Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged gender

738 notes

facebooksexism:

annastit:

apersnicketylemon:

howprolifeofyou:

prolifepublicshaming:

Only pregnant women seek abortions. Gender reassignment doesn’t include a uterus at this point in scientific discovery.
My blog, my rules.
No uterus = no opinion.
If you’re going to take a page that was meant to be funny and make it all technical and shit, find another sandbox to play in. Jesus titty fucking Christ. Nobody is phobic about a motherfucking thing. In the quest for simplicity, I use the generic term “woman”, because frankly, this sucks enough of my time as is. *eyeroll*

yes, because typing the phrase “pregnant person” is SO much more difficult than typing “woman.” it’s really not that hard to be inclusive. but if you want to be a jerk about it I’ll just block you to keep from seeing your transphobic ass in the abortion tag anymore. 

It’s all well and good to make fun of pro lifers, but you specifically seem to assume that trans* men need to have a uterus transplanted. Trans men are men who were born with a uterus. They are affected by abortion laws.
Non binary folk can be born with a uterus too.
I have a uterus, I get a say by your own words and I am not a woman.
By refusing to change your language to include trans and NB folk who have a uterus like myself you ARE transphobic. By trying to deny the transphobia when you are being called out on it makes you as bad as men who say ‘I’m not sexist for thinking a woman’s place is in the kitchen!’.
Accept that you made a transphobic statement especially just now, attempted to defend the transphobic comment, apologise for the cissexism, alter your behaviour to be inclusive and less transphobic and move on. People will like you better and you grow as a person.

Just to chime in: I work for NARAL and we do advocate for all people who have uteri. We do lots of work with LGBTQ communities and recognize that abortion and repo health care is an intersectional issue that impacts many different people in different ways. Not everyone we advocate for is a white woman, and we try to make that known.Although many of our social media posts do include gendered language, it’s something we’re working on and we’re also doing what we can to impact legislation in ways that include all people with uteri.

Wanted to share more on this^^

It’s really not hard to say pregnant person. “Person” is just one more letter longer so it’s not like it’s incredibly arduous to type.This is bullshit, and I’m disappointed to see it. Anyone can be affected by abortion rights restrictions, not just cis straight women with uteruses. I’m uncomfortable with some of the things I’ve seen from prolifepublicshaming, but namely (until now) it’s the publishing of criminal records unconnected to anti-choicers’ activism and/or cause — even if it is detestable. Shame them for trying to rip away reproductive rights, not for bouncing a check years ago. Now, if said anti-choice charmer has a record for say, attacking clinics or staff, that’s a different story. I believe these people MUST be called out for those actions, along with their persistent dissemination of misinformation.However, seeing both sides of the bars doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person, it makes you a person who was jailed for allegedly doing a bad thing. And a pregnancy doesn’t make you a woman, it makes you a person who is pregnant./rant

facebooksexism:

annastit:

apersnicketylemon:

howprolifeofyou:

prolifepublicshaming:

Only pregnant women seek abortions. Gender reassignment doesn’t include a uterus at this point in scientific discovery.

My blog, my rules.

No uterus = no opinion.

If you’re going to take a page that was meant to be funny and make it all technical and shit, find another sandbox to play in. Jesus titty fucking Christ. Nobody is phobic about a motherfucking thing. In the quest for simplicity, I use the generic term “woman”, because frankly, this sucks enough of my time as is. *eyeroll*

yes, because typing the phrase “pregnant person” is SO much more difficult than typing “woman.” it’s really not that hard to be inclusive. but if you want to be a jerk about it I’ll just block you to keep from seeing your transphobic ass in the abortion tag anymore. 

It’s all well and good to make fun of pro lifers, but you specifically seem to assume that trans* men need to have a uterus transplanted. Trans men are men who were born with a uterus. They are affected by abortion laws.

Non binary folk can be born with a uterus too.

I have a uterus, I get a say by your own words and I am not a woman.

By refusing to change your language to include trans and NB folk who have a uterus like myself you ARE transphobic. By trying to deny the transphobia when you are being called out on it makes you as bad as men who say ‘I’m not sexist for thinking a woman’s place is in the kitchen!’.

Accept that you made a transphobic statement especially just now, attempted to defend the transphobic comment, apologise for the cissexism, alter your behaviour to be inclusive and less transphobic and move on. People will like you better and you grow as a person.

Just to chime in: I work for NARAL and we do advocate for all people who have uteri. We do lots of work with LGBTQ communities and recognize that abortion and repo health care is an intersectional issue that impacts many different people in different ways. Not everyone we advocate for is a white woman, and we try to make that known.

Although many of our social media posts do include gendered language, it’s something we’re working on and we’re also doing what we can to impact legislation in ways that include all people with uteri.

Wanted to share more on this^^

It’s really not hard to say pregnant person. “Person” is just one more letter longer so it’s not like it’s incredibly arduous to type.

This is bullshit, and I’m disappointed to see it. Anyone can be affected by abortion rights restrictions, not just cis straight women with uteruses.

I’m uncomfortable with some of the things I’ve seen from prolifepublicshaming, but namely (until now) it’s the publishing of criminal records unconnected to anti-choicers’ activism and/or cause — even if it is detestable. Shame them for trying to rip away reproductive rights, not for bouncing a check years ago. Now, if said anti-choice charmer has a record for say, attacking clinics or staff, that’s a different story. I believe these people MUST be called out for those actions, along with their persistent dissemination of misinformation.

However, seeing both sides of the bars doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person, it makes you a person who was jailed for allegedly doing a bad thing.

And a pregnancy doesn’t make you a woman, it makes you a person who is pregnant.

/rant

Filed under gender reproductive rights

38 notes

Dr. Phil Clarifies: He Was Just ASKING If You'd Bang a Drunk Girl

And then his apology the show’s apology, is delivered in a stilted, third-person fashion. Of course. 

Because it’s totally not offensive if you use the JEEZ, I WAS JUST ASKING defense. Not at all. </sarcasm>

Filed under Dr. Phil fuckery sex gender twitter

265 notes

Is this real life? From the author, Theo Nicole Lorenz:

This body-positive coloring book features 18 pages of fat sci-fi heroines doing what they do best: trekking across the time and space, blasting off into adventure, and saving the day. Among our intrepid heroines are a rocketeer, a superhero, time travelers of both steampunk and madman-with-a-box varieties, the captain of a space pirate ship, members of spaceship crews tasked with exploring the unexplored, an RPG heroine with a badass bike, and many more.
Because there’s a whole universe of body types out there, and they all deserve to be represented.

I&#8230;
I&#8230; love&#8230; this!

Get it here!

Is this real life? From the author, Theo Nicole Lorenz:

This body-positive coloring book features 18 pages of fat sci-fi heroines doing what they do best: trekking across the time and space, blasting off into adventure, and saving the day. Among our intrepid heroines are a rocketeer, a superhero, time travelers of both steampunk and madman-with-a-box varieties, the captain of a space pirate ship, members of spaceship crews tasked with exploring the unexplored, an RPG heroine with a badass bike, and many more.

Because there’s a whole universe of body types out there, and they all deserve to be represented.

I…

I… love… this!

image

Get it here!

Filed under Fat positive coloring book Theo Nicole Lorenz I love this body image gender body

143 notes

Yeah&#8230;



So all your MRA creys can go here &#8212;&gt; Men&#8217;s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood
Ideally, decisions about abortion are made between two people who come to a consensus. However, in an ideal world, communism works. Until people who can get pregnant includes EVERYONE, individuals don&#8217;t get to force pregnancy upon their partners. Because that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m guessing the Jezebel commenter above is SO MADFACED about.
Fun Horrible fact: In 31 states, rapists can sue for visitation rights. Also, abusers often use forced pregnancy as a tool to keep their partners with them, going so far as to sabotage birth control. And let&#8217;s be clear, NO ONE is seriously trying to pass laws to prevent men from having control over their reproductive organs. No one is stopping men from refusing to have sex without a condom, bringing their own, insisting on using birth control in general &#8212; and hey, the male birth control pill is on the horizon!
It&#8217;s important not to conflate men&#8217;s reproductive rights with pregnancy versus parenthood. While there&#8217;s a significant discussion to be had about men&#8217;s rights in regards to custody and visitation, it&#8217;s also important to remember a man&#8217;s right to parenthood (or to terminate parental rights/give the child up for adoption) begin once we&#8217;re talking about a living, breathing child &#8212; not a fetus in utero.
Also, while it may take two to traditionally tango, only one is pregnant. Let&#8217;s keep in mind that an abortion can take place even if the person seeking an abortion wants to be a parent one day &#8212; just not that day, for whatever reason. A man may want to be a father one day, too. But until he is able to undertake the physical and legal burden of fatherhood in the same way as motherhood, the person who is pregnant has the ultimate decision. 
Bonus reading: The Fetal Focus Fallacy

Yeah…

image

image

image

So all your MRA creys can go here —> Men’s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood

Ideally, decisions about abortion are made between two people who come to a consensus. However, in an ideal world, communism works. Until people who can get pregnant includes EVERYONE, individuals don’t get to force pregnancy upon their partners. Because that’s what I’m guessing the Jezebel commenter above is SO MADFACED about.

Fun Horrible fact: In 31 states, rapists can sue for visitation rights. Also, abusers often use forced pregnancy as a tool to keep their partners with them, going so far as to sabotage birth control. And let’s be clear, NO ONE is seriously trying to pass laws to prevent men from having control over their reproductive organs. No one is stopping men from refusing to have sex without a condom, bringing their own, insisting on using birth control in general — and hey, the male birth control pill is on the horizon!

It’s important not to conflate men’s reproductive rights with pregnancy versus parenthood. While there’s a significant discussion to be had about men’s rights in regards to custody and visitation, it’s also important to remember a man’s right to parenthood (or to terminate parental rights/give the child up for adoption) begin once we’re talking about a living, breathing child — not a fetus in utero.

Also, while it may take two to traditionally tango, only one is pregnant. Let’s keep in mind that an abortion can take place even if the person seeking an abortion wants to be a parent one day — just not that day, for whatever reason. A man may want to be a father one day, too. But until he is able to undertake the physical and legal burden of fatherhood in the same way as motherhood, the person who is pregnant has the ultimate decision. 

Bonus reading: The Fetal Focus Fallacy

Filed under MRA pregnancy reproductive rights politics policy law forced pregnancy gender sexual health misogyny

4,410 notes

These wonderful infographics about reproductive health were recently released by The Guttmacher Institute, a foundation which aims to advance knowledge of reproductive health worldwide. They also bust myths surrounding abortion and reproductive health with this super amazing tool called “science.”

These infographics show the often sad realities of abortion in America — for many facing unintended pregnancy, it’s a nearly unattainable, expensive procedure with barriers that worsen for those who are in poverty or are people of color.  

Filed under reproductive rights politics policy law race income class abortion pro-choice anti-choice gender sexual health reproductive health

2,026 notes

Here’s something you may not realize: Gun ownership has been declining for decades. According to the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, in 1977, 54% of American households had guns. By 2010, the number had fallen to 32%. Yet gun sales are at record highs. That means that existing gun owners are buying more and more guns. It’s not enough to have a hunting rifle over your mantle; you need an entire arsenal, just in case the government falls, society disintegrates, and you have to protect your cave — sorry, your home — from the marauding hordes.

That’s exactly what the gun manufacturers want you to think, so you keep buying. They know that hunting will never again be the pastime it once was, and as more Americans move from rural areas to the suburbs and cities, their natural market withers.

That “responsible gun owner” politicians talk about, the one who reverentially passes down to his son the bolt-action rifle his father gave him? That guy isn’t good for business. The manufacturers need the other guy, the one who fears he may not be all the man he could be.
Paul Waldman, discussing masculinity and gun ownership in his piece, “Not man enough? Buy a gun.”

Filed under guns masculinity gun control politics news gender gun owners

538 notes

On Anne Hathaway and Upskirt Pics: The “she was asking for it” crowd

I knew it was inevitable. There would be people out there claiming that if Anne Hathaway hadn’t, I don’t know, had a ladyflower or something, some poor paparazzo wouldn’t have had to take a picture of it to sell at a profit. Now, these folks will claim it’s not OK to take pictures of people’s genitals without their consent, but….

image

…Anne Hathaway totally brought it on herself by not wearing underwear, getting out of the car properly, taking personal responsibility, wearing a chastity belt, being a woman, being famous, being a famous woman, etc. so therefore, I’m hitting the Google for some upskirt. Or at the very least, defending the creeper photogs making a killing off of Anne Hathaway’s blurry crotch pics. 

image

Seriously. There’s laws against upskirt photos in several states (including New York), and the federal Video Voyeurism Act of 2004, but what it typically comes down to legally is whether or not the person had an expectation of privacy, if special equipment (i.e. a bathroom camera) was used to get the shot, and whether or not the image is of bare body parts most people consider the bathing suit area. Unsuprisingly, there’s no “fair game” clause for famous folks who get out of cars awkwardly in any of these laws.

The “she totally asked for it” attitude goes beyond legal ramifications — there’s a dark undercurrent of institutionalized misogyny and rape culture here. If Paris Hilton were raped by an acquaintance after a night of partying in NYC with drugs and booze, there would probably be more internet schadenfreude than if it happened to a stereotypical sorority girl from NYU. Both are terrible events, both would elicit the “she was asking for it” trope, but Paris Hilton would be raked through the coals because of who she is — I mean, SHE MADE A SEX TAPE AND IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY, DUH. </sarcasm>

Here’s another example. A substitute teacher in Georgia was fired this year after posting upskirt photos of his allegedly 18-year-old students to the r/creepshots Reddit. In a few threads, he admits the students were younger than 18. Redditors came to his defense, arguing that the girls were asking for it by sitting at their desks with their legs slightly apart in skirts, or by simply dressing sexy. You get the idea. That’s an outrage, right?

This week Anne Hathaway, while in NYC for a movie premiere, got out of a car and accidentally exposed her lack of underwear. As she explained to Matt Lauer (who hilariously boorishly quipped, “We’ve seen a lot of you lately”) the incident “kind of made me sad that we live in an age when someone takes a pic of you in a vulnerable moment and sells it rather than deletes it.” She added, “I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies unwilling participants…”

"Unwilling" being the key word there. Both Hathaway and the teacher’s students were unwilling participants. As Erin Gloria Ryan wrote regarding the educator:

"Because when women turn 18, they magically become public property to be photographed whenever and jerked off to by whomever. Hey, it’s not dudes’ faults your existence drives them into a penile frenzy… there’s also, you know, the fact that we over-18 human females also don’t much appreciate being treated like decorative sex toys. Women’s bodies are not public domain, and demanding control over our images isn’t ‘ruining anyone’s fun.’ It’s asking to be treated like a goddamn person."

Exactly. This idea that women’s bodies are in the public domain runs rampant once a famous woman is involved. Don’t believe me? Just Google any famous female celebrity and “upskirt” — you’re likely to get at least a few hits. I would argue that not respecting the right of female celebrities to avoid being commodified as unwilling sexual objects for profit desensitizes us to sexual violations and objectification of all female persons, whether for profit in a capitalist manner (paparazzi, gossip sites, and tabloid publishing) or for the sexual gratification of Reddit denizens seeking to jerk off to a non-consenting target. 

(Note: Before any of you folks get the bright idea to say “but wimmenz is nekkid in movies all teh time!” remember, the operative word is “unwilling.” Actors and actresses are compensated for nude scenes, are often not actually nude, and have arguably more control over what is ultimately distributed and exposed. They’re willing participants. It’s the difference between Anne Hathaway in NYC this week and Anne Hathaway in the 2010 flick Love and Other Drugs [Link NSFW]. Or, alternately, just because I’ve consented to sex with guys before doesn’t mean I’m down to fuck every guy who wants it.)

So where does that leave us? Strangely prudish, with an intense desire to almost punish female celebrities with the loss of personal possession of their image and, symbolically, their bodies. It’s not that far away from justifying exploitation to justifying assault. In both cases, “she was asking for it” and “she put herself in that situation” takes the blame off the violator and places it on the person who dared to wear too little clothing, too much makeup, wear sweats, drink, walk home alone, get out of a car, go to school, have a vagina, have breasts, be a female person, etc.

Here’s Exhibit A. Meet Emily Moray. I posted the comment from political cartoonist Matt Bors about ascribing blame where it belongs earlier. Well, Emily thinks it’s mostly Anne Hathaway’s fault because, as she says, “[T]here is a difference between having your labia photographed when you have the expectation of privacy and when you show up to A PUBLICITY EVENT. I’m not saying that the photographer and the publisher did the right thing, but she is also responsible for her actions.” Here’s what happened after that [Click to view larger]:

image

Got that? Every actress should know she will be photographed upskirt. And Anne Hathaway absolutely cannot haz that sad she told Matt Lauer she had. Because she should know better. And it continues…

image
image
image
image
image
image

Exactly how far does “she was asking for it” go? Apparently, far enough that a woman should shut her goddamn mouth if she’s silly enough to think she deserves to go out in public looking like that — especially if she’s any kind of celebrity. </sarcasm> Remember, every time you giggle and share that Huffington Post slideshow with the latest unintentional exposure by a famous woman captured in upskirt or downblouse shots, you’re reinforcing the message to women across the gender spectrum that their bodies are not their own, and they too can be sexual objects commodified for sexual pleasure or profit.

Filed under gender Anne Hathaway commodification entertainment politics feminism Upskirt downblouse law legal celebrity control misogyny rape culture rape objectification women creeper consent sexism capitalism

273 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include “Deep down, do you feel superior to men?” “As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?” and “Are you a product of divorce?”

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly’s niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I’ll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

“The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is ‘you need to look for a man who can support you.’ And the reason why you want to do that is not because you’re never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it’s because you’re going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you’re going to want to be with those babies.”

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

(via cognitivedissonance)

Update: She issued a new explanation to The Daily Beast's David Freedlander today:

"All I can say in my defense is that it can be so hard when you write as much as I’ve written—three books, articles, blogs—you think you have said something but you haven’t. It’s like I am thinking something and I am so clear about it and I think what I have said is that. I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t think that much about it…

I am not advocating a strict division of gender roles. I am not suggesting that women can’t compete with men in the workforce or that men can’t handle strong women. People are extrapolating these things because the article is, I admit, rather open-ended.

[Rather], women, once they have children would prefer to work part-time or not at all when their children are young. Their career trajectory will be different than that of men. Feminists don’t like that. They want everybody to want the same thing, career trajectories to be the same. Women may say I really want to exercise or hang out with my friends and have coffee or go shopping and have a cushier life, and your guy will be happy to do that, and go to the office all year long for 40 years to allow you to do that. Men don’t have that option. And there is nothing wrong with having different road maps.”

Ahem. May I give you some practical PR advice? 

Just. Stop. Talking.

Stop. Like now.

Or alternately, keep going. Please. Make sure that no one takes you seriously ever again.

(via cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican

273 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include "Deep down, do you feel superior to men?" "As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?" and "Are you a product of divorce?"

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly's niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I'll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

"The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is ‘you need to look for a man who can support you.’ And the reason why you want to do that is not because you’re never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it’s because you’re going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you’re going to want to be with those babies."

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican

93 notes

I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock on abortion and pregnancy resulting from rape.

Essentially, if you have a uterus, and you become pregnant from a rape, just remember — that’s God turning rapey lemons into blessed unwanted lemonade. </sarcasm>

Oh, and what’s that Mitt Romney? You’re supporting him? In an ad posted this Sunday that’s all over Indiana’s airwaves?

Yep, because there’s nothing worse than Obamacare amirite? Y’know, other than being forced to bear your rapist’s child because your senator said his God said it should be so…

In a statement released this evening, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said: “Richard Mourdock’s rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they’ve become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party’s platform toward women’s health, as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition of rape. As Mourdock’s most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock’s current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments and request that the ad featuring him speaking directly to camera on Mourdock’s behalf be taken off the air.”

Agreed. Your move, governor. 

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Richard Mourdock Rape Abortion politics Election 2012 Election GOP Women's rights reproductive rights gender Indiana Mitt Romney Are you kidding me?

48 notes

Sign your name to call on Speaker John Boehner to remove Rep. Todd Akin from the House Science and Technology Committee

Wait…

Rep. Todd Akin is on a SCIENCE COMMITTEE? He doesn’t know how the science or biology works!

He recently said: 

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare… If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

As Sarah Seltzer pointed out, women aren’t ducks. This is the latest in a series of untruths from radical members of the GOP. Akin tried to walk it back on Former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s radio show, saying:

"I made that statement in error. Let me be clear: rape is never legitimate; it’s an evil act that’s committed by violent predators. I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong, and for that, I apologize."

You know what’s ill-conceived, Todd? Pregnancies resulting from rape. Because they do happen. From the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.

CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

That’s from people who actually do the science for a living, Todd.

He continues to dig the hole deeper, explaining that he “never used the word legitimate to refer to the rapist, but to false claims like those made in Roe v. Wade and I think that simplifies it. There isn’t any legitimate rapist. [I was] making the point that there were people who use false claims, like those that basically created Roe v. Wade.”

Seriously. Stop.

Just stop. 

Multiple prominent Republicans have called for Akin to leave the race — if he doesn’t do so today, the path to nominating another candidate becomes nearly impossible for the Missouri GOP.

Even Rush Limbaugh has condemned Akin, claiming he doesn’t know how the science works. THAT Rush Limbaugh, you know, the one who thought you had take a birth control pill every time you had sex. That one.

But THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE?! Really?

Filed under Todd Akin Rush Limbaugh GOP Conservative politics gender rape sexual violence Mike Huckabee