FT199: “If Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and barren.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 6th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

1950s Society did not Depict their Women Sexually

Democrats bemoan that the Republicans want to take America back to the 1950s.  Where women didn’t work.  But stayed at home and raised families.  Where they ware barefoot and pregnant.  With three jobs in the household.  A cook in the kitchen.  A maid in the house.  And a whore in the bedroom.  Always serving the needs of others.  But never themselves.  While their husbands go out and build a career.  And enjoy life.  Leaving their wives behind to suffer from the disease of pregnancy over and over again.  And the oppression of motherhood.

Of course the Republicans don’t quite see it that way.  They don’t see pregnancy as a disease.  Or raising a family as oppression.  They see a loving household as a good thing.  Where they can raise their children to be good citizens.  To respect one another.  And to treat women like ladies.  To respect them.  And protect their dignity.  To be chivalrous.  To hold a door for them.  To offer their seat to them on a crowded bus.  To think of them as human beings.  And not just as vessels holding their sexual parts.  Sexual objects that are only useful when a man wants to have a good time.

Democrats disparage those old television shows like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc.  Because they treated their women horribly.  There was no hooking up or casual sex at all.  For 1950s society did not depict their women sexually.  They dressed and acted conservatively.  No bare midriffs, lower back tattoos, plunging necklines or exposed thongs for men to leer at.  Men were polite to women.  And boys were polite to girls.  Unless they had cooties.  Even then if they were mean parents, teachers and older siblings admonished them for that.  Oh yeah, it was sheer hell for women back then.

Democrats have Liberated Women to be Pure Sex Objects for Men everywhere to Enjoy

Then came the Sixties.  And the Sexual Revolution.  The counterculture (i.e., young Democrats) railed against treating women with respect.  For they have vaginas.  And they should use them as often as they darn well pleased.  Not to just get married and raise a family.  To one man for the rest of their life.  The heck with that.  They should use their sexual parts to please more than just one man.  So instead of only one man enjoying her vagina a woman should allow many men to enjoy her vagina.  It was the dawn of the women’s movement.  Feminism.  And never again would American society treat women like prim and proper ladies.  At least not with feminists around.

As the conservatives tried to maintain a lady’s honor the young liberal Democrats fought censorship.  For the right to show naked women with their legs spread in pornographic magazines.  To show them fully naked in the movies.  In simulated sex acts.  And performing real sex acts in hardcore pornographic movies.  Yes, Democrats have finally liberated women to be pure sex objects for men everywhere to enjoy.  Of course Democrats called this liberating.  While dirty old (and young) men just say, “Thank you!”

Seedy strip clubs became high-scale gentlemen’s clubs.  Where women stripped down to a thong and rubbed herself on a man’s lap.  Or did more in the VIP/champagne rooms.  Yes, this was liberating for women.  Sexy women were everywhere.  Half-naked women sold things on television.  Boys could peak at naked women spreading their legs in magazines at the local drug store.  Most R-rated movies contained gratuitous nude scenes.  And when the VCR came out pornography really took off.  Women became slabs of meat on camera.  Making hundreds of titles.  Putting a lot of miles on their vaginas.  And other openings.

Democrats are doing everything within their Power to Nationalize a Woman’s Vagina

So who do the kings of the sexual exploitation of women vote for?  These businesses all vote Democrat.  Because they don’t want to roll time back to the 1950s when women weren’t sexual objects.  For they profit handsomely on the liberation of women.  While bombarding men with their pornographic images.  So that when they see a woman today they’re not thinking about what she’s thinking.  They’re thinking about what she looks like naked.  And how much they would like to do things with her that they do in those pornographic films.  Sometimes forcing the issue with alcohol and drugs.  Bringing terms like ‘date-rape’ and ‘roofie’ into the lexicon.  For the American left has so sexualized women that more and more men can think of nothing else but hooking up.

The Democrats have long championed birth control and abortion.  To remove any consequences from a sexually active lifestyle.  Encouraging women to offer their vaginas to as many men as possible.  Which they have.  Kicking off an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases.  And not because women’s husbands were seeing prostitutes at the local saloon like they were before Prohibition.  Bringing diseases home to their wives.  Which helped kick off the Prohibition movement as men drank away their paychecks and did bad things.  Like being abusive to their wives and giving them syphilis and other STDs. No.  Today women are out there hooking up for casual sex.  Bringing STDs into their lives.  Because Democrats have taught them all their lives that they should be having casual sex.  Instead of getting married.  Because that would be a living hell.

Perhaps the greatest political trick ever done was how Democrats got women to choose to be sexual objects.  Getting them to believe that casual sex with many different partners is liberating.   And not objectifying.  The next greatest political trick ever done was how these same Democrats convinced women that it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Not the Democrats.  Who are doing everything within their power to nationalize a woman’s vagina.  So feminist men (who are mostly Democrat) can enjoy a lady’s charms without having to marry her.  Like they did in the God-awful 1950s.  Where Republican men kept their women barefoot and pregnant.  Well, if Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and their wombs barren.  Yet it’s the Republicans who have a war on women.  Go figure.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT145: “Ivy League liberals often argue contradictory positions on the same issue.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Liberals help Women satisfy the Filthy Sexual Desires of Men by giving them Birth Control and Access to Abortion

Liberals may confuse some people.  As they often seem to argue both sides of an issue.  Those they champion.  As well as those they condemn.  It can leave one scratching one’s head.  For the liberals are the pure breeds of the political world.  They come from the most exclusive and the most expensive halls of higher education.  The Ivy League.  So they’re supposed to be really smart.  But do smart people consistently contradict themselves?  No, they don’t.  So either the Ivy League doesn’t graduate smart people.  Or they graduate intellectually dishonest people.  Take the issue of marriage, for example.

The Left empowered women in the Sixties.  By giving them the birth control pill.  So they didn’t have to get married and give up on life.  No.  Thanks to the birth control pill (and abortion) women could have careers.  They could enjoy life.  Just like a man.  And didn’t have to live under the heel of a jackbooted thug.  Or otherwise known by those on the left, a husband.  No longer must they stay barefoot and pregnant.  Living life as a cook, maid and whore.  Thanks to the pill she didn’t have to succumb to the hell of wedded bliss.  For marriage sentenced a woman to hell.  There was nothing redeeming about it.  Yet they argue marriage is a beautiful thing for gay people.  And that we should rewrite law to grant this expression of love between two people to everyone.  Including lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered (LGBT) people.  Even though it’s the worst thing that can happen to a heterosexual woman.

Being cook and maid is bad enough but being a whore in the bedroom is the worst part of being married for a woman.  For it is the most demeaning thing.  To satisfy the filthy sexual desires of a man.  Making a woman little more than her sexual parts.  Some on the left even go so far as to call all sex within marriage rape.  (Unless it’s gay marriage, of course.)  For women are more than their sexual parts.  They are not here only to satisfy the filthy sexual desires of men.  Yet liberals want to provide free birth control and abortion services to all women.  So they can satisfy the filthy sexual desires of even more men.  For it’s only when men satisfy their sexual desires that there is a need for birth control or abortion.

Despite the Republican’s ‘War on Women’ it often Appears that it is the Liberals who don’t like the Female Condition

Birth control and abortion are important issues for women.  It’s what made women vote for President Obama according to the exit polls.  To keep their birth control and access to abortion.  Even though no one was campaigning to take these away.  They call birth control and abortion women’s health issues.  Equating pregnancy with a disease.  Something that’s imperative for government to help women avoid.  And they make other altruistic arguments.  That abortion is better than having another unwanted child born to become a costly ward of the state.  And that abortion is better than bringing another baby into an already overcrowded and polluted world.  Yet they champion the cause of gay adoption.  Even though there would be no babies available to adopt in their perfect world where no unwanted child is born into an overcrowded and polluted world.  As they would prefer to abort the babies gay couples want to adopt.

Even though liberals say that only they can protect women from the Republican’s ‘war on women’ it often appears that it is the liberals who don’t like the female condition.  As many of their actions help women to be more like men.  For examples, liberals would like to put the NFL out of business.  For football is a brutal and barbaric sport in their eyes.  As evidenced by the rise in concussions and other serious injuries.  And it doesn’t stop at the NFL.  They would like to ban it from colleges, high schools and even at the pee wee level.  Yet they will fight for the right to allow girls to play this barbaric sport with the boys.  And even applaud when a girl plays this barbaric sport as good if not better than the boys.  Despite the concussion or other serious injury that may befall her.  Ditto for boxing.

Liberals have never liked the military.  For a couple of reasons.  They don’t like defense spending.  As they’d rather spend that money on social programs.  And they really don’t like using violence.  They abhor going to war.  And once called returning Vietnam soldiers some unkind names.  They often see soldiers as those bullies who picked on them in school.  Extreme alpha males who love violence.  They’ll support the civilians who volunteer to serve.  But they really don’t like the lifers.  The career people.  Who they look at as if there is something wrong with them.  A bunch of gun-crazy nuts.  Warmongers.  Secretive people we should be very weary of.  And their military industrial complex.  Yet they fight for the advancement of women up the chain of command.  For there is nothing better than women becoming lifers and career people.  Just like those extreme alpha males.  Those warmongers.  For it’s apparently okay to be a warmonger as long as you are a woman.

Ivy League Alumni are either not Very Smart or they’re Intellectually Dishonest People

Another group of people liberals hate is corporate CEOs.  A bunch of old rich white guys that sold their souls to make a buck.  Just look at Occupy Wall Street.  The attacks on Mitt Romney.  On bank executives.  As far as the Left is concerned these people are the scum of the earth.  With these contemptible CEOs sitting on the right-hand side of Satan.  Who care only about profits.  Not people.  The evil, heartless bastards they are.  In a side by side comparison the Left would be hard pressed to say who was worse.  Corporate CEOs.  Or Nazis.  Yet they rejoice whenever a woman shatters the glass ceiling to become one of these evil, heartless, contemptible, neo-Nazis that sit on the right-hand side of Satan.  Because evil is apparently okay as long as there is a woman in charge.

And speaking of evil that’s another thing liberals don’t much care for.  Religion.  Christianity.  For they see it as nothing but thousands of years of institutional oppression of women.  And a bunch of hypocritical moralizing.  Opposing abortion.  Even birth control.  As they frown on premarital sex.  Something that just didn’t jive with the free love of the Sixties.  Or the swinging Seventies.  No.  Liberals see Christianity as a persistent effort to turn the hands of time back.  Back to a time when women were kept barefoot and pregnant.  Living life as a cook, maid and whore.  That living hell of wedded bliss.  So liberals have no love for Christianity.  Even forcing Catholics to provide birth control and the abortion pill to any women on their health insurance plans.  Even though it’s against their conscience.  Yes, they’re bullying Catholics.  Rather ironic, really.  Considering how liberals hate bullies.  But they’re willing to embrace their bullying inner selves when it comes to Christianity.  As they have nothing but contempt for the Church.  Yet they’re all for the advancement of women in the Church hierarchy.  From pastors.  To bishops.  For Christianity is everything horrible they say it is.  Especially to women.  While at the same time it’s a swell career for women.  Apparently.

So we often see liberals arguing contradictory positions on the same issue.  Which is pretty odd as many of them are brilliant Ivy League alumni.  But normal for them.  Based on their history.  So Ivy League alumni are either not very smart.  Or they’re intellectually dishonest people.  Arguing not what’s right or wrong.  But what is most politically expedient for them.  Attacking traditions and institutions they don’t like from without.  And from within.  With but one goal.  To destroy what they don’t like.  So they can build something they do like.  A new world according to them.  Whether we like it or not.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From Socialism to Jihad, Women just can’t Catch a Break

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 14th, 2011

Venezuelan Socialism as Unfair to Woman as American Conservatism

Conservatives want to defund Planned Parenthood because they use our tax dollars to perform abortions.  They say they don’t.  That they provide a lot of healthcare services for women.  And it’s those services they use our tax dollars for.  Not the abortions.  Of course, they don’t separate these services so it’s hard to tell.

One would expect this from someone on the political right.  But a socialist?  Never.  In socialism you’d think everything people wanted people got.  That’s the whole point of socialism.  Equal outcomes.  Anything available to one person is available to all people.  That’s why they have high taxes.  To make sure the poor can get whatever the rich can.  Unless it’s a boob job (see Chávez Tries to Rouse Venezuela Against a New Enemy: Breast Lifts by Simon Romero posted 3/14/2011 on The New York Times).

Between 30,000 and 40,000 women here undergo the procedure each year, according to estimates by the Venezuelan Society of Plastic Surgeons…

The president, however, made it clear that breast augmentation did not square well with his revolutionary priorities. He said that among the thousands of letters he receives from supporters, one arrived asking for his help for a breast lift, which could cost as much as $7,000. “Of course I had to reject it,” he said.

Who is he to say who can and cannot have a boob job?  Who made him God?  Apparently in Venezuelan socialism the rich can have things the poor cannot.  The next thing this tin-pot dictator will do is deny abortions to poor women.  Just like American conservatives.  The bastard.

Women and Christians need not Apply

You’d expect this kind of thing in the Middle East where they frown on drawing attention to female body parts.  But not from Hugo Chávez.  I mean, he’s the darling of the liberal left.  Hollywood loves him.  Feminists look to him to liberate their sisters south of the border.  And dream of seeing him without his shirt.  Yeah, they’re smitten with him, all right.  And now this?  Boy, they must be pissed.  And they’re probably not going to be much happier when they hear what the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) wants to do in Egypt (see Brotherhood sticks to ban on Christians and women for presidency posted 3/14/2011 on Al-Masry Al-Youm).

A leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Egypt’s largest opposition group, said on Monday that the MB’s new “Freedom and Justice Party” would continue to stick by its view that Christians and women are unsuitable for the presidency.

They’ve come a long way, baby.  Just not with the MB.  Wonder if they’ll let them get a boob job.  Or an abortion.  Probably not.  At least, I don’t think the MB will foot the bill.  Should they rise to power, that is.  Could be worse, though. 

They Like to Keep them Barefoot and Pregnant, Too

Pretty woman.  Fascinating.  Are a wonder.  Sipping coffee.  Dancing.  How they make, a man sing.  Proof of heaven, as you’re living.  Pretty woman.  Yes.  Pretty woman.

That’s how Stephen Sondheim feels about them.  In song, at least.  (If you don’t recognize the lyrics, they’re from the 1979 musical Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.)  And most of us in the West.  We’re smitten with them.  And, really now, who isn’t?  For Sondheim’s lyrics ring true.  It’s universal.  Why, they’re even softening up in the most conservative parts of the Middle East.  Al Qaeda is launching a fashion magazine for the woman who has nothing and should be happy about it (see Al Qaeda Launches Women’s Magazine posted 3/14/2011 on The Daily Beast).

Probably won’t find this at your local newsstand: Al Qaeda’s media network has launched a new magazine called Al-Shamikha—”The Majestic Woman”—which bears some similarities to popular glossies like Cosmopolitan and Glamour…

Al-Shamikha offers plenty of advice, including how to find the right man (by “marrying a mujahideen”), how to take care of your skin (by staying inside and covering your face at all times), and touches a bit on health and the importance of good manners.  But while Cosmo’s cover might have a woman in some fashionable garb, Al-Shamikha features a niqab-clad woman clutching a sub-machine gun… It has all the attractions of a traditional women’s magazine, mixed in with strict lessons in jihad, like “not [to] go out except when necessary.”

Substitute ‘a man with a good job’ for ‘mujahideen‘ and lose the sub-machine gun and it sounds like they’re describing the pleasant life of June Cleaver or Donna Reed.  Of course, the left hates these women.  Because they were subservient to their men.  Just cooks in the kitchen.  And whores in the bedroom.  Barefoot and pregnant.  Guess they must hate the ladies of Al Qaeda, too.  For staying home instead of leaving the house to pursue a career.

And you just know that none of these women have access to a boob job.  Or an abortion.  The horror.  The horror.

The Real Oppressor and Degrader of Women Please Stand Up

The feminist left will support a Hugo Chávez every day of the week because he hates American conservatives.  And they will support Islam every time over Christianity, too.  Because in their eyes Christianity has oppressed and degraded women.  And denied them abortions.  But the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  So they support Islam whenever it’s up against Christianity (such as the Muslim community center near Ground Zero controversy).  And it doesn’t matter if it’s the most hard-line conservative branch of Islam to ever come down the pike.  Because they just so hate Christianity.  And all the June Cleavers and Donna Reeds in the world.

Remember Carrie Prejean?  Christian?  Miss California?  Topless photos on the Internet?  Oh, yes, that Carrie Prejean.  Not too shabby for an oppressed Christian society, is it?  I mean, women just don’t have the freedom to get into a scandal like that in other countries around the world.  Especially some countries with a non-Christian religion that really frown on that kind of thing.  But given the choice, the feminist left will always side with that non-Christian religion against Christianity.  No matter how much more oppressive it can be.

And the international sisterhood suffers for their myopic political agenda.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,