Summerscales – was not, “Wow, what an attractive swimsuit!” Rather, my reaction was a combination of, “So, here at OU we produce publications that celebrate the Beauty Ideal hurting both women and men?” and, “Apparently the Aryan Race is in and people of color and different sizes are OUT.”

But the most shameful, immediate response I had to the shoot was, “This makes me feel bad about my body.” I was in no way looking at the suits that these women were wearing; I was immediately comparing my body to theirs and angrily hating mine/theirs at the same time. This confession is not to say that these women are not beautiful or healthy – they are both! – but I have a serious problem with an Ohio University publication broadcasting that this body type that everyone should have.

Aha. And there, we have it. Once again, a leftist jumps to Godwin’s Law and odiously compares something to Nazism just because they don’t like it. And it made her feel bad. About herself.  Bethany, try scrawling madly in your diary or maybe even start an angry manifesto as an outlet for your self-involved faux-angst. No one will take you seriously then, either, but at least you won’t be offensively and outrageously daring to compare your low self-esteem issues with people who were murdered by mass genocidal, anti-Semitic maniacs.

Maybe try giving a hoot about women who actually are subjugated and are made to feel shameful about their bodies. Ever hear of Iran?

TEHRAN — Iranian authorities have begun police patrols in the capital to arrest women wearing clothes deemed improper. The campaign against loose-fitting veils and other signs of modernism comes as government opponents are calling for rallies to mark the anniversary of the disputed presidential election, and critics of the crackdown say it is stoking feelings of discontent.

But hard-liners say that improper veiling is a “security issue” and that “loose morality” threatens the core of the Islamic republic.

Most of them are brunette, Bethany, and some are of “diverse” skin colors and such (by the way, they are also punished for being suntanned). You should care about them, then, right? Nah, of course you don’t. Because it’s not about them. It’s not about women. It’s all about you, as it always is with femisogynists like yourself. Your outrageous outrage is always based on your own victim mentalities. As Jesse Hathaway said at RedState:

Also, just as “advocates” such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or OU’s own Aisha Upton aren’t truly trying to help anyone except themselves and their endless RAAAAAAAAAGE, feminists such as Andrea Dworken, Marylin French, or OU’s own Bethany Francis aren’t really upset about the plight of the women in 2010, they’re just in it for the attention and the glory.

Bingo. The only systematic sexism or racism that exist in this country are the kinds created in the minds of these perpetual victims, erroneously calling themselves “advocates,” and in the institutions that they’ve created to perpetuate the same.

Thankfully, these race baiters and gender baiters are now failing with most of the population, even if Backdrop Magazine caved in and apologized.

Now irrelevant, but soon extinct. Good riddance.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her NewsReal posts here.)

Last week, I noted the hypocrisy of Jessica Valenti and the feminist Left in their outrage at Sarah Palin labeling herself a feminist. The hand-wringing of “progressive” feminists continued and grew to a fever pitch after Valenti wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, arguing again that Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Most, like Carmen Siering at the Ms. Magazine blog, wholeheartedly agreed with Valenti and denounced Palin as a feminist. A few of the braver liberal feminists dared to disagree (and were swiftly criticized for it), like Meghan Daum in the L.A. Times.

What none of these feminists seem to be able to understand is that they need Sarah Palin playing for the feminist team if they want the movement to have a prayer of becoming relevant again.

The problem is that feminism has been hijacked by women bent on a radical, extremist agenda. It’s about advancing leftist causes now, not fighting for women’s equality. They say they fight for “women’s issues,” like universal health care, abortion (on-demand and taxpayer funded, of course), gay rights, amnesty for illegals, and other radical Left causes that pretty much have nothing to do with actual women’s rights. It’s condescending to women, when you really think about it, to tell women that they can only care about certain issues which must be decided for them rather than thinking for themselves. Modern feminists are telling us that these are the only issues women need be concerned with, and if you don’t agree with them on these specific issues, you’re anti-feminist and anti-woman. Slowly, this pushed women away and sent feminism further and further into the fringe until feminism became a dirty word. It’s not a coincidence that bloggers have been saying that Sarah Palin “dropped the f-bomb” as if it’s a swear word. For a lot of women, it is. And it’s the fault of the extremist feminists themselves. Just look at the things modern feminist leaders have said.

• A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. (Gloria Steinem)
• The feminine mystique has succeeded in burying millions of American women alive. (Betty Friedan)
• We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. (Robin Morgan)
• Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men. (Andrea Dworkin)
• As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … he can sexually molest his daughters … THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE. (Marilyn French)
• If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. (Mary Daly)
• Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology. (Amanda Marcotte)

This is sadly just a small sampling. And it doesn’t endear the average American woman to feminism. The average American woman does not hate men, she does not hate marriage, she does not think that all sex is rape, she does not walk around feeling like a consummate victim, she does not glorify abortion and she isn’t inherently liberal. But this is what modern feminism has become. It’s a movement that is filled with women who are extreme leftists, who have a deep-seated hatred for men, and who wallow in victimhood as if it’s some kind of prize to relish. The hijacking of feminism has caused it to be shallow and superficial. Women have been told that in order to be a proper feminist, they have to adhere to a certain set of radical beliefs, they must support abortion, and they must abandon traditional values that Americans have held for centuries.

And yet, they can’t understand why women want nothing to do with feminism anymore.

Sarah Palin represents American women much better than these modern feminists do. She has a certain set of conservative values and she is a feminist. She does not, however, say that you must agree with her in order to be a feminist. She does not demand you agree with her on every last issue in order to like her, either. She could be a huge asset to feminism if they’d get over their stubborn snobbery.

Women like Sarah Palin because they see themselves in her, even if they disagree politically. She’s a working mom with a loving husband and a great family. She got into politics by getting involved with the PTA, for crying out loud. She didn’t set out to make history or change the world. She’s got a common-sense, take-charge, no-nonsense attitude that women can relate to. She sees herself as a self-made woman, rather than constantly catarwauling about how she’s a victim. Women like her for all of these reasons. She’s an everywoman, and she is easier to relate to than extremist role models like Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti.

Women don’t go about their daily lives bemoaning the lack of taxpayer-funded abortions on demand. They don’t see the patriarchy everywhere they look and they don’t feel victimized by everything they see and encounter. Many of them—myself included—don’t want universal health care or universal day care or a higher minimum wage. Many of them are more concerned about national security, securing the border, and the economy. Some women are even—gasp!!—pro-life.

The point is, there are no real “women’s issues” that women have to believe in to be feminists. It doesn’t make you anti-woman if you don’t adhere to the exact same principles that Jessica Valenti & Co. demand you adhere to. Women, believe it or not, have diverse ideals, thoughts, principles, and standards. They do not all care about exactly the same things, yet these extremist feminists on the Left expect women to pass some kind of litmus test. It’s ridiculous, considering feminism is about equality for women, period. It is not about requiring women to walk in lockstep toward a specific set of ideals. For some inexplicable reason, modern feminists demand that women toe a very specific line in order to be included in the club—fascist feminism is what it really is. It’s no wonder that women are turned off by it.

If these extremist feminists want to have the slightest prayer of regaining the relevance they’ve lost in mainstream America, then they need to embrace Sarah Palin and other women like her. Feminism started as equality for women, to give women the right to vote. It didn’t exist to tell women who to vote for or where to stand on the issues. Sarah Palin is not usurping feminism from the real feminists, she’s the real feminist reclaiming it for the modern American woman.

These leftist feminists have a golden opportunity here to turn a corner and start to make a real difference. They can embrace Sarah Palin and send the message that they’re abandoning the fascist feminism of the past forty years. Or they can continue to demonize someone simply because she doesn’t agree with them on certain political issues.

There is a choice to be made here. One can lead to a resurgence of feminism, and can begin the process of repairing the movement that has been hijacked, twisted, and manipulated by extremists hellbent on a leftist agenda. One choice could start to repair the tarnished reputation feminism has suffered over the past forty years.

The other choice will sound the death knell for feminism. It will only serve to further alienate American women and widen the rift even further. The damage done to feminism by these extremists if they refuse to accept women of all ideologies could very well be irreparable — but it’s probably what will happen regardless.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Old school feminism is dead. And I say, good riddance.  What is even more delightful is that old school feminists have hammered the final nail into their own coffin, by exposing themselves for what they truly are and what they truly believe. We can, partially, thank Sarah Palin for that. What we must not do, however, is start another round of identity politics and I’ve seen that creeping up of late. That must not be allowed to continue.

I wrote something recently about Sarah Palin and the new face of feminism, entitled Taking Feminism Back: Sarah Palin Endorses Nikki Haley for SC Governor. My point was that conservative women are strong, capable and are fed up at having faux feminists (who are actually Femisogynists) constantly claim that they speak for us as they strive to turn all women into perpetual victims, at the mercy of big strong daddy government. We are also tired of motherhood being diminished and considered a detriment instead of an attribute. I was taking the term feminist back, not because it’s a necessary or even a desirable term, but so that the LEFT can no longer use it and can no longer continue to use identity politics as a wedge and a way to put people in race based and gender based boxes.

But, apparently some, even at the pro-Palin New Agenda, are now trying to turn Palin and other GOP women into typical Stepford Feminists. No. We must not allow that.  Sarah Palin and the women of the GOP are “true feminists,” in the original intent of the word, yes. And the fact that the faux feminists on the Left are so up in arms about them using the term, which they have bastardized beyond recognition, attests to that fact.

But the term is not necessary.

The reason I’m happy that Palin and the “mama grizzlies” are in the forefront isn’t because they have girl parts. It is because of what they believe. It is because of the kind of people they are. It is that they are coming forward now, as freedom fighters. It is because, like it or not, it just so happens to be the women of the GOP who have the will and the fighting spirit at this time. That is what we need: leaders with spines, regardless of having breasts or not.

You see, while “Feminists/Femisogynists” were busily pant suiting themselves and trying to become men, other women were out there annihilating the glass ceiling, by raising their families and learning through actual living and perseverance. We didn’t learn by trying to be something we are not, but rather we learned by living. Most often in our wonderful small towns, none of which, in my experience are bitter.

We don’t rely on a victim mentality; we rely on ourselves and the love of our families. We don’t invent sexism with insane claims that marriage itself is sexist. We have no problem taking our husbands’ names, as we aren’t cuckoo pants and thus, realize that marriage isn’t some nefarious plot, but rather a loving bond. We want to share our name with our children, whom we don’t consider punishments.

Unlike Femisogynists, who invent victimization out of whole cloth, all while ignoring actual misogyny because they want to “tolerate” the “culture.” Instead, not blinded by a victim mentality, we realize there is no need for feminism here. We realize the true need is in Islamic countries where the women are taught from birth to be ashamed of being women. Instead of crying in our diaries at the thought of icky marriage and turning a blind eye because we don’t like George Bush, we actually care about true oppression and subjugation of women. The Feminist Hawk’s Nest at David Horowitz’s NewsReal proves that, and gets results.

Some wish to continue to ignore that and, instead, start up a new feminist movement here in America. I disagree completely. Particularly, with this post entitled Sarah Palin and the Feminist Revival:

We commend Sarah Palin for supporting women and embracing her gender.  Brava!  That is truly the way forward for our women leaders.  And noteworthy in contrast to some women leaders in the Democratic Party like Speaker Nancy Pelosi who have sought to undermine female candidates.

But there is a worrying aspects in Palin’s new approach:  she has fallen into the trap of making abortion a centerpiece and trying to rebrand “feminism” into a conservative mantra.  Blech and more blech!  If you want proof positive that this is a losing strategy, look left to the largest national women’s organization which has seen its membership dwindle (to 10% of its peak).  And look at polling data that suggests that only 20% of women are willing to use the word “feminist” about themselves (and 17% said they would welcome their daughters using that label).

Firstly, Palin and women like her embrace their gender by being a wife and a mother and a strong, accomplished woman.  They do not embrace their gender in some cult-like or gang fashion by backing people solely because they have female parts and estrogen. That’s the antithesis of actual feminism, which should promote the fact that people should be judged on character and principles, not on their estrogen or lack thereof.  Implying that Palin is endorsing those candidates just because they have fancy wombs is not only wrong, it diminishes them and their accomplishments.

Secondly, how is voicing one’s strongly held pro-life beliefs a “trap” and “blech?” What would be “blech” is remaining silent to the murder of the unborn. That also would not be “embracing her gender.” Abortion is harmful to women; it has indoctrinated a generation into believing that Motherhood is a detriment and that life itself is expendable.

In fact, that is really the only issue the Femisogynists care about and why they are so up in arms over Palin and other strong GOP women. They don’t care about women; they care about a pro-abortion agenda only.

Jessica Valenti disclosed that in her recent Washington Post article. While she was attempting to bash Palin and conservative women, she just ended up proving my point: Old school feminism, a form of misogyny itself, is dead.

She says:

If anyone — even someone who actively fights against women’s rights — can call herself a feminist, the word and the movement lose all meaning. And while part of the power of feminism is its intellectual diversity, certain things are inarguable. Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end….

But feminists — or anyone who cares about women’s progress — need to stop Palin from turning feminism into yet another empty slogan. Because “sisterhood” and meaningless rallying cries aside, American women need real feminism in their lives, not just the f-bomb.

Right, Jessica. By women’s rights, you of course mean abortion. It is also quite clear that “Feminism” has taught you only how to be a permanent child and a perpetual victim. It’s actually rather sad. I’d feel pity for you and your fellow Femisogynists, if not for the damage you have managed to do to women for so long. But, now, the word and the movement have lost all meaning, thankfully. It, and you, are irrelevant. The Stepford Feminists, walking only in lockstep with the leftist agenda, have gone the way of the dinosaur and it’s about time.

The rest of us have never embraced your victim mentality; we are not victims. We are people, the same way that men are. We are equal, yet different. We, unlike you, realize that is not mutually exclusive. We know that the only institutionalized sexism that exists in America is the cottage industry that the Left has created perpetuating the same. That ends now, if we ensure that we do not allow ourselves to fall prey to a new form of identity politics.

Women have come a long way, baby. Now, just throw off the last vestiges of that cloak of “feminist” victimhood once and for all. Truth to power? Yeah, that’s ours now, too. You know why? Because, you lie.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her NewsReal posts here.

Did Hollywood finally see at a least a sliver of the light? Sure, Sex and the City isn’t really Feminist Hawk-y. They promulgate that whole “sexual empowerment” meme that is actually harmful to women and demeaning to them. As such, they generally fit the liberal Feminist (Femisogynist) role.

That’s where this movie gets interesting. They are breaking with the Stepford Feminist lockstep, wherein American liberal feminists hypocritically ignore the misogyny in the Islamic world because they want to be cool and enlightened and embrace diversity. Because Shut Up, Racists ™. Also, George Bush.

They usually worship at the shrine of multiculturalism and make excuses for Islamic misogyny while desperately inventing a way to denigrate American culture. So, whatever will they think when they read the reviews for the latest movie from their usual poster girls? You see, apparently the new Sex and the City movie dares to acknowledge, albeit rather superficially, the fact that Islam is misogynistic. Egads! How will the left resolve that in their minds, as Hot Air notes?

The rather scathing portrayal of Muslim society no doubt will stir controversy, especially in a frothy summer entertainment, but there’s something bracing about the film’s saucy political incorrectness. Or is it politically correct? “SATC 2″ is at once proudly feminist and blatantly anti-Muslim, which means that it might confound liberal viewers.

Indicative of the film’s contradictory stance is a scene in which the ladies perform a karaoke version of Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” in an Abu Dhabi nightclub. An equally outrageous moment comes when the interlopers are rescued by a bunch of Muslim women who strip off their black robes to reveal the stylish Western outfits they are concealing beneath their discreet garb. These endearingly loopy scenes exhibit the tasteless humor that enlivened the TV series on its best nights.

Other reviewers show their multiculturalism zealotry in their reviews; they actually seem angry that Islamic misogynistic behavior was pointed out.

In Variety, critic Brian Lowry said the film featured “some not-very-convincing rumination on the treatment of Muslim women – even in what’s supposed to be a relatively progressive Arab country – that seems more condescending than stirring”.

How dare they ruminate on the treatment of Muslim women! And it’s a relatively progressive country; no fatwa on suntans has even been issued yet!

Writing for Slant magazine, Ed Gonzalez said: “Such is the arrogance of this self-congratulatory movie. It takes the Sex and the City girls to the Middle East so they can cavalierly thumb their nose at the region’s retrograde gender politics.”

Oh, we wouldn’t want to thumb our noses at misogynistic policies in other countries, would we? We should only bash things like the institution of marriage here in silly, old America. Other regions are culture-y and all. That makes misogyny exotic! Who cares about misogyny if it lets you be an enlightened “Citizen of the World!”

And in New York magazine, David Edelstein wrote: “The thinking behind the movie (written and directed by Michael Patrick King) is undisguised. Let’s start with an over-the-top gay wedding! Then we’ll send the girls to Abu Dhabi so they can rile up the fundamentalists with their sexuality! Then they’ll make fun of women in niqab (‘Certainly cuts down on the Botox bill!’) but later show (campy) feminist solidarity!

Wait, what? I thought sexuality was good? Now it’s offensive to “rile people up” with it? That smacks of “she had it coming” to me. And you know what is solidarity, Mr. Edelstein? Acknowledging the fact that other cultures make women cover their faces in shame, instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist.

The biggest irony, perhaps, is how will liberal feminist Sex and the City fans defend this one?

There is high sensitivity in the United Arab Emirates about plots considered too racy, and the first Sex and the City movie was not shown there at all.

Huh. Fancy that.

I’m generally the last person to defend Sex and the City, for the demeaning “sexual empowerment” issue alone. But, anything that helps shed even a glimmer of light on and raises even slightly the awareness of Islamic misogyny, deserves credit where due.

So, bring on the “cavalier thumb-nosing”. And relish in the fact that it’s poetic justice that it is being done by women in super cute shoes (Seriously, have you seen Carrie’s shoes? Am I right, ladies?)

———–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her NewsReal posts here.

Sarah Palin is the feminist Left’s favorite target. It seems strange to anyone not entrenched in a radical, extremist feminist agenda. Feminists once fought for equality between the sexes — the right for women to vote, giving women a fair chance to go to college and get a job without fear of discrimination, and the choice to either stay at home with her children or work full-time. Fighting for equality has long since fallen by the wayside though, and the leftist agenda has fully set in. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin, therefore, cannot be feminists.

Daring to call Sarah Palin a feminist will make radical modern feminists’ heads explode. Currently screeching with rage is Jessica Valenti, angry that someone might think that Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist.

Seriously, y’all – how many times does it have to be said? Sarah Palin is not a feminist. I thought we had covered Palin’s gross appropriation of feminism and feminist rhetoric during the election, but media coverage of Palin’s recent speech for the anti-choice PAC the Susan B. Anthony List has reignited the debate. (Incidentally, the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked.)

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone – a racist, a misogynist, etc – could be a feminist just because they identify as such.

Sarah Palin’s crime against modern feminism is that she is a political conservative who is pro-life. This makes her anti-woman, because all conservatives are apparently anti-woman. Valenti writes:

[W]hile I’m sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test for feminism – I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist – there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women’s rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

The line about being “personally pro-life” is meant to mislead. You can’t be personally pro-life and still support abortion, and Valenti knows it. This is exactly why Valenti phrases it this way. It comes across as a much more moderate position, yet still argues that all feminists must support abortion. The feminist Left believes it isn’t good enough to just believe in equality between the sexes. You have to toe the “progressive” line, as Amanda Marcotte recently showcased in an interview, saying that real feminists are devoted to a very specific set of issues.

Interestingly, Valenti’s screed against Palin is so extreme that not all of her readers could get behind her. Feministing usually serves as a leftist echo chamber, but several commenters actually disagreed that all feminists need to think a certain way in order to be considered feminists. Valenti had to jump in to defend herself five times before closing commenting on the post.

Perhaps it’s because she isn’t following her own rules of feminism. In her book, Full Frontal Feminism, Valenti had this to say about people defining what feminists should be:

[L]ike many feminist authors before her, Valenti quickly expands feminism to include a wide array of liberal pet causes. If you don’t agree with them, guess what? You’re not really a feminist — you’re an anti-feminist. According to Valenti, feminists demand government-funded preschools and universal childcare, think American culture “breeds a society where rape is expected and practically okayed,” and proudly wear shirts that say “I don’t f*** Republicans.”

Valenti vents that she’s “so f***ing sick and tired of people telling [her] how to be an appropriate feminist.” Maybe so, but Valenti is happy to dish out a feminist litmus test herself.

So it isn’t OK for someone to tell Jessica Valenti what makes an appropriate feminist, but it’s OK for her to tell other people what makes an appropriate feminist? Quite the hypocrite, I see.

Here are some more quotes from Full Frontal Feminism in whichValenti defines what women should and shouldn’t do when it comes to marriage:

You may not like me for saying this…but engagement rings piss me the hell off. It’s a frigging dowry! …the only purpose of an engagement ring is to show that you “belong” to someone, and that your man makes bank.

For the life of me, I will never understand why a woman today would change her last name. It makes no sense whatsoever. You want future kids to have the same last name as you and your hubby? Hyphenate, bitch! Or do something, anything, but change your last name. It’s the ultimate buy-in of sexist bulls***. It epitomizes the idea that you are not your own person.

And here we get to the heart of “progressive” feminism. Today’s feminists like Jessica Valenti are the least “pro-choice” people on the planet … and I don’t mean when it comes to abortion. They want to dictate everything about the lives of American women. If you don’t live exactly the way they want you to live, then you’re “anti-woman” and an “anti-feminist.”

Change your name to your husband’s when you get married? You’re a slave to the patriarchy and an anti-feminist. Personally and politically pro-life? Anti-woman! Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST! Believe in closing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws? Don’t believe in universal health care? Think global warming is all a fake? These all make you an anti-feminist, too.

Sad, isn’t it? A movement that once fought for equality for women now doesn’t want women to think for themselves. Someone like Sarah Palin, who quite literally has it all, should be a perfect example of a feminist. She’s got a loving marriage and a wonderful family. She is the breadwinner in her family and is one of the most powerful women in the country. But she doesn’t wallow in patriarchal victimhood; she’s a conservative, she’s pro-life. She doesn’t toe the Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte line, and therefore, she can never be considered a feminist. If you need an example of how hijacked the feminist movement has been by radicals, this is it.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

They’ve recently gone so far as to condone genital mutilation. They have defended child rape in the case of Roman Polanski.  They are silent on Iran gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women. Why? Because it’s never actually about people to them. It’s all agenda-driven, always.

The latest instance, specifically Amanda Marcotte’s defense of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent decision to embrace genital mutilation is beyond infuriating. It is twisted, sickening and disturbing beyond belief. How can anyone in their right mind defend such an inhumane thing? Granted, “right mind” is the operative term there, but still.

The AAP, like the UN, started referring to female genital mutilation as merely “cutting” because mutilation sounds icky and may be offensive and insensitive to other cultures. Boo hoo. I’m sorry you are offended that sane people define the acts of clitoridectomy and excision as what they are: mutilation. Now, the AAP has gone one further and said a “little nick” is a nice compromise. No big whoop! Sacrifice girls and allow a misogynistic practice to occur, all in the name of appeasement. I don’t think the girls who are barbarically maimed feel very appeased, do you?

Not so, says Marcotte! Marcotte used the standard and oh-so-lame talking point of “but what about US? We are meany pants and awful too!”  Leftists/Progressives always say “but what about US?” in an attempt to act as apologists, due to their religious fervor and zealotry for the nebulously defined “multi-culturalism.” They invent an example of a perceived American wrong, one that is usually both idiotic and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. And, you know, cuckoo pants.

As Jenn Q. Public pointed out in her article, Marcotte had this to say, in defense of the AAP’s decision:

And it’s not like Western culture is so free of blatantly misogynist traditions, either.  Part of me wishes that we had a two minute nicking at the doctor instead of the entire painfully misogynist wedding tradition that persists in the name of tradition.

See, pointing out true evil doesn’t fit the “progressive” meme. Instead, subjugation and misogyny must be invented out of whole cloth regarding things like marriage, but the very real—and often deadly—subjugation of women under Islamic law must be tolerated and ignored. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance have reached epic levels.

Oh, just a little two minute nicking, says Marcotte. It’s not like it’s as awful as getting married and sharing your life with a loving partner! I can maybe see where Marcotte is coming from, personally. As self-loathing as she is, she must feel that marriage is a horrid punishment—for the man. I’d have more to say in response to Marcotte, but it makes me feel a little cheap because it’s so easy to refute the intellectually defenseless.

The left’s lack of intellectual prowess, as well as their absolute hypocrisy was also on display in regards to the child rapist known as Roman Polanski. Here is what the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation said about that:

“My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go.”

Just let it go, will you? He makes super cool movies and he’s all arty and stuff. And like the intellectual giant, Whoopi Goldberg said, it wasn’t like it was “rape-rape.” The Hollywood Left all gathered around Polanski, even circulating a petition demanding his release. France’s Society of Film Directors said his arrest would have “disastrous consequences for the freedom of expression.”

The freedom to express pedophilia?  Drugging and raping (yes, “rape-rape”) a 13-year-old CHILD. Who repeatedly said no. Over and over. Who was scared out of her mind, yet this “man” Polanski, continued to use and abuse her in various ways. Over and over again until he “freely expressed” his own sick enjoyment, for which he felt no remorse. He didn’t even believe he had done anything wrong. And neither does the Left, apparently.

How enlightened and cultured they are. The rape of a child is perfectly acceptable, so long as you dig the rapist’s art and his liberal thought. I suppose you all figured “Well, at least he tried not to get her pregnant. What’s a little sodomy? At least that way she wouldn’t be “punished with a baby.” Sheesh! Relax, you uncultured wingnuts! Plus, it’s not like he disagrees with Obama or wants to stop illegal immigration!”

Most recently, their silence was telling on Iran gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women. From Leftist camps, there was either silence or there was attempted down-playing of Iran’s horrific record towards women. Others, again, tried to equate women in Iran being stoned to death or lashed for immodest dress with being pro-life here.  No, really.

These are all just the latest examples that clearly show what some of us have always known.  To the Left, the truth does not matter. What matters is their dangerously naive agenda. Their need to further that agenda, along with the narratives that they have set in stone, trumps all. They will also, even in the face of overwhelming facts and reason, keep repeating the lies. Eventually, they hope, the lies will be perceived as reality.

They care more about pushing politically correct “tolerance” and “diversity” memes, including in the form of appeasement, in order to further their identity politics agenda. They care more about that than they care about actual people, particularly women. I’ve said this before, but it’s something we must remember:

This is the difficulty we face, as people who do have moral compasses. We face an opponent who has none.

—-

(Cross-posted from NewsReal)

For feminists, those things are icky and bad, but they aren’t nearly as important as the so-called gender terrorism against women here in the United States… like having to pay with their own money for an abortion. Or taking responsibility for participating in a stripper contest.

The sound of my cell phone buzzing on my nightstand promptly woke me up from a nightmare. Concerned that it might have been from a friend needing assistance, I quickly reached for it, only to find out it was only from a “breaking news” text message service I’d signed up for. Fearing it might be a breaking story of today’s primary contests, good news on the BP oilspill, or perhaps a big attack on a military base in Afghanistan, where so many of my friends are currently deployed, I was disappointed from the headline. “Breaking now: Ms. USA’s racy photos surface,” the headline read.

Groggy and tired, I tossed the phone back on my nightstand and returned to my nightmare, knowing full well that unlike Ms. USA and the millions of other women in America, I get to wake up from my nightmare, whereas each day, they collectively continue to live the nightmare of not having ownership of their own bodies and sexuality, and ultimately, live in fear that at anytime, anything they do, as women, is subjected to public debate simply because their bodies are seen as public property.

Although the stories of “fallen” women – women who, society sees, acted outside of their gender roles for simply embracing their sexuality, are often treated as breaking news, they are far too common and until as Americans, we reject the notion that society is the owner of women’s bodies, more women will continue to live in fear, more young lives will be ruined, and more girls and women will be sexually assaulted and not get the justice they deserve. Until we avert our eyes from the telivision, voice our opinions and give women’s bodies back to their rightful owners, the gender terrorism that takes place through the fear thrusted upon women, will continue to take place.

Whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Carrie Prejean or Rema Fakih (and yes, Fakih, too, CNN and Fox News and MSNBC, for reporting these stories) famous or not, no women – even conventionally “unattractive” ones – is free from having their sexualities owned by the public. This mentality – the mentality that women’s personal lives are public properties, to be talked about and reported, looked at and debated about, are the very same reasons that each first Tuesday in November, we still fight over whether women should have the rights to choose what happens to their own bodies. After all, if we don’t see women as being valuable enough to make their own decisions about whether they wish to have sex, or do dances and act in ways that make them feel positive about their sexuality, how can we value their decisions on something as important abortions?

More than just having to do with reproductive justice, however, the invasion of women’s privacy and society’s ownership of their sexuality is also a reflection of the virgin/whore complex – the belief that women only operate in two spheres, and whereas one group is to be respected – the other, by merely embracing biological desires, loses all of its rights. Sadly, in losing the rights to privacy and owning their sexuality, this group also loses the rights not be sexually assaulted, and worst, when they are, they are less likely to be believed in courts and media reports.

Time and time again, countless studies on rape culture and the victim-blaming mentalities have shown that women who embrace sexuality, who dress “provocatively,” are less likely to be believed in rape cases, because of the mentality that their past sexual history dictate their desire for sex at the moment of rape, and worst, that their clothes dictate they’d “asked for it.”

Nowhere else is this more prominently played out than in the various cases within the jury’s deliberation for rape cases. In February 1992, when boxer Mike Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington, the then 18-year-old Ms. Black America Pageant winner, one of the reasons jurors cited for his conviction was her “Christian beliefs” and lifestyle. In short, because of Washington’s history of “purity,” and her choosing not to wander out of prescribed gender roles, she was believed and got her day in court. But what if Washington had not been Christian and wasn’t “pure,” what if she did wander outside of gender roles? Would she have been believed in, or written off as yet another young woman looking to make money by claiming rape against a famous athlete? What if three months from now, Rema Fakih is raped? Would she get the justice she deserves?

More than just about securing Roe v. Wade and giving rape survivors their day in court, however, giving back ownership of women’s bodies to women is a highly necessary task because while women have achieved great prominence politically, the personal lives of women are at a stand still. Imagine a world in which every action you take is questioned, every bit of clothing could decide the difference between getting justice and forever being denied the closure rape survivors ought to be entitled to, and every intimate encounter has the potential of ruining ambitions and dreams. Imagine a world in which even choosing to love someone of the same gender has potential to back fire.

It’s a familiar world – it’s a world Sarah Palin and Elana Kagan live in. It’s a world Carrie Prejean and Rema Fakih live in. It’s a world that far too many of your friends and mine, our sisters and classmates, lovers and neighbors, continue to live in – and it’s a world we each have a responsibility to change, because for too long, too many of them have been denied the rights to simply be, the rights to dress as they wish without fear, to embrace their sexuality, get justice should they be raped, and to be respected as human beings and adults, making conscious decisions about their lives.

Predictable drivel from a feminist trained to never think for herself. These words could have come straight out of a Womyn’s Studies class. The new brand of gender terrorism? The media discussing Miss USA’s stripper photos. Abortions not being funded enough by the government. The rare case of rape victims who aren’t believed. (Women who falsely accuse men of rape and get away with it are OK to feminists.) The is gender terrorism, a national nightmare for American women.

So, for all you women out there happy with your lives and proud of your country, get with the program. You’re actually living in a nightmare! Yeah, you don’t have to worry about having your genitals mutilated or getting beaten for being out in public with a man, or getting stoned if you’re raped. So what? You do have to worry about having to take responsibility for your actions. It’s just a terrible, terrible world we live in.

Take Miss USA, for example. Apparently, its wrong for media outlets to report on her stripper photos and it means, somehow, that the patriarchy “owns” her body. That makes no logical sense whatsoever. The girl voluntarily signed up for a stripper contest, for cripe’s sake, one put on by a radio station. She willingly participated in a public event and allowed herself to be photographed, and these are the repercussions. Like it or not, Miss USA is supposed to be a role model, and winning stripper contests doesn’t exactly make most parents proud to have their daughters look up to her.

I have no problem with an Arab-American winning Miss USA. I agree with Melissa Clouthier — the more Muslim women strut around looking sexy in bikinis, the less power Sharia law will have over American Muslims. I do have a problem with an Arab-American winning just for diversity’s sake, and especially when it seems clear that she wasn’t the better candidate. But she’s won, it’s done, and public photos from a radio station of her stripping are fair game. At best, she exercized poor judgement. If you’re a young girl who wants to be the future Miss USA, perhaps you should abstain from entering stripper contests. Even outside of beauty pageants, information like this readily available on the internet will make most bosses cringe.

This is not gender terrorism.

As to “embracing sexuality”, this is feminist-speak for sleeping around. You never hear feminists talk about women embracing their sexuality in a marriage or committed relationship. Embracing sexuality usually means being a slut and/or dressing provocatively. After all, I doubt that any feminist would ever look at Sarah Palin and say that she embraces her sexuality, even though she obviously does.

And despite what unimaginative feminists have been saying about me for the past few days, I do not think it’s a crime to have sex before marriage. I certainly don’t think it makes you a whore. I’ve never said anything remotely similar. I have said, however, that waiting until marriage is the ideal, and it is — for health reasons, if nothing else. I don’t believe having sex before marriage makes you a slut or a bad person, but feminists like Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon and Jill at Feministe would have you think that I do. Why? Because I believe, as most people do, that screwing anyone who catches your interest, is not healthy or smart, that women shouldn’t be giving it up to men they barely know. I also think that if you constantly have one-night stands and sleep around all the time, then you don’t really have much room to complain if you get labeled a slut. There are consequences to your actions. It may sound harsh, but it’s life. Feminists, like all liberals, don’t like to live in reality.

And while yes, it’s a terrible tragedy when a girl is raped and her rapist is set free — or worse, the girl is blamed for it because of her clothes — how often do feminists speak out for the men whose lives are shattered when they are unjustly accused of rape? They never do. Neither of these things should be condoned, yet feminists look the other way when men are ripped to pieces by women who make false rape accusations. Some feminists say that innocent men even deserve it, just because they’re men and therefore are all rapists in some way, shape, or form.

Miss USA is not a victim of anything but her own poor judgement. She’s certainly not a victim of any kind of “gender oppression”, nor are most American women. We’re blessed to live in the freest country in the world, where opportunities are endless if you’re willing to work hard enough for it. Opportunity comes with responsibility, however. Feminists want to ignore that simple truth. If they want to see real gender oppression, then perhaps America’s radical feminists should go live in China or Saudi Arabia for a while. Then maybe they’d understand what oppressed women really look like.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!