Week in Review
Hardcore feminists hate the institution of marriage. Unless it’s same-sex marriage. Then marriage is the greatest thing in the world. But when it’s the union of a man and a woman that’s another story. For all that the institution of marriage does is reduce the woman to a second-class citizen. A piece of property. Human property. A cook in the kitchen. A maid. And a whore in the bedroom. To serve their husbands disgusting sexual desires. Some militant feminists have gone so far as to call sex in marriage rape. Except for same-sex marriages, of course. Then it’s a beautiful expression of love between two people.
To make these feminists happy all married women should deny their husbands any sexual pleasure. They should be sexually abstinent. They should be asexual. So they are not a sexual object for their husbands’ depravity. But on the other hand, if they’re single women then they should explore every part of their sexuality. To enjoy every sexual pleasure there is no matter the social norm or taboo they break. To objectify whatever part of their bodies to pleasure a man. Outside of marriage that’s called empowerment. While inside a marriage it’s called rape. Unless it’s a same-sex marriage, of course. Feminists at a university are even helping young college women objectify, I mean, empower themselves (see Consent kits given to Vancouver students by Ada Slivinski posted 3/19/2014 on Vancouver 24 Hurs).
Bright pink boxes created by the Women’s Centre at Simon Fraser University are being distributed to spread the word about sexual consent and counter what is often termed “rape culture.”
Louise Mapleston, who represents the centre, said the initiative is about “making sure that when people have sex, they are feeling comfortable and they’re 100% excited.”
The package contains a condom, lubricant and a sexual Mad Lib, in which students can fill in the blanks of what form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in…
The Women’s Centre is run by a collective of volunteers and staff. The group self-identifies as pro-feminist, sex-positive, pro-choice, trans and intersex inclusive and anti-racist.
What form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in? Would this work in marriage, too? Would the sex inside of marriage not be rape if the wife filled out a sexual Mad Lib first?
Sex inside a marriage is a beautiful expression of love between two people. Casual sex with a random person is not. It is a physical experience only with no emotional connection. It’s just a hookup. Where guys can go from woman to woman depending on their tastes for the night. The girl next door? A cheerleader-type perhaps? Black? White? Asian? Hispanic. So many options. Thanks to all of those women empowering themselves.
And for the woman looking to get married and settle down to raise a family good luck. With the hookup culture so prevalent guys can satisfy their lust and then hang out with their friends. As the hookup culture has objectified women like nothing else. It’s so bad that a lot of men see no need to get married. For whenever they feel a sexual urge all they need to do is to hook up with some random woman. Satisfy that urge. And get back to something they enjoy. Hanging with the guys. As the hookup culture has made women good for only one thing to a lot of men. And it’s not marriage. Or even spending time with a woman in a nonsexual way.
Tags: casual sex, consent kits, empowerment, feminists, hookup, hookup culture, marriage, objectify, rape, rape culture, sexual consent, sexual Mad Lib
Week in Review
Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently. Conservatives sees it as killing a human life. Liberals don’t. To them a fetus is not a human life. It’s just an inanimate lump of cells. With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue. Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014
Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and completely unacceptable…’
What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…
The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…
Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal than another..?
That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.
This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense. Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion. While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby. But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term. This makes no logical sense. Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.
In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born. But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy. Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore. Because it makes no sense even to them.
Tags: abortion, conservative, embryo, feminists, fetus, gendercide, liberal, pregnant, unborn child
The Left sees Traditional Marriage as a way to make Women Cooks in the Kitchen and Whores in the Bedroom
What’s the difference between conservatives and liberals? Conservatives believe in the genius of the Founding Fathers and embrace the U.S. Constitution. Liberals constantly disparage the Founding Fathers as rich white men who owned slaves. And they bristle at the restraints the Constitution places on them. Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in big government. Privilege. And feel they are part of an aristocratic class who are exempt from the laws they do not like. Conservatives stand on principle. While liberals will sacrifice principle in the pursuit of power.
The Sixties gave us the Sexual Revolution. Where sex outside of marriage was not only okay it was better. Hippies put sex into everyday ordinary life. Where sex was as causal as an afternoon greeting. Contraception and women’s liberation made the Seventies swing. No one was getting married. They were just living together. And having a lot of sex. With a lot of different people. For it wasn’t the 1950s anymore. No. Women were no longer going to be sexually objectified or trapped into soul-sucking marriages. Which was all the institution of marriage did. Oppressed women.
The Seventies changed all of that. Women could be whatever they wanted to be. And sleep with whoever they wanted to sleep with. For they now had the pill. And when that failed they had abortion. It was truly a time for feminists. As they could be more sexualized than they had ever been before. Those who did get married could ‘swing’ with other married couples. That is, swap wives for sex. Feminists persuaded women to be independent. To have careers. Not to get married. Not to have children. For that would only subjugate them to some man. Where they would end up a cook in the kitchen. And a whore in the bedroom. Serving him. One man. And taking care of a long string of snot-nosed brats sucking the life out of them. This is how the left sees traditional marriage.
Laws encouraged Marriage to Provide more People to Till the Soil and more Soldiers to Defend the Land
So clearly the left had launched a war on the institution of marriage during the Sixties and Seventies. And beyond. For it was everything that was wrong with America. It destroyed a woman’s identity. She even lost her last name. No. It was better for a woman to remain free. And strong. To enjoy sex when she wanted to enjoy sex. Not only when society said she should. In the marital chamber. She should live alone. Or live with someone outside the institution of marriage. So she could remain free. She should have a career. And use birth control and abortion to terminate any pregnancy that could interfere with her career. To remove any reason to consider ever getting married. As well as enjoy the explosion of sexual transmitted diseases her new liberation gave her.
And yet as bad as marriage is the left is trying to make same-sex marriage a Constitutional right. Despite fighting to destroy the institution of marriage for some 3 decades or more. And still fights hard to help women avoid the institution and to keep her family tree a barren one. But when it comes to gays and lesbians who want to get married that changes everything. Marriage is then a beautiful institution where two people can profess their undying love to each other. And denying marital bliss to same-sex couples is discriminatory. Mean. And just plain medieval.
Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t want to change the institution of marriage. Which has a tradition that dates back to the beginning of civilization. While there is no such tradition of same-sex marriage. Marriage created the family. Allowing a man and a woman to raise a family. So they can raise, provide for and nurture their children. For unlike most animals in nature whose young can go off on their own after a year or so the human race must spend years rearing their offspring. Which required two parents. One to raise and nurture. And one to provide. Marriage also provided for inheritance. To transfer property down generations. Marriage provided a last name to their children. In time religion entered the marriage ceremony. Adding more tradition. Then came laws to encourage people to marry and raise children. To expand the population. To provide more people to till the soil. And more soldiers to defend the land. As well as increasing the tax base.
The Left attacks the Culture and Traditions of the Political Opposition as they cannot Defeat Them in the Arena of Ideas
So the institution of marriage served many purposes. The most important was to raise children. Because if you couldn’t replace the people killed in battle or died from disease or famine countries would collapse. And because it took so long to rear children traditions and laws developed to facilitate child rearing. Some traditions go back thousands of years. While there is no comparative traditions for same-sex marriage. Or utilitarian purpose for same-sex marriage. Such as expanding the population.
But the left shows no respect for tradition. Unless it’s for a lost tribe in the Amazon that practices cannibalism and human sacrifice. No, that tradition they’ll respect with the reverence of religion. And actively oppose any interruption into their culture or traditions. Even if they are sacrificing young virgins. They’ll fight to protect their culture and tradition. But they have no such respect or reverence for the culture and traditions of Western Civilization.
So the left is many things. But one thing it is not is consistent when it comes to principle. They attack the institution of marriage for those who currently enjoy that institution. While embracing it for those who don’t have it. They will do whatever they can to prevent women from coming down with the ‘disease’ of pregnancy. While championing same-sex couple adoption. They have no tolerance or respect for culture and tradition. Unless it is culture and tradition not found in Western Civilization. Proving that everything to the left is political. And everything they do serves one purpose. To increase their power. And they do that by attacking the culture and traditions of the political opposition. Which they do to destroy them. As they cannot defeat them in the arena of ideas.
Tags: abortion, birth control, children, conservatives, Constitution, culture, family, feminists, Founding Fathers, institution of marriage, liberals, marriage, principle, Religion, reverence, same-sex marriage, Seventies, sixties, tradition, traditional marriage, Western Civilization
Week in Review
During the 2012 election George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney a question out of left field about birth control. The next thing we knew we had another war on our hands. A war on women. Where the Left reduced women down to little more than their vaginas. For the only important issues to women in 2012 (according to the Left) were birth control and abortion. And nothing else. The deficit? The debt? The high unemployment rate? Benghazi? These issues just weren’t for women. Because they weren’t vagina-centric. And, therefore, not women’s issues. Those things were best left to the men. At least according to the Left.
Those on the Right believe there is more to a woman than her vagina. And that the deficit, the debt, the high unemployment rate and Benghazi are not things only men can understand. Or that abortion is the only thing that empowers women. Just like those first feminists (see Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive by Emily Buchanan posted 1/3/2013 on Time).
From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality…
Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.
Who would have known? The first feminists were pro-life. You wouldn’t have known that by listening to today’s feminists. And it appears that some young feminists are reconnecting with Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Charlotte Lozier. And rejecting the notion introduced by the feminists of the Sixties and the Seventies that to empower women you have to become sexual objects that please men. Which unlimited birth control and access to abortion did. Giving some men what they always wanted. Casual sex with as many different women as possible. Without having to marry anyone. And having to spend the rest of their life with that one same woman. No. Birth control and abortion freed men from that dull and boring life. Thanks to the Sixties they could swing.
Which of course has angered women as they can’t find a man interested in something more than a one night stand. Growing ever more frustrated as their biological clocks tick away. For contrary to the feminists of the Sixties and Seventies women still want to get married and raise a family. Which is more difficult these days as these neo-feminists have ruined men. By making women nothing more than vaginas.
Tags: abortion, Alice Paul, birth control, Charlotte Lozier, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, equality, feminism, feminists, first feminists, pro-choice, pro-life, Susan B. Anthony, war on women
Married Women appear to be just as Interested in Sex, Birth Control and Cancer Screening as Single Women
By now we’ve all heard about how single women voted for Democrat President Obama more than they did for Republican Mitt Romney. And how married women voted for Republican Mitt Romney more than they did for Democrat President Obama. People are furiously debating why this happened. This is a question Bill O’Reilly tried to get an answer from liberal Democrat guests on his show The O’Reilly Factor. Why two women the same age with similar backgrounds vote differently based on their marital status. The answers he got generally fell back to the war on women meme.
The war on women basically says Republicans don’t care about issues important to women. Birth control, abortion, cancer screening, etc. Which didn’t really answer the question. For married women and single women are both women. Who should both care about these women’s issues equally. But they don’t. If it’s these women’s issues that drove single women to vote for President Obama then apparently married women don’t care about birth control, abortion, cancer screening, etc. Based on the average family size of 2.62 children in 2010 it would appear that married women are using birth control. Or abortion. Who no doubt want to screen for cancer so they can be there to see their children grow up. And see their grand children. Or else they’re only having sex to procreate. Losing all interest in sex once they marry. Of course the booming sales of Fifty Shades of Grey, often dubbed mommy porn, says otherwise.
So married women appear to be just as interested in sex as single women. So the women’s issues (birth control, abortion, cancer screening, etc.) should be just as important to them as they are to single women. So there has to be something else that differentiates single women from married women. And that can only be that there are other issues that are even more important to married women than these issues that are so important to single women.
There is a Lot of Evidence out there that Despite the Women’s Movement a lot of Women still Want to Marry
Feminists launched the women’s movement to free women from the hell of wedded bliss. To let them do whatever men did. To have a career. And to have a lot of indiscriminate sex. Which was the purpose of the birth control pill. Allowing the hippie love-ins of the Sixties and Seventies. Freeing women from being second-class citizens. Stuck at home raising a bunch of kids, cleaning house, cooking and satisfying the disgusting sexual needs of their husbands. For that was all marriage was. And is. Unless you’re gay. Then it’s a beautiful expression of love between two people. But for heterosexual women marriages is just awful. According to the feminists. For men are pigs. And always will be. Of course, it’s a lot easier for men to be pigs these days thanks to the women’s movement. For they can love and leave a lot more women that they once could thanks to birth control.
So are women happy? Is this what they want? To be free from the hell of wedded bliss? Probably not. For the brides magazines still sell well. There are reality shows about brides picking out their dresses. Some of which costs tens of thousands of dollars. Celebrity women spend even more. And like marriage so much that some marry, divorce and marry again. There are reality shows where women compete against other women to win the affections of a man to marry. And a reality show where men compete compete against other men to win the affections of a woman to marry. There are online dating sites that advertise that their matches end in more marriages than the competition. People still go to singles’ meeting places seeking their future significant other. And a lot of women complain that the men they date don’t want to get married and raise a family. As many of them seem more interested in loving and leaving as many women as possible. Greatly distressing women as their biological clocks tick away. Wanting to get married before it’s too late to have children. So there is a lot of evidence out there that despite the women’s movement a lot of women still want to marry.
Women who suffer marriage infidelity are not happy women. While they may date men who are dating a lot of women and enjoying a lot of sex with these different women obviously expect that behavior to cease once married. And rightly so. But some men can’t seem to control themselves. In part because of the women’s movement. Which has encouraged women to use birth control and empower herself by enjoying life. Like a man. Doing what you want. When you want. One of the problems of that, though, is that it tells a lot of men that there are a lot of women out there empowering themselves. Women that men think just want consequence-free sex. Which is okay for these women empowering themselves. But these men? They’re nothing but a bunch of pigs with only one thing on their minds. And it isn’t getting married and raising a family. Or being faithful to their wives.
Liberals know how Women change their Voting Habits once they Marry so they help Women Remain Single
It’s clear that women want to get married. And want to have children. Even celebrities are proudly showing off their baby bumps in the tabloids during their pregnancies. Suggesting that marriage and motherhood are things that women want. And little girls’ dreams of meeting their Prince Charming and having a big wedding don’t fade with time. For when they become women they start buying those brides magazines. Planning their big day. They look forward to wedded bliss. And after they’re married if the passion fades it doesn’t mean their sexual desires fade. At least not based on the massive sales of that mommy porn. Fifty Shades of Grey. And with the average family size down to 2.62 children in 2010 these married women are using birth control or getting abortions. And probably don’t want cancer.
So there isn’t a lot of difference between single women and married women. At least when it comes to these women’s issues. Yet they voted differently. Why? Well, there’s the obvious. Single women support themselves, are not raising a family and typically don’t own a house. While married women typically have a working spouse, are raising a family and live in a house. So what does that mean? Married women have greater expenses and pay property taxes. So they are a lot more sensitive to taxes. Deficit spending. And debt. Because they have to be very sensitive to spending and debt in their households. And married women tend to base their decisions on what’s best for their children. And their grandchildren. Whereas single women tend to base their decisions on what’s best for them. Because they are the only ones they are providing for. Of course, once they marry and start raising a family that all changes. Which brings us to another reason that is perhaps not as obvious.
Liberals know how women change their voting habits once they marry. Which hurts their hold on power. As liberals make up only about 21% of the population. While conservatives make up about 42% of the population. With moderates make up the remaining 37%. Which requires liberals to patch together a coalition of special interest groups to advance their agenda. And part of their strategy is getting as many women as possible to vote Democrat. And one very successful way of doing that is by helping women remain single. To try and suppress their dreams of that fairy tale wedding they’ve had since they were little girls as long as possible. Or to destroy it. By making birth control and abortion readily available. So they can have a career. And satisfy their sexual desires. With no need of settling down with, or settling for, a husband. For those whose birth control fail the government steps in to provide for these single mothers. To help them raise their children as single women. To discourage them from getting married. All the while scaring them that Republicans will take away all of their financial support. Forcing them onto the streets. Or into a marriage. And the only way to prevent that from happening is, of course, by voting Democrat. And staying single. Which is what liberals want. For the longer a woman stays single the longer she may vote Democrat.
Tags: abortion, birth control, cancer screening, conservative, Democrat, fairy tale wedding, feminists, helping women remain single, liberal, marriage, married women, Republican, single women, vote Democrat, war on women, wedded bliss, wedding, women's issues, women's movement
The Civil War feminized Men and gave us the Nanny State and the Progressive Movement
In all some 2-3 million men left their homes to fight in the Civil War. Leaving mothers to raise their children on their own. With Christian love and nurturing. Especially the boys. Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed. And lived in fear that they would fall in battle. So they smothered these boys with love and affection. Made them feel special. The center of the world. The Civil War would claim some 630,000 lives. A lot of them young fathers. Who left their sons no father. Only a loving and doting mother to raise them. A mother who hated war. And despised manly displays of aggression that led to that god-awful war. Something they would protect their boys from. Instead filling them with kindness and sensitivity. Teaching them not to meet aggression with aggression. But with understanding. Empathy. Kindness. And if someone strikes them to simply turn the other cheek. Like the good Christians they were. Because manly displays of behavior led to nothing but trouble. And war.
The Republicans won the Civil War. And freed the slaves from their Democrat masters. Giving them the franchise to vote. And they, of course, voted for their liberators. The Republican Party. Anxious to keep this vast new Republican voting bloc voting for them the Republicans quickly passed the Fifteenth Amendment (1869), giving the freed slaves the Constitutional right to vote. Forever. And they did. While the Union Army was still in the South after the Civil War to enforce the peace. And protect the newly freed black population. But after Custer’s Last Stand where the Sioux and Cheyenne decimated Custer’s army, that army was needed out West. And when it left the South so did the security of black Republican voters. So they stopped voting. And the Democrats restored things the way they were before the war. Only without the institution of slavery.
So the Civil War provided a couple of powerful lessons. First of all, if a war kills enough men their sons will grow up feminized. Taking on some characteristics of the fairer sex. And shunning their more masculine traits. Also, enfranchising a large group of the population can help you win elections. These two lessons came together in the Progressive movement the late 19th and early 20th century. When these fatherless sons grew up and entered politics. And changed the nature of government. No longer the limited government of our Founding Fathers. But a larger and more active government to mother us. A lesson Woodward Wilson was slow to learn. As he opposed women’s suffrage until protesters made him change his mind. Which may have played a part in the Progressives losing the 1920 election. The Nineteenth Amendment being ratified just months before the elections. Lucky for us he was slow in changing his mind. For had he embraced women’s suffrage his party may have been rewarded at the polls by a lot of happy women. Instead they voted for a Return to Normalcy with Warren G. Harding. Who followed the advice of Andrew Mellon and cut taxes. Igniting economic activity. Giving us one of the greatest decades in U.S. history. The Roaring Twenties. Where limited government and free market capitalism modernized the world. But it wouldn’t last. For the heavy hand of government interfered with those free markets by the end of the decade. Giving us the Great Depression.
As Women Empowered themselves with the Birth Control Pill they made Men Very, Very Happy
FDR exploded the size of government with his New Deal. It was not JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Instead it was what can our new big-ass government do for you? How can we now mother you? And how can we get you to vote for us? So we can continue our orgy of spending. And the women’s vote no doubt helped. Many of who were mothers. With mothering instincts. Who wanted to help and take care of people. Who endorsed FDR’s policies. The product of those feminized Progressive men. Who worked diligently to change limited government into the nanny state. To fill government with understanding. Empathy. And kindness. Creating a new aristocratic class in the process. Allowing these feminized men to achieve great levels of power and wealth. Doing whatever they want. Because they felt special. The center of the world. And superior.
The New Deal programs failed to pull the country out of the Great Depression. World War II came around to do that. Causing another generation to suffer through another horrible war. This time putting some 13 million Americans into uniform. Leaving a lot of mothers to raise their children. Alone. Raising them with a nurturing Christian love. Especially their sons. Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed. And lived in fear that they would fall in battle. So they smothered their sons with love and affection. Made them feel special. The center of the world. To ease the fear and dread of the war. Which killed some 400,000. And wounded a million more. A lot of them young fathers. Leaving more sons with no father in their lives. Only a mother who hated war. And would raise their sons to hate war, too. To love, instead, peace. To be filled with feelings of kindness and sensitivity. And to resist their manly urges. Feminizing another generation of men.
These men came of age in the Sixties. Who said “Make love, not war.” And did. Like their mothers taught them. Well, sort of. It was the age of free love. The sexual revolution. Where men had a lot of sex with lots of different women. And when they weren’t having sex they were attacking the establishment. Protesting the Vietnam War. Capitalism. Old white men. Rich people. Religion. Pretty much anyone. And anything. Filled with rage because they grew up without a daddy. Blaming the world for that. (Don’t think so? Listen to Pink Floyd’s The Wall for a real life example as Roger Waters wrote about growing up without a daddy). Filled with hate. Unable to love. So they just had sex. Lots and lots of sex. With a lot of ready and willing sex partners. Because women in those days weren’t getting married anymore to raise a family. They were empowering themselves. Using the new birth control pill to plan when they were going to have a family. Making these men they were having sex with very, very happy.
Liberals encourage Women to Empower themselves and Explore their Sexuality as long as these Women are not their Daughters
The radicals of the Sixties went on to become university professors in the Seventies. Continuing their antiestablishment and anti-capitalism ways. Putting up pictures of Che Guevara up in their classrooms. Preaching socialism. And communism. Teaching political science and journalism and prelaw students how horrible America was. Itemizing every sin. But glossing over every achievement. Attacking religion and morality. Saying, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?” Encouraging more government spending. And more government control of the private sector. To make America the socialist paradise they sang about in the Sixties. While high. And to legalize the drugs they used to get high in the Sixties. Attacking men for marrying women. Making them nothing more than cooks and housekeepers. And whores in the bedroom. Encouraging women to burn their bras and have more consequence-free sex. Which these university professors enjoyed during the Seventies. Getting high and having sex with their students. Doing whatever they want. Because they felt special. The center of the world. And superior.
Life was a party in the Seventies. And we paid dearly for it. All our major cites became crime ridden. Drug use soared. Violent crime increased. Including assaults on women. For we were honoring and cherishing women far less in the Seventies than we used to. Casual sex was in. Making women just sex partners. Again, something the men were really enjoying. Especially those feminized men that went on into politics. Who became liberal Democrats. And feminists. Protectors of women. A handy title. For it made the women look the other way every time these men cheated on their wives. Or were caught in some sex scandal. They were really enjoying life. These men. Running the government in the Seventies. And controlling the news networks. The old-boys club was never better. But then the economy had to go into the toilet. And the people finally said enough. They voted for Ronald Reagan. A conservative. Who represented about 40% of the population. And declared the nanny-state of liberalism a failure. An ideology held by only 20% (approximately) of the population002E
Of course, the liberals weren’t just going to give up their privileged life. Controlling all of that tax money. And having whatever they wanted. Including all that fun with young women. They had to come up with some way to get a lot of people who did not agree with their ideology to vote for them. Or who simply didn’t understand their ideology. So they courted the youth vote. Whose interests rarely went beyond the satisfying of their selfish desires. Those they could so enamor in college. By being cool. What with these liberals being so unlike these kids’ parents. Who said that there is nothing wrong with using drugs. Or having casual sex with someone’s daughter. The two things college students can really enjoy. Especially the sex. Which the liberals provided for them. By exploiting these young women. Showering them with birth control. Even access to abortion. Making a woman’s self-worth based on her attractiveness to men. Or on her ability to sexually satisfy men. They encourage women to think the sexier they were the better and more popular they would be. And the happier they would be. Encouraging them to have fun on spring break. So what if they end up on some DVD having sexually explicit fun? As long as they had fun. And vote Democrat. Because it’s the Democrats who make sure these young women can have fun. And feel good about themselves. By encouraging them to be sex objects for men to enjoy. Especially those old men in politics. The feminists. Who say things like they admire the women’s movement. Especially from behind. They encourage these women to ’empower’ themselves and explore their sexuality. With them. For fun. Their self-worth. And their vote. And these men don’t care what happens to them once they do. As long as, of course, they’re not their own daughters.
Tags: Big Government, birth control, birth control pill, boys, casual sex, children, Civil War, consequence-free sex, Daddy, daughter, Democrat, doting mother, elections, empathy, exploited women, father, fatherless sons, FDR, feminists, feminized, franchise to vote, Great Depression, hate war, kindness, liberal, Liberal Democrats, love and affection, mother, nanny state, New Deal, political elite, politics, Progressive, Progressive men, Progressive movement, Republican, sensitivity, Seventies, sex partners, sixties, socialism, sons, understanding, using drugs, vote, women, women's vote
Week in Review
Some women in the UK are living the stereotype. Or want to live the stereotype. Wanting to trade brains for big boobs. And for what? To attract and please men. And thanks to feminists women have never been more empowered to do just that. They have careers. Are independent. And have money. Which they can use to make themselves as pretty as they can be so men will notice them. And they can afford the birth control they need to please the man who notices them (see The Jordan effect: Third of young women would swap IQ for larger breasts by Eleanor Harding posted 3/2/2012 on the Daily Mail).
Shocking new research shows almost half of young women aged 18 to 25 would prefer to have large breasts than high intelligence – with a third even saying they would gladly swap…
The study, which has alarmed women’s groups, also found a quarter of those surveyed felt bigger breasts would make them feel ‘happier’.
And almost 60 per cent of the respondents believed that men would be ‘more interested’ in them romantically if they had bigger breasts.
In the movie Analyze This Billy Crystal plays psychologist Dr. Ben Sobel. And Robert De Niro plays mob boss Paul Vitti who suffers from anxiety problems. When Dr. Sobel learns that Paul has a mistress he asks how long did he and his wife have marital problems. Paul said they had no problems. Then Dr. Sobel asked why Paul had a mistress. And Paul replied because he can do things with her sexually that he can’t do with his wife. Dr. Sobel then asks if Paul ever tried to introduce those ‘things’ to his wife in the bedroom. And Paul says something like, “What kind of a sick son of a bitch are you? That’s the mother of my children we’re talking about here.”
I’m paraphrasing as it’s been a while since I saw the movie. But it is an example of that long held belief about how men feel about women. There are girls to have fun with. And girls you marry. And the feminists with all their work to empower women, urging them to explore their sexuality and providing them with access to birth control and abortion are making more and more women to have fun with. When it appears that what women really want is to get married. Based on their desire to attract a man. Because if they just wanted tawdry and casual sex all they have to do is go to a bar and say ‘yes’. No matter her appearance. Because alcohol makes everyone look beautiful. Both men. And women. With enough drinks in them anyone can do the ‘walk of shame’ the following morning after waking up in some stranger’s bed. And be filled with self-loathing as they creep back home.
This is not why women watch romantic comedies. Because they, like the heroines in those movies, want to find that one guy. So they make themselves as attractive as possible to attract that one guy. So they, too, can live happily ever after. In wedded bliss. Which is getting harder and harder to do these days. Thanks to all that empowerment. Which lets guys have a lot of fun with a lot of girls. Encouraging them to, even. Making it a longer time before they start thinking about settling down. And start looking for the girl to marry. Who will be the mother of their children. Who they will honor and cherish. And not just leave cab fare for her in the morning.
Tags: attract, attractive, big boobs, birth control, brains, children, empower women, feminists, mother, please men, trade brains for big boobs, UK, wife, women
Week in Review
The feminists may have freed women from the hell of wedded bliss but this new empowerment and sexual liberty has led to an even worse hell. The hell of single motherhood (see Family Fact of the Week: Majority of Births to Women Under 30 Are to Single Moms by Rachel Sheffield posted 2/24/2012 on The Foundry).
Unwed childbearing has been on the rise for more than five decades, and today more than 40 percent of U.S. children are born to single women. A new study additionally reveals that the majority—53 percent—of births to women under 30 occur outside of marriage…
However, unwed childbearing isn’t the norm for all young women. In fact, for the college-educated it is still very uncommon. The majority of births are instead to women with a high school diploma or less…
The increasing rate of unwed childbearing, as well as the corresponding breakdown of marriage, in low- and middle-income America is creating a divided society split along the lines of marriage and education.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. Encouraging women to empower themselves with consequence-free sex wasn’t suppose to lead to consequences. And apparently the men who impregnated these women aren’t doing the honorable thing. Probably because doing the honorable thing was the last thing on their mind when they were enjoying a woman’s empowerment.
The feminists have freed women from men. Allowed them to be their own people. And encouraged them into a life very similar to that wedded bliss the feminists rescued them from. Only without a husband to help pay the bills and raise the children. I’m not sure how women are better off this way. Or their children.
Of course the societal split along the lines of marriage and education will have the feminists countering that they need to get into the high schools to teach these girls about family planning. Especially the ones that don’t go on to college. Give them more birth control. And easier access to abortion. Anything but marriage. Because that’s a kind of hell they would wish on no woman. Despite so many women wanting this life. At least, based on the television and movies they watch. Where a man and a woman end up married and live happily ever after. I mean, there’s a reason why they call romantic comedies ‘chic flics’. Because it’s the women who watch them. And want to live the fairy tale. To live happily ever after. Something the feminists have been working hard to prevent these last 5 decades or so.
Tags: consequences, education, empowerment, feminists, marriage, motherhood, sexual liberty, single motherhood, wedded bliss
Week in Review
There’s been a lot of talk lately about women’s health, reproductive rights and, in general, the empowerment of women. The sexual revolution freed women from the hell of wedded bliss. Taught them to embrace their sexuality. And let them go out and have a little fun. And here’s one lady that embraces her sexuality. And is having a whole lot of fun (see Sexpresso: Wives ban their husbands from visiting Italian cafe where busty barmaid serves up drinks in skimpy outfits by Nick Pisa posted 2/25/2012 on Daily Mail).
After eight years running a bar, Laura Maggi suddenly found men beating a path to her door.
Not for the quality of her coffee and aperitifs, but because she had started appearing for work in highly revealing outfits.
And revealing they are. Now this isn’t what the feminists had in mind about empowering women. The exploitation of their sexuality for money. But in this case can we really call it exploitation when the one profiting from it is the one doing the exploiting? The wives of the husbands visiting her establishment are not happy about this at all. But when it comes down to it she’s just selling food and drinks. Like the waitresses at Hooters. Only Ms. Maggi is 34 years old. Not a teenager out of high school. And her dress code is voluntary and not a condition of employment.
An interesting story. And one of the few that will probably unite feminists and conservative Christians in their condemnation of her self-exploitation. Except the men, of course. Who I’m guessing will be less vocal in their condemnation.
Tags: condemnation, empowering women, exploitation, feminists, sexuality, women
Week in Review
The Occupy Wall Street movements linger on. In their battle against capitalism. Bankers. And corporations. The greatest scourge known to human kind. President Obama has expressed some support for these protesters. And the Democrats are on board with them. To teach corporate America a lesson. All the while trying to put more women into the CEO positions of these evil, vile corporations (see Number of female ‘Fortune’ 500 CEOs at record high by Laura Petrecca posted 10/26/2011 on USA Today).
If no women step down before the end of 2011, there will be 18 women running Fortune 500 companies in 2012. Previously, there haven’t been more than 16 female CEOs at Fortune 500 firms at the same time.
Yet, while the upcoming ascensions are notable, the gender gap between men and women in the workplace remains vast, with females struggling to get the mentors they need and the pay to equal their male counterparts.
If these are so evil and vile why is it so important to get more women running them?
The Democrats claim the feminists. They are always fighting for the equality of the sexes. Yet it is the Democrats throwing in with the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Those people who hate these evil, vile corporations. So are corporations bad? And if so why do Democrats want women running them?
Anecdotally speaking, men are also more apt to quickly say “yes” to a career-enhancing assignment that could affect their personal life, while women tend to consider how the opportunity could affect home situations such as elder care or child care, Catalyst’s Soon says.
In turn, the next time a manager has a job to offer, he or she may remember that woman’s hesitation and consider going with another candidate, she says.
So I guess there are differences between the sexes. One cares about children and parents. The other doesn’t. They’re just a bunch of selfish bastards. So that’s why we pay men more. Because they put career ahead of children and parents. The selfish bastards they are.
Of course, in choosing a CEO for a corporation, being that kind of selfish bastard is definitely a plus. Besides, corporations are vile and evil. Better a selfish bastard run them than a selfless, good woman.
Tags: bankers, capitalism, CEO, corporations, Democrats, feminists, Fortune 500, Occupy Wall Street, women