Tag Archives: misogyny

Toxic Meme Alert! Today’s Phrase is: Abortion Rights

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Abortion rights: the term is everywhere these days. 

Pro-choice organizations use it; anti-choice organizations use it. The phrase seems to have slipped into today’s lexicon without making a splash. But really, what does it mean?

Let me ask you, feminist females who are in the pro-choice camp. Do you want abortion rights? Are you going to go around carrying a sign saying, “My body, my abortion?”

I don’t think so.

I believe that this meme is classic rightwing ratf*cking from the Gingrich school, and to use it is giving the He-Man Woman-Haters’ Club yet another victory in the framing wars.

Here’s how they do it. First, they smear pro-choice activists as “pro-abortion” (yes, this meme is all over anti-choice sites). BZZZZZT! Wrong-o. No woman is pro-abortion. No woman says,”Hooray! I’m getting an abortion today!” No woman goes skipping down the street, deciding between a mani-pedi, lunch with Samantha, Carrie and Charlotte, and an abortion. That idea is pure misogynistic crap. Women are airheads who can’t be trusted to make these decisions, the fundiegelicals imply (or state outright). These godless temptresses think abortion is cool and hip. They don’t want the responsibility of caring for the child they, apparently, created all by themselves out of angel wings and holy water (because of course, men are never blamed or held responsible for an unwanted pregnancy by the fundies).

Continue reading

Safe, Legal and Rare is Back On the Table…

thanks to:

HILLLLLL-AAAAAA-REEEEEEEEEEE!

(Haven’t had a good Hillary whine in a while. Ahhhhh, it felt good!)

Come on. Isn’t she magnificent? And can you imagine Barack Obama having the spine to stand up for women’s rights the way she does here?

One of the most ridiculous memes I heard from die-hard Obots in 2008 was that Hillary would sell out women’s reproductive rights down the river. Oh, as opposed to Mr. Dial-An-Evangelical currently occupying the Oval Office? The guy who threw away funding for birth control in order to “get 80 votes” for his budget, for which not one Republican voted anyway? The guy who thinks women get late-term abortions because they’re “feeling blue?” The dude who thinks women need to consult a committee before deciding what to do with their own bodies?

I have a question for those religious folks who feel they have the right to control my reproductive organs. If you believe God made us, then God put women in charge of either having, or not having, babies. If God trusted us, why don’t you?

Their Quivers Overfloweth – With Updates

Jesus Wants YOU

Three words:

What.

The.

Fuck.

We exalt Jesus Christ as Lord, and acknowledge His headship in all areas of our lives, including fertility. We exist to serve those believers who trust the Lord for family size, and to answer the questions of those seeking truth in this critical area of marriage.

Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome. Come browse our articles and resources. Also, be sure to check out the QuiverFull Digest, our email discussion group that was started in 1995.

Dedicated to providing encouragement and practical help to those who are striving to raise a large and growing, godly family in today’s world!

Hallelujah! It’s Quiverfull, the latest incarnation of the He-Man Woman-Haters so-called “Christian” conservative anti-feminist club. How incredibly bad must these women feel about themselves, to buy into this nonsense? Submit to your husband and give control of your reproductive organs over to some invisible man in the sky?

I think I’ll start a religion. Let me know if you think it would catch on! Here I go:

Men are to blame for original sin. Nothing they ever do can erase that. Because of this allegorical event that never occurred sometime in the mists of the ancient world, men shall be relegated to second-class citizen status, which is all they deserve. After all, they have penises, which appendages automatically make them stupid and weak – everyone knows that.

Due to their obvious inferiority, men shall be prohibited from the following activities: Becoming church leaders; having control over their own reproductive organs; and having any but the most feeble recourse, should their wives decide to beat them senseless every night, or kill them simply because they wish to. After all, it is merely their cross to bear, and divorce is a sin against the Goddess.

What do you think? Guys, don’t all sign up at once now!

This is the article that brought “Quiverfull” to my attention. What especially worried me was the article’s suggestion that this movement is growing in power and popularity. And of course, it’s being subtly promoted by The Learning Channel, which features The Duggars, a Quiverfull family with 18 (yes, that’s ten plus eight) children.

But there’s one big omission from the on-screen portrayal of many of these families: their motivation. Though the Duggars do describe themselves as conservative Christians, in reality, they follow a belief system that goes far beyond “Cheaper by the Dozen” high jinks. It is a pro-life-purist lifestyle known as Quiverfull, where women forgo all birth-control options, viewing contraception as a form of abortion and considering even natural family planning an attempt to control a realm-fertility-that should be entrusted to divine providence.

At the heart of this reality-show depiction of “extreme motherhood” is a growing conservative Christian emphasis on the importance of women submitting to their husbands and fathers, an antifeminist backlash that holds that gender equality is contrary to God’s law and that women’s highest calling is as wives and “prolific” mothers.

Make no mistake, there is nothing benign whatsoever about this type of propaganda. I’ve seen quite an uptick recently of movies and television shows that show women either as submissive, maternal types (all the TLC specials that the article mentions), or as bubbleheaded idiots obsessed with shopping (“Confessions of a Shopaholic”) or The Perfect Wedding (“Bride Wars”). The patriarchy is not amused by the fact that two women were uppity enough to think they deserved to crack that highest, hardest glass ceiling last year, and it hasn’t stopped its efforts to prevent another attempt at REAL change – a woman as President.

So we must keep ever watchful, like real Pumas, and recognize the efforts of the plutocracy to protect itself. It’s been quite successful for thousands of years at keeping women “in their place.”

Sometimes I just despair at the appalling breadth and depth of society’s hatred and fear of the feminine. But then, something like this happens, and I get a little bit happy.

Vermont Senate Panel Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Good for the Judiciary Committee. Good for Vermont. May this bill pass, and may more and more states follow their example.

And may the women of the world stop falling for this ridiculous, perverted stupidity. God is love, not hate, and this Quiverfull crap is nothing but hatred of the power of the Chalice.

Someday, women will realize that. In 2012, perhaps?

Cross-posted at Partizane

Winning the Equal Representation Argument

You Are In Good Hands with Women In Charge

You Are In Good Hands with Women In Charge

Be forewarned, ladies. If you dare to think you are entitled to equal representation in government, you are doing something called “femi-whining.”

Don Surber says so, and his post made the “best of the blogs” on RealClearPolitics, so he must have a point. Right?

Surber objects to an article by Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post, in which she mentioned – gasp – numbers! (We all know girls can’t do math, right, Larry Summers?) In any case, Ms. Kornblut uses the fact that only 16 (now 17 again) out of 100 Senators are women. His intelligent and informed response to this?

Boo hoo hoo.

Senators are elected. Before you are elected you have to run. It was pretty hard for Minnesota to elect a woman this year because both major candidates were men. But if Norma Coleman and Alice Franken had run… well, we still would not have a winner but I think my point is made.

Clinton was not elected president because she was not a woman? Well, of the 20 leading contenders last year, 18 men were denied the job as well.

But Kornblut lives in a world where women are entitled to 50 Senate seats without bothering to campaign for them (emphasis added).

Nonsense.

Yes, Don Surber, it IS nonsense. And let me tell you why.

Continue reading

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Misogynists of a Feather Flocking Together

Misogynists of a Feather Flocking Together

What the hell is our problem, feminists of America?

As the hair-flipping, tweeny-bopper-imitating Naomi Wolf giddily claimed on the Teevee, we have instantly achieved all we could possibly want simply by electing Barack Obama to be our next President. I mean, hel-LLLLLOOOOO! What else could we possibly desire? Why don’t we just go away, and stop embarrassing well-behaved womens’ magazines so? Perhaps we should consult with our pastors and husbands before opening our big fat mouths again!

Well, Naomi dahlink, we have ISSUES – and not the emotional kind.

Just as no one in the corporate media or the Democratic Party would admit that the objections of millions of Democratic activists to Barack Obama were based on something other than race, patriarchy-enablers like Ms. Wolf refuse to acknowledge that feminist objections to Obama are based on…anything at all.

But we do object; we object most strenuously. In a year when Senator Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win a primary, and went on to win the most primary votes of any candidate, male or female; in a year when Governor Sarah Palin became the first vice-presidential nominee in 24 years (and the first one from the Republican Party), Ms. Magazine chose to highlight a man on the cover of their magazine – and not just any man: a man that had run a blatantly misogynistic campaign in order to defeat these women, and to win the Presidency of the United States. What woman worth her uterus would not be a tad exercised at this revolting development?

Continue reading

Axelrove: We Have Always Been At War With EastAsia.

Does This Party Structure Look Familiar?

Does This Party Structure Look Familiar?

In July, I remarked upon the Orwellian nature of the Obama campaign. And why shouldn’t they be Orwellian – they have copied KKKarl Rove’s playbook down to the last semicolon, and La Turd Blossom has certainly been a fan of the visionary 1984 author. Remember the legislative hommages, like “No Child Left Behind,” which actually causes children to be, um, left behind if they don’t pass the tests; and who could forget the cleverly-named “Clear Skies Initiative,” which was responsible for more pollution that actually cleared the skies of…birds! Good times, good times.

But no worries – we need not miss Rove and Bush for long. Here comes KKKarl’s younger, hairier brother, with his latest logic-twisting assertions.

Top Obama adviser David Axelrod strongly defended the selection of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration, telling moderator David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the nation needs to get beyond “shaking our fists” across a political divide.

The selection of Warren, a Californian whose “The Purpose Driven Life” has sold 20 million copies, prompted a fierce backlash from some of Obama’s liberal supporters — especially gay activists, who were miffed at Warren’s support for the Golden State proposition outlawing same-sex marriage, which passed in November. (Note the diminutizing use of the word “miffed” here, and the complete omission of female activists who are outraged at Warren’s opposition to reproductive rights and belief that a woman should be submissive to her husband. – MB)

“You have a conservative evangelical pastor who’s coming to participate in the inauguration of a progressive president,” Axelrod said from Chicago. “This is a healthy thing and a good thing for our country. We have to find ways to work together on the things on which we do agree, even when we profoundly disagree on other things.”

Let’s take a closer look at this inclusive-sounding pap, shall we?

Continue reading

The Judgement of Barack Obama, Part II

Note: It’s Pearl Harbor Day. Believe it or not, Barack Obama and George W., oceans NEVER protected us. We honor the service of the men and women who fought and died in World War II, especially on this day “that will live in infamy.”

The people our President-Elect surrounds himself with have always been of grave concern to me. We know so little about this man, yet we were supposed to trust his judgement over Hillary’s in the primaries, and McCain’s in the General Election. Why? Because he made a speech against the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

That speech was supposed to outweigh the fact that his friends are neoliberals, racists, misogynists, homophobes and domestic terrorists, and that he has consistently failed to adhere to liberal/progressive principles when he is forced to act instead of just speak. He did not filibuster, or even vote against, telecom immunity from being prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping, as he promised. (Hillary voted against it, keeping her promise.) He did not take public financing, as he promised; in fact, he raised about $500 million online during his 21-month campaign. Despite the ludicrous spin the Post puts on it, that money didn’t come from “small donors.” We know that Obama’s online donation system did not verify names and addresses, unlike Hillary’s or McCain’s, which would not allow donors from overseas, or who posted phony names and addresses, to give them money. Thus, those donors who gave $80 or less multiple times (as the Washington Post story admits, the average Obama donor gave more than once) could have easily gone over the $2500 personal donation limit by simply logging in with many different names and addresses. Moreover, Obama is not required to disclose the names of anyone giving less than $200 to his campaign. How conveeeeenient, as RiverDaughter would say! The bottom line is, someone has bought Obama, and we don’t know who it is because no one will investigate where it all came from. So much for the Obamabot spin that Obama is a populist figure.

President-Elect Obama is no longer saying he will “end the war” in Iraq. He has moved the frame on abortion from “safe, legal and rare” to “in consultation with their families and pastors” and has nominated the anti-freedom Tom Daschle as head of the HHS, rather than a staunch pro-freedom advocate like Governor Janet Napolitano. Furthermore, what did Joe Biden mean when he predicted Obama was going to make unpopular decisions we would hate, and that the world would test Obama when he came into office?

What have we on the leftish side of the spectrum done by allowing ourselves to be fooled by this cipher into giving him the most important job in the world? Why did we let this happen to our country? Why did we elevate supposedly “inspiring” speeches over action?

And speaking of speeches…we now have a little insight into Obama’s 27-year-old chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau. Which is he – a neoliberal, racist, misogynist, homophobe or terrorist? If you guessed “misogynist,” you’re right! Here he is, showing the same respect to a cutout of Hillary that Obama and his cohorts have shown to the real Senator Clinton.

Respect

Respect

If you genuinely think this is no big deal, what if it were a cutout of Michelle Obama?

Photoshop by Murphy at PUMA Pac

Photoshop by Murphy at PUMA Pac

Continue reading