Posts Tagged ‘Misogyny’
The Moral Relativist Left in Canada isn’t outraged by the practices of murdering women and sexually mutilating children. But they are outraged if someone dares to call these abuses “barbaric”:
Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.
A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”
[…] Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”
“Neutrality” on murder and sexual mutilation? Are you kidding me???
Recently, I penned an article about an Amnesty International initiative: an art project for which the organization had commissioned artists and designers to address the devastating problem of female genital mutilation, or FGM – using 8,000 paper rose petals. The petals had been gathered as part of a petition action to bring attention to – and to end – the practice of FGM, and were each signed by a member of the public who participated in the petition. It was a laudable project, and I said so.
Amnesty responded with great appreciation for my story – but took exception to one detail. I had called FGM “barbaric,” and, said an Amnesty official, “we try not to use this word.” In an e-mail, she explained, “The use of the word ‘barbaric’ suggests that the people who do this are less than human, which isn’t so because they are being led by social pressure which is what needs to be fought. So we avoid using this word to not judge the people.”
Overlooking the fact that “barbaric,” which means simply “uncultured,” “uncivilized,” or “uneducated,” does not quite suggest “less than human,” I could not help but wonder about the “not to judge them” part. After all, if you set out to change a thing – a behavior, a place, a custom (and especially if you set out to end it) – haven’t you already implicitly expressed a judgment? And how is calling a custom, a practice, “barbaric,” conferring a judgment on the people who perform it?
[…] If, say, a Park Avenue Protestant family carried out FGM on their daughter, that, too, after all, would be barbaric. And anyone would be right to say so. But barring the use of that word, should we use another one, like “different?” But wait – isn’t “different” somewhat alienating, as well? Does it not imply a judgment?
And so on. At this rate, the only workably acceptable term would seem to be “normal” or “okay.”
And it is not.
These are the times I worry that we stand upon a precipice, and fear for the ideas and the ideals that form the fundament of civilization and democracy. We censor words and language, as Howard says, bending our knee to the tyranny of political correctness, concerning ourselves more with the sensitivities of the perpetrators than the lives and safety of the victims.
Some things are just EVIL, and SHOULD be called “barbaric!” There’s no other way to describe them! But according to the Left, the only thing that’s “barbaric” is criticizing the EVIL practices of an EVIL “religion” that glorifies misogyny and child abuse!
THIS is the “war on women,” but don’t hold your breath waiting for so-called “women’s groups” to start protesting it. They’re always silent when it comes to REAL misogyny.
Denied the right to travel without consent from their male guardians and banned from driving, women in Saudi Arabia are now monitored by an electronic system that tracks any cross-border movements.
Since last week, Saudi women’s male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together.
Manal al-Sherif, who became the symbol of a campaign launched last year urging Saudi women to defy a driving ban, began spreading the information on Twitter, after she was alerted by a couple.
The husband, who was travelling with his wife, received a text message from the immigration authorities informing him that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh.
“The authorities are using technology to monitor women,” said columnist Badriya al-Bishr, who criticised the “state of slavery under which women are held” in the ultra-conservative kingdom.
Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the “yellow sheet” at the airport or border.
The move by the Saudi authorities was swiftly condemned on social network Twitter — a rare bubble of freedom for millions in the kingdom — with critics mocking the decision.
“Hello Taliban, herewith some tips from the Saudi e-government!” read one post.
“Why don’t you cuff your women with tracking ankle bracelets too?” wrote Israa.
“Why don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?” joked another.
“If I need an SMS to let me know my wife is leaving Saudi Arabia, then I’m either married to the wrong woman or need a psychiatrist,” tweeted Hisham.
“This is technology used to serve backwardness in order to keep women imprisoned,” said Bishr, the columnist.
“It would have been better for the government to busy itself with finding a solution for women subjected to domestic violence” than track their movements into and out of the country.
Saudi Arabia applies a strict interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, and is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.
According to the Left, I’m just a “baby-making machine” who’s “uninformed,” “misguided,” and only votes conservative because my husband and preacher tell me to. That would come as a shock to Dave and the pastor of every church we’ve ever attended (who’ve NEVER told others how to vote). As for the size of my family, all I can say is, it’s my “choice”, it’s none of your business how many kids I want, and someday all these conservative kids will outnumber the few liberal children who are left after you’ve prevented and killed them with your agenda!
One activist at a Planned Parenthood rally outside the GOP convention summed up the abortion businesses’ feeling about pro-life women who don’t buy into their abortion mantra by calling women “baby making machines.”
“They have so many kids,” the liberal woman lamented.
Another woman said millions of women are voting Republican in November for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan “because their husbands told them too.”
As a mother of three girls, I find this incredibly demeaning and insulting. Girls can realize their dreams much better without dependence on the Nanny State and a sexual agenda that is anti-personal responsibility, THANKYOUVERYMUCH!
The Obama campaign has cut a new ad in which it suggests that little girls are being endangered by Republicans who want to do away with mandated contraception coverage. The ad, produced by Obama/Biden 2012, takes the usual Obama tack of addressing the ad from a common citizen to President Obama, like an open letter – even though the ad itself is an open love letter from Obama to Obama, apparently.
It begins with meaningful piano music, and a young mother explaining that she has two daughters, one six and one ten. The six-year-old wants to be a “doctor for dolphins”; the ten-year-old wants to be a fighter pilot. The intro to these two little girls takes nearly a minute.
Then, for no apparent reason, the mother launches into a diatribe about birth control, as the music rises:
It is upsetting to me that in 2012, the use of birth control has become controversial. Birth control isn’t just for family planning. It’s preventative care and treatment, it’s medication that most women need and use at some point in their lives, and it is as common in a woman’s medicine cabinet as cough medicine … That’s just one reason I’m so passionate about getting you re-elected this year. We need a president who will stand up for women’s health … The dreams of all our daughters are at stake.
In what world is use of birth control controversial? What does condom mandating by the federal government have to do with whether this woman’s daughters become veterinarians? Nothing. What does the health care mandate have to do with the woman’s daughter entering the Air Force? Nothing. And just because a woman has condoms in her cabinet doesn’t mean the government should provide them – after all, does the government provide that cough medication? Or the Q-Tips next to it? But there’s gushy music, so it must be true.
This is the most dishonest entry yet in the long ledger of “war on women” dishonesty from the Obama campaign.
There are many problems with this ad.
The first: The use of contraception is not controversial, forcing others, including religious institutions morally opposed to contraception, to cover and pay for contraception, is.
The second: Contraception is readily available at an inexpensive price pretty much everywhere.
The third: Have we really gotten to the point in America where young girls can only fullfil their dreams if someone else pays for their birth control? No, not even close. In fact, Forbes just named their 100 most powerful celebrities in the world. Four out of the top five celebrities were women and seven out of the top ten were women. Taxpayers weren’t paying for their birth control through a govenment mandate along their way to the top.
The fourth: The woman narrating the ad says, “We need a president who will stand up for women’s health and stay focused on jobs and the economy.” Let me remind readers that it was President Obama who decided to make birth control a “controversial” issue and a distraction from his horrific economic record when his ally Nancy Pelosi tapped 30-year-old reproductive activist Sandra Fluke of Georgetown University to testify/complain before a congressional committee about paying $3000 a year for birth control. It turns out Fluke was actually dating, and is now engaged to, the son of a big time Democratic donor and was being represented by the same public relations firm run by former White House Communication Director Anita Dunn, who just so happens to work with Ann Romney attacker Hilary Rosen at the firm.
[…] The birth control “controversy” isn’t about birth control at all, it’s about religious freedom and government forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control, despite moral and constitutional objections.
So ladies, do you find it impossible to reach your dreams because you have to pay for your own contraception? I didn’t think so. This ad is so patronizing to women that it’s nauseating, they really must think we are idiots. Team Obama must think women are so stupid that they can’t get through life without a government handout or other people paying for their birth control. Team Obama made this point clear two weeks ago with their presentation of Julia. But guess what? Women are smarter than that.
The Blaze first reported that Hustler magazine had photoshopped a picture of S.E. Cupp to depict her performing oral sex in order to humiliate her for her pro-life politics.
The outcry was so bad that even Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke have publicly condemned Hustler for their brazenly sexist attack. If they had objectified a Democrat woman this way, the National Organization for Women and Old Media would have been all over the story for weeks. Instead, it’s been mostly crickets.
Let’s call this what it is: weaponized misogyny.
Like all conservative women, S.E. Cupp is a gender-traitor who needs to be taught a lesson by being sexually degraded and humiliated against her will. It’s a form of rape fantasy, not unlike Playboy’s article that gave conservative women like Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham “hate f*ck” ratings.
And of course, liberalism is an absolute defense against indefensible filth of this kind.
Sexually objectify a woman because you disagree with her politics? No sweat. You’re a liberal; you’re immune to accusations of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. Just ask David Letterman, Bill Maher, and all the other card-carrying liberals forgiven and even applauded by the feminist Left for their dehumanization and sexualization of conservative women. Or ask Hillary Clinton, who discovered during her presidential campaign that even progressive women who get in the way are fair game for liberal-approved sexism, often from other progressive women.
Once again, it’s clear who’s waging the real War on Women.
S. C. AFL CIO Union Thug Attacking Gov. Haley Pinata With Ball Bat
View on YouTube
More Democrat “civility” and “tolerance” on display.
Here we have another union thug acting out a desire for violence. This time it’s Donna Dewitt, the President of the South Carolina AFL-CIO (a grand title for a chief thug, eh?), using a baseball bat to smack a piñata sporting the face of S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley on it.
Now, imagine, folks, if these were Republicans using a ball bat on an effigy of a Democrat Gov. — and a female one at that. This story would be the story of the day all over the news and would go on for weeks at a time. We’d never hear the end of it from the Old Media.
Democrats do it… and crickets.
In fact, if this was a video of Republicans doing such a thing, the GOP candidate for president would be tarred with their actions. Right now we’d be hearing calls from every last Democrat, every last member of the media (but I repeat myself) for Governor Mitt Romney to disavow this violence.
Again. Democrats do it…. and crickets.
Remember back when all Sarah Palin did was put the icon of a target on a map of targeted districts during the 2010 election? Remember how that became a symbol in the Old Media of the “violence” being urged by those evil Republicans? Well, here we have a ball bat being used on the face of a female Governor and… yep, crickets.”
I don’t care what your politics are…this is disgusting behavior, and there’s NO excuse for it!
7th century misogyny hits the bestseller list for the Muslim world.
A popular marriage guide that has sold out in one Toronto bookstore is gaining media attention because of the book’s controversial focus—how to beat and control your wife.
The book, titled “A Gift for the Muslim Couple,” is written by Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who, according to the book’s foreword, is a “prolific writer on almost every topic of Islamic learning.”
In the book’s opening, Thanvi writes that “It might be necessary to restrain her [one’s wife] with strength or even to threaten her.”
Later, Thanvi enumerates the rights of the husband, which include forbidding his wife to leave “his house without his permission,” having his wife “fulfill his desires,” and insisting that he “not allow herself to be untidy . . . but should beautify herself for him.”
Even more controversial are the measures available to a husband if his wife is disobedient. Fortunately, the book notes that a husband should “refrain from beating her excessively,” but he is permitted to “beat by hand or stick,” “pull [her] by the ears,” verbally scold her, or withhold money.
The Toronto Sun wrote about the book after a reader stumbled into it while browsing in a local shop.
The popularity of this book, which is also available on online Islamic bookstores and eBay, is all the more troubling in light of the many cases of Muslim honor killings and assaults that have surfaced recently.
Obama’s War On Women
View on YouTube
Oddly enough, most women actually believe in protecting their unalienable rights like religious freedom from the tyranny of a government that tries to redefine women’s “liberation” as dependence on the Nanny State for their birth control.
If Republicans really are waging a “war on women,” as Democrats and the media keep insisting, that must have been the fifth column I saw in Courthouse Green on Friday.
The crowd organizers estimated at about 350 – more than half of it female – clearly didn’t know or care that evil, conservative, religious men in high places are conspiring to take away their free birth-control pills. And so the “Stand up for Religious Freedom rally,” one of 138 nationwide, was highlighted by women holding signs and giving speeches that proved once again they just can’t understand that President Obama just wants to protect them – not undermine the principles they hold most dear or the Constitution he has sworn to defend.
Chief quislette was Patty Becker, community relations director for Redeemer Radio, the Catholic station at 1450 AM, who seems to have badly misidentified the enemy.
Women love freedom of choice, she said. But the federal government’s mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception to their employees gives women of faith no choice but to support “anti-life activities that violate their most deeply held beliefs.”
Women love virtue, she insisted, but feel a sense of sham that a vocal minority of “sexual anarchists” is trying to subvert the Christian tradition still shared and cherished by a majority of Americans.
Women love their creator, she confessed. But that most definitely isn’t the federal government – the same government founded on the self-evident principle that rights are gifts from God, not entitlements from Washington.
Such talk is, of course, heresy to those who insist that women (or minorities, or members of any other demographic group) must all think in precisely the same way – an elitist attitude that insults the very people the would-be benefactors claim to value.
The women in the park on Friday insist on thinking for themselves, and understand that if denying free contraception to a student at an expensive Catholic law school constitutes a war on women, they’ll gladly fight for the other side.
That cannot be good news for our embattled president, who this very week blamed Republicans for his investment of $500 million in a bankrupt solar panel firm and took credit for supporting an oil pipeline he has steadfastly opposed. By overreaching on his health-care mandate, he has managed to alienate even some of Obamacare’s original supports, which included many Catholic bishops.
And yet, there was Father Jason Freiburger, vice chancellor of the Fort Wayne-South bend Diocese, giving an invocation that compared Obama to the Old Testament’s Egyptian Pharaoh: leaders who put themselves in the place of God.
Oddly enough, liberty, religious freedom and personal responsibility are issues that really resonate with women. We don’t like being told that we’re so helpless that we need the Nanny State to provide our birth control for us at someone else’s expense, against their consciences, and especially against the constitution!
It’s an insult to women for Leftists to think that we’re willing to sell ourselves and our children into the slavery of government dependence in exchange for a pill.
How’s the great contraception mandate battle of 2012 playing out? If you read the Washington Post‘s news coverage, the issue is supposedly killing Republicans among female voters. But the newestWashington Post/ABC poll tells a different story.
During the first few days of February, about a week before Obama declared a so-called “accommodation” to the contraception/abortifacient mandate, a Washington Post/ABC poll showed Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent, with 46 percent of Americans disapproving.
Then, from March 7 to 10–a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke–Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama’s approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February, and his disapproval rating at 50 percent, up four points from February.
Bill Maher, one of the most notorious misogynists on the Left, donated $1 million to Obama’s SuperPAC and has been invited by the Democrats to host a fundraiser for the president.
Maher’s sexism and hatred against conservative and Republican women are legendary, from calling Sarah Palin the c-word to making jokes about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator.
ShePAC has put together a damning collection of Maher and other Democrats’ most notorious sexist remarks in comparison to Obama’s hypocritically lofty rhetoric.
View on YouTube
Obama said about his daughters:
“I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.”
Unless you’re a conservative woman. Then you’re fair game, and the president will gladly associate with your attacker.
That’s why Concerned Women For America is calling for Obama to return Bill Maher’s money to prove that he truly believes ALL women, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, deserve to be treated with respect.
Female Democratic Lawmakers Refuse to Condemn Bill Maher’s Comments About Palin
View on YouTube
Obama hasn’t held a press conference in months, but he decided to hold one on Super Tuesday so he can make birth and Limbaugh’s comments the center of media attention. Can you say “red herring?”
If Obama and the Democrats were TRULY concerned about sexist slurs against women, why won’t they defend women on BOTH sides of the aisle, regardless of party?
President Barack Obama today declined to criticize his supporters’ sexually themed insults of female GOP politicians, including recent comments from comedian Bill Maher and a band called The Roots.
The Daily Caller asked the president about those insults during an afternoon press conference, his first of 2012.
“Should Bill Maher apologize for what he said about Republicans?” TheDC asked. “Should The Roots apologize [for] what they said about Bachmann?”
The off-the-cuff question, which was noticeably absent from the official White House transcript, came just after Obama criticized radio talker Rush Limbaugh for insulting Democratic activist and law student Sandra Fluke. […]
Limbaugh, who called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” apologized Mar. 3 for the insult after some of his advertisers withdrew their support.
Obama, however, declined to condemn TV comedian Bill Maher for calling former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a “c*nt” during a live show in Dallas.
Maher told his television audience that he could use that language because “I don’t have sponsors — I’m on HBO.”
Last week, Maher announced he was donating $1 million to a super PAC supporting Obama’s re-election campaign.
Obama also declined Tuesday to criticize The Roots for playing a song called “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann walked on the stage during a “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” taping in November.
The band did not sing the widely known lyrics, which include the words “You’re nothing but a little lyin’ ass bitch … slut trash can bitch.”
The Roots played at an Obama Fundraiser last week.
During his press conference, Obama made the ironic claim:
“The reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things that I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about — even ones that I may not agree with,” he said at the White House Tuesday.
“I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens,” Obama added.
Really? Then why did the President refer to Tea Partiers as “tea baggers” for being good citizens?
Sally Zelikovsky at American Thinker asks, “Hey Mr. President. Where’s my phone call?”
In his press conference today, President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke because he thought about his daughters and wanted them to be able to take on issues as they grow up, as private citizens, and to engage in civil discourse without being attacked. He wanted Fluke’s parents to be as proud of her for speaking out as he would be of his daughters.
Great. So where is my phone call? I’m a daughter and a mother, but I didn’t get one phone call when I was called a mobster, a terrorist, a nazi, a tea bagger, a homophobe and a racist. Where was the President when conservatives started protesting the bailouts, stimulus, jobs bill and ObamaCare and had their integrity and intellect attacked on every level? Where was the phone call to Sarah Palin for being called a MILF or to Laura Ingraham for being called a slut?
Just admit, Mr. President, that there is a double standard and, in an uncharacteristic act of good faith to the people of this country, make a statement about it and call off the attack dogs. Better yet, return contributions you have received from those who humiliated countless mothers and daughters, fathers and sons who have been involved with the tea party movment. You might not want to judge Rush Limbaugh but your silence in regard to invectives hurled by Democrats and liberals at conservatives demonstrates your complicity in passing judgment on the rest of us as racist, homophobic, tea bagging neanderthals. I’m waiting.
Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist [Bill Maher]?
The White House official website, funded with YOUR tax dollars, features a petition against Rush Limbaugh. Since when does the president have a right to use taxpayer funded resources to attack private citizens? (Can you imagine if Bush had allowed the White House website to be used like this against one of his critics?)
Rush has even begun receiving death threats as a result of this coordinated campaign against him.
What is a much bigger story is that the left’s primary interest here is not in protecting Fluke — in my humble opinion. Liberals are attempting to exploit this as another opportunity to destroy Rush through a calculated, organized Saul Alinsky-type community organizing campaign to pressure and intimidate his advertisers into discontinuing their sponsorship of his show. […]
We are in a war for the survival of the nation as we know it — as the greatest, freest, strongest, most prosperous nation in history. This is why we fight. When we step over the line, we apologize for having done so. But we do not apologize for the causes we are fighting for, and we must redouble our efforts to stay in this battle with all that is in us.
That’s the REAL story that Obama and the Democrats are hoping to distract voters from.
Every conservative woman knows that she is automatically considered a traitor to her sex by the Left. If she dares to form her own opinions and publicly speak against the leftist agenda, she knows that the backlash will be severe, just like black conservatives and gay conservatives who dare to step away from the ideological line the Left insists on drawing for them.
From hate mail to character assassination, those of us who are conservative members of so-called “minority groups” (though we consider ourselves American before anything else) can expect to be doubly punished for disproving the liberal mantra that the Republican party is for old, rich, bigoted white men.
But the true bigotry is on the Left. Nowhere else will you witness such disgusting examples of racism, misogyny and homophobia as from Leftists intent on punishing women, minorities and gays who dare to think for themselves. And don’t expect any apologies from the president or sympathy from the media. As far as they’re concerned, you’re a traitor and deserve whatever you get. It’s not YOU or YOUR family Obama was concerned about when he blithely invoked his daughters by claiming:
I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.
God help them if they “speak their mind” in a conservative way. I’m sure Deneen Borelli’s parents wanted the same freedom and respect for their daughter, but discovered pretty quickly that Obama’s deceptively lofty ideals don’t apply to black conservative women, as Borelli explains in her new book, “Backlash.” You won’t hear Obama offer her a sympathetic phone call, either. Those are reserved for women who toe the ideological line.
I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonizethe entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.
We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.
At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughtersand all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal.
The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.
If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
Rush offered an apology for comparing radical activist Sandra Fluke to a “slut” because she demanded that taxpayers subsidize her $3000 birth control habit, and – classy gal that she is – the radical feminist bitterly refused to accept it. She’s got the propaganda press wrapped around her finger right now, and like the well-trained activist that she is, knows how to strategically milk this staged “controversy” for all it’s worth.
She’s luckier than most women who’ve been publicly called “slut” and worse by the Alinskyite smear machine. Most Conservatives women have been called every name in the book, yet are never offered an apology from their attackers or sympathy from the media, much less receive concerned phone calls from the president. Cruel rape fantasies, vulgar epithets, sexist “humor”, and death wishes are routinely how the Left and media attack and degrade conservative women. Still we wait for apologies, demands for “civility,” and sympathetic phone calls from the president. Anyone? Anyone?
Just how sensitive are liberals to the plight of women, anyway?
Let’s see how they react when one of their own savages women in ways Limbaugh would never dream of doing.
Everyone remembers Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show.
MSNBC suspended him for a week, but none of Schultz’s advertisers dropped his show under media pressure. There was no pressure. Some of the same sponsors now pulling out of Rush’s show still support Schultz.
What Schultz said is nothing compared to his colleagues.
Fellow talk show host Mike Malloy hoped Sarah Palin “drives herself into madness” and insisted Michele Bachmann is an “evil bitch from Hell” who would have gladly supervised the Holocaust.
Montel Williams rooted on Air America for Bachmann to slit her own wrist or throat.
Randi Rhodes insisted that teenage boys weren’t safe from Palin’s advances if they stayed over at her house. There’s no news coverage or “war on women” narrative when the mud-covered women are conservatives.
Maybe these hosts aren’t prominent enough?
Then consider the case study of Bill Maher, who’s welcomed all over TV news shows.
A year ago on his HBO show, he called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat.”
He followed up days later in a Dallas stand-up routine by calling Palin the C-word.
Last July on HBO, he said Palin was “a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.”
Last September on his show, Maher said Palin would have sex with Rick Perry if he was black.
Maher bragged on his show Friday critics can’t touch him because “I don’t have sponsors.” But that doesn’t mean he should be coddled, either, and yet he’s regularly honored across the media as a special guest, be it news networks or entertainment shows.
Days after he called Palin the T-word, he appeared with then-CNN host Eliot Spitzer, where Spitzer concluded, “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”
On Sunday, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz huffed on “Meet the Press” that “I don’t know any woman in America that thinks that being called a slut is funny.” But two months ago, she accepted an invitation to sit on the set with the man who called Palin a “c—.”
President Obama placed a tender phone call to Sandra Fluke Friday to express sympathy for Limbaugh’s harsh words. He never called Ingraham, or Palin. But his super PAC did cash that $1 million check from Maher.
Some outrage is so, so….targeted.att
Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.
How many of these outlets have condemned Bill Maher with equal vigor for his attacks on Palin? […]
The Left honors their own pundits as “brilliant” for verbally assaulting women, then circulates petitions calling for advertisers to drop the Limbaugh show because his “anti-woman tirades are appalling.”
To the Left, this is simply an opportunity to put their attacks on religious liberty in a feminist frame, and an opportunity to try and shut down Limbaugh. It is all about censorship and hypocrisy.
A fellow patriot “momma grizzly” has a good reminder for those of us in the battle: “Toughened skin should not result in hardened hearts“:
Toughened skin should not cause conservative women to develop hardened hearts, though. The challenge remains for us all to resist attacks while staying focused on the final prize – the passing onto our next generation the exceptional inheritance of freedom and liberty we owe to our forefathers. It is our duty to press on, and resist the desire to whine. We’re in a battle of ideas and philosophy, and we’ll fight until we can fight no more.
Here’s the Alinskyite narrative. Anybody familiar with Leftist smear campaigns could see this one coming a mile away, as ridiculous as it is. Who in the GOP is prepared to expose it and turn it around on them? Anyone? Anyone?
New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said the Republican “men’s club” in the Senate wants women “barefoot and pregnant,” speaking out against a GOP effort to give employers the option not to offer contraception coverage in health insurance plans.
There are no women Republicans in the so-called “men’s club”? That’s news to myself, as well as millions of other Republican women who would never characterize our lives as nothing more than “barefoot and pregnant.”
“It’s time to tell the Republicans to mind their own business,” Lautenberg said on Capitol Hill Tuesday.
Downright laughable. Republicans and religious institutions HAVE been minding their own business, until Democrats started ramming Obamacare mandates down our throats.
Our side believes that women should be able to choose the paths in life that’s best for them…
Nobody is saying she shouldn’t, but if a woman is old enough to choose, she’s old enough to take responsibility for her own choices. Nobody else should be force to pay for them.
…and that’s why President Obama wants to make birth control more affordable.
A condom is 50 cents. You can buy one at any grocery store, gas station or drug store. It doesn’t get much more “affordable” or “accessible” than that. If you don’t have two quarters to rub together, buying a condom is the LEAST of your worries.
Contraception is basic health care…
Wrong. “Basic health care” is what keeps you from getting sick or dead. Pregnancy is not a disease, not contagious, and completely avoidable, if one is inclined to control oneself.
…and it’s essential for individuals to choose when they want to have a career and when they want to start a family.
Nobody is telling women when or where or how to make their life choices. We are simply refusing to allow government to unconstitutionally force us to pay for them. Want control over your life choices? PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF! It’s called being a GROWN-UP!
Strong, beautiful, responsible Republican women understand that. We don’t need the Nanny State to take care of us, and we’ll thank the chauvinistic Democratic talking heads to stop exploiting women for their agenda and violating our liberties!
As a mother of three daughters and no sons, I am so grateful to live in a country based on Judeo-Christian values that treats girls and women with the dignity they deserve.
Several countries in South Asia are notorious for killing girls—before or after birth. In fact, it’s considered a “practice” in these countries. Parents who can afford an ultrasound to find out if their baby is a girl and pay for an abortion often do so. Poorer parents just wait until their baby is born. If she’s a girl, she’s killed or left to die alone. The countries participating in this gendercide are China, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan, and likely more.
The U.N. has reported that 113-200 million girls and women who should be here aren’t. They are “the missing.” Many of these missing girls were aborted or killed after birth. The U.N.specifically attributes these figures to infanticide or girls not getting as much food and medical attention as their brothers or fathers. To put it in perspective, Ram Mashru reports, “India and China are said to eliminate more female infants than the number of girls born in the US each year.”
In 2005, the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) put out a researched document entitled Women in an Insecure World. Although with horrors committed against women such as “honor killings,” acid attacks for refusing a suitor, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking, this document mentions the effect that female gendercide has had on the world. Taking all of these horrors together (with the abortions and infanticide contributing the largest numbers of deaths), here’s what DCAF wrote:
The number of the ‘missing’ women, killed for gender-related reasons, is of the same order of magnitude as the estimated 191 million human beings who have lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of all the conflicts and wars of the 20th century—which was, with two world wars and numerous other murderous conflicts, the most violent period in human history so far.
A sustained demographic ‘deficit’ of 100-200 million women implies that each year 1.5-3 million girls and women are killed through gender related violence. In comparison: each year, some 2.8 million people die of AIDS, 1.27 million of malaria. Or, put in the most horrible terms: violence against women causes every 2-4 years a mountain of corpses equal to the Jewish Holocaust.
This is horrific, on so many levels. But female gendercide is the natural consequence of “free choice” for all. When people believe that the lives of their children are in their own hands and that they can choose to either keep or kill an already created child, this is exactly what happens. We thought that abortion and “choice” would give us a world where women were empowered and valued to a greater degree. It has given us just the opposite. It is no surprise, given their track record, that Planned Parenthood and NARAL–organizations who claim to be so pro-woman–actually oppose sex-selection abortion bans.
The mindset prevalent in South Asia isn’t a whole lot different from the mindset of abortion supporters in the U.S. Now, I know many of you are going to object to this. Very few Americans actually abort their children based on gender (though it definitely happens). However, what’s the point behind aborting a female child? In South Asia, it’s not convenient to give birth to a daughter. You have to pay a dowry for her; she doesn’t earn you any money (unless, of course, you sell her into human trafficking, but that’s a whole separate issue.) Sound familiar? In American, if it’s not convenient for us to have a baby; if the baby will cost us too much money, we just kill it. Same problem; same answer.
Now, granted, there are far more problems in South Asia related to the killing of little women than we have here in the U.S. For example, some mothers are in fear of their own lives if they do not produce a male heir. Other women fear that, since their government only allows them to have one child, only a son can provide for them in their old age. Do these reasons justify the abortions or infanticide of girls? No. They don’t. But, we can admit that any woman who keeps her daughter in spite of these circumstances is a very brave person.
What’s doubly sad is that female gendercide often includes women killing women. So much for women’s empowerment. Mothers—or their women friends—are usually the ones to perform an abortion if they can’t afford a doctor. Mothers are often the ones to strangle or otherwise murder their daughters after birth. Women killing women. What a sad world “choice” has brought us.