Wednesday, February 29, 2012
If they're already the standard, then what are you bitching about? Afraid women might have their cervical cancer detected early enough to save them? Do these morons ever think before they speak, or are they just pomeranians in love with the sound of their own yapping?
Monday, February 27, 2012
Apparently they decided it was worth having sex. Maybe a better question is why are they having sex during fertile periods? If you can afford an abortion, you can afford a $4 pack of condoms. Saying no is, as always, free. The time to be thinking about whether you can afford to have an abortion is BEFORE you have sex. Prochoice, of course, will never acknowledge this. They'll have to decide (like grownups) what getting laid is worth. It ain't up to the rest of us to pay for it.
This little gem from the poster child for tocophobia. Yeah, some of us actually have maternal instinct and recognize our babies as our babies, even in their earliest stages. Some of us aren't stupid enough to hope people will believe that kicking and movement they feel in the womb while pregnant is just some random twitching by a clump of cells. You know-SCIENCE. Those 'mere fetuses' are our babies.
Dehumanizing comments about the unborn are extra sickening coming from women claiming to be mothers. Were her wanted children also intruders that needed to get the hell out? Proaborts don't care how they devalue their own children, or anyone else's, in defense of their sacrament of abortion.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Yes, seriously. It's that time of year again, when abortion thugs take to the bowling alleys to raise funds to help women kill their babies-they won't just die on their own-they need your help! From the 'Bowl-a-Thon' website:
What is a Bowl-a-Thon? Heck, what’s an abortion fund?
The Bowl-a-Thon is a nationwide series of local events that allow community members (you!) to captain your own bowling team, participate in a kickass national event – and raise money to help women and girls pay for abortions they couldn’t otherwise afford.
Abortion funds are local, grassroots groups that work tirelessly to help low-income and disadvantaged women who want an abortion and do not have enough money to pay for it. Abortion funds help women pay for their abortions, help them buy bus or plane tickets, and even offer a place to stay for those who have to travel for an abortion. Abortion funds make a real difference in women’s lives…and you can join them!
When is the Bowl-a-Thon?
Throughout the month of April. There will be over 25 different bowl-a-thons in communities around the country and in Canada! Find an event in your community, recruit your team, choose a brilliant and punny team name, and start fundraising now!
Why participate in the Bowl-a-Thon?
Because you know that the legal right to abortion is meaningless if you can’t afford to pay for it.
Because you’re pissed at the way health care reform has rolled back women’s rights.
Because you love being a part of building the movement for social and reproductive justice.
Because you’re a crack bowler who wants to strut your stuff.
Because you know: friends + abortion rights + rented shoes = the event of a lifetime!
Join us today as we strike down barriers to abortion access!
It's the 'event of a lifetime' alright, for the lifetimes being exterminated, that is. You'd never catch this bunch bowling for, say, funds for prenatal care for poor women, or food for hungry kids, or other aid to help women keep their babies. Gotta keep those abortion numbers up!
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The billion dollar 'nonprofit' Planned Parenthood gets richer every day-$1 million per day in Title X funds alone-because of contrived dogma. Meanwhile, prochoice continues its quest to force Catholics to fund aborion, hoping to get their bloody hands on all those Catholic 'riches'. Forcing others to bend to your will is all about choice, right? LOL.
A Voice for Men
For anyone aware of the rhetoric and the pursued policies of the politically powerful, central established flavor of feminism – it is overwhelmingly obvious that radical feminism is a doctrine of hatred and violence. This is the version of feminism established in university humanities departments. It’s proponents inform domestic policies and write white papers for the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Radical feminism also informs the family courts, law enforcement, education, and employment law. The modern Western world runs on an unambiguously and increasingly feminist zeitgeist. That is to say the ideology driving public policy and opinion is a corrupt, violent, and hateful ideology.
This shouldn’t be news to anyone with a passing acquaintance of local and international news. What might not be understood is how completely devoid of a redeeming feature modern, mainstream radical feminist ideology is.
An evaluation of the doctrines and pursued policies of mainstream, big box feminism reveals a damning inventory.
Big, big, big lies. And lots of them.
The doctrine of “Patriarchy theory”, although not a scientific theory, states that society is organized to afford social, economic, and political power and privilege to men, at the expense of suppressed rights, and disenfranchisement of women. This doctrine is used to justify domestic policies and programs which elevate women’s powers and privileges, in an effort to redress the presumed patriarchal oppression. Oppression against women that is frequently mentioned, but never identified in any single specific detail.
Comparing the claim of patriarchal societal male advantage to mortality rates, workplace death rates, criminal sentencing outcomes, violent criminal victimization, sexually specific medical research funding, and a long list of other factors:
“In sentencing, [...] women receive better outcomes; consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women, studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.”
According to the US Department of Labor the sexual distribution of individuals killed on the job improved to the benefit of men in 2010. With an improvement of 1 percent, only 92% of those killed on the job in 2010 were men.
Men are also 94 to 97% of the homeless  in the United States, and 78.9% of suicides .
Men today die on average 6 years sooner than women . In 1920 the variance was one year. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents, war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer.
Women also control over 65% of discretionary spending worldwide . In the top 20 markets, women control $10 trillion of $15.3 trillion in consumer discretionary spending. This is known to manufacturers, retailers and advertisers, and is used to drive the profit model in spite of the endlessly claimed “wage gap”. The wage gap lie starts from an element of truth. The life-time earnings of women are lower on average than the life-time earnings of men. That this translates to lower pay for the same work is where the spin-doctoring starts. Women, on average, work fewer hours over their lifetimes, and chose jobs affording flexibility, access to friends and family and with lower physical risk. That Bob and Betty work the same job with the same hours, training and seniority is one of feminism’s big lies, repeatedly debunked, but endlessly recycled. 
The Patriarchy is a myth, a lie, a farce, and so transparently false that repetition of it as a cultural root deserves open and instant contempt. Its purpose is to cultivate guilt, obeisance, and compliance from the demographic whose disposability is the basis for corporate profit and middle class safety.
Do I hear somebody claiming most the top politicians are male? Be quiet, idiot. The electorate putting those alpha male politicians into power is decidedly female . In 2004 in the United States,
44.9% of women and 38.8% of men 18-24 years old voted
55% of women and 48.8% of men 25-44 years old voted
68.3% of women and 65.9% of men 45-64 years old voted
69.4% of women and 72.5% of men 65-74 years old voted
Oh, most executives are male? Gee whiz, have you ever worked 15 years, 65 hours a week, for minimum wage to build a company from zero to profitability? No? Then be quiet again. The patriarchy, if it can be said to occupy reality in any sense at all, exists as a rhetorical device to compel silence.
Rape Culture, the invisible crime wave:
Human sexuality is evil!!! Maybe not, but certainly male sexuality is evil.
•“all men are rapists and that’s all they are” ~ Marilyn French
•“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ~ Susan Griffin
•“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” ~ Sheila Jeffrys
•“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out” ~ Judith Levine
This  is an incomplete selection of published radical feminist thought (mainstream) on the issue of male sexuality. For the purpose of this discussion, no effort will be made to disabuse anyone of such ideas if they hold them. If that’s you, reader, I regard you as damaged beyond any possible salvage.
To everyone else – thank you for your attention.
Not only is the standard narrative false, that stated overtly or covertly, male sexuality is malicious, the idea is fundamentally hateful. It is a lie told in service of promoted hatred.
This same fundamentally hateful lie is reflected in anti-porn, anti-prostitution evangelism. The crusade against porn – a genre of commercial entertainment – ignores the peer reviewed research, in preference to an empirically false dogma that this produced entertainment is harmful and toxic. The common claim is that porn oppresses women. In reality, because porn’s audience is mostly male, the real reason for its opposition is the persistent lie that male sexuality is evil.
A few points of data:
Female porn actors make approximately six times more money than male porn actors . For women, porn is a relatively high paying job requiring no skill or education. A direct correlation between porn’s availability and reduced social pathology in society has been repeatedly established in peer reviewed literature on the topic . Piling on top of the myth of this entertainment as a tool of men’s oppression of women, much of the porn industry in the Western world is run by women .
In spite of this, Porn Harms and other crusading organizations continue to promote the idiotic idea of porn as a cultural toxin, based on the false idea of its oppression of women. Anti-porn crusaders like Gail Dines, in spite of her apparent unfamiliarity with reality are taken seriously by the conservative right as well as mainstream feminists. On consideration, it may be that rather than taking her seriously, they find political utility in her irrational zeal for controlling the behavior of adult men and women. The politically established radical feminists and social conservatives also don’t care about reality outside of their respective ideologies.
The abstract of the 2009 study titled: “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review”  published by the university of Hawaii read:
It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults.
The political support from different ideological camps which should logically oppose one another indicates two facts. That political expediency trumps ethics for supporting political organizations, and that facts do not matter, as reported in the legitimate research on porn’s effects. To those opposing porn, what matters is doctrine, not reality. Porn caters to male sexuality – and therefore, it is evil.
Despite the evidence, anti-porn crusaders continue to bang their drum on the totally unsupportable claim that this entertainment genre is innately harmful to women. All credible research on the matter indicates the opposite. This begs the question of motive. While some in this camp are genuinely stupid and ignorant, the anti-porn segment of radical feminism cannot be written off or dismissed on that basis. This leaves several explanatory hypotheses.
The hypothesis that actors in the feminist camp exploit the existence of a narrative of women’s rights as a cover for personal indulgence in malicious harm to an acceptable enemy has, I believe significant weight. However, while this is a credible motivator for individuals, this fails as an understanding of the larger context of institutional feminism.
The continued story of women’s eternal victimhood is a vehicle for funding for organizations with a purported mandate of harm reduction. Women’s crisis centers, domestic violence organizations, and other groups have a demonstrated history of selling a fraudulent narrative in pursuit of government and private donation. If you’re in the business of opposing or ameliorating a certain type of crime, such as partner violence, the catch-22 comes when success in that pursuit runs your organization out of business. The grievance industry knows this all too well, as does anybody paying attention. This is what prompted a fellow at the American Enterprise Instrument Christina Hoff Sommers in 2011, speaking to a live audience said on the topic of domestic violence:
“We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses; we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.”
This widespread fraud is not limited to grievance advocacy organizations. Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States published a letter on the DOJ website  in October of 2009 stating that:
“Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” One paragraph later, Holder says “These numbers are shocking and unacceptable”.
What he doesn’t say is that they are also a lie? They stats claimed on the DOJ website, in the letter from the Attorney General of the United States are fraud.
The actual leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide comes in fifth and includes murders by strangers .
How can this be possible, still on the DOJ website 3 years later, this same fraudulent statistic?
But it gets better. In November 2011, the Centers for Disease Control threw statistical rigor and intellectual honesty out the window with their report:
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report 
According to this survey, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims of sexual violence.
To put this into context, in 2010, the population of the US was 308 million , roughly 158,620,000 of whom were female.
If 1.3 million of them were raped in 2010 – that is 1 out of 122 women in the US, raped per year.
According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics  – in 2009 the rate of rape was 125,910 rapes and sexual assaults in a population of 158,105,000 women. This works out to 1 out of 1256 women in the US, raped per year. For readers unaware of rigor in statistical analysis and its importance, the BJS enjoys an established reputation as the gold standard as a reliable source. The CDCs report claims a jump in victimization rates of more than an order of magnitude.
If we are to believe the CDC’s survey, then the rate of rape occurring in the United States is comparable to Rwanda or the Congo during each respective nation’s recent civil wars. This is an absurd claim, and the CDC’s study represents the zenith of corrupt, ideologically driven advocacy research.
For years, opponents of big feminism have been citing peer reviewed research and statistics in opposition of the ideologically driven domestic policies of a feminist-controlled society. Human rights organizations have pushed for a rational approach to policy based on legitimate data and research. In answer, the established proponents of big box feminism now act to corrupt and pervert the bodies and organizations collecting and analyzing generated statistics.
A rational approach to domestic policy is rendered impossible by the co-opting of the organs of justice, data collection and public research.
After a multi-year campaign of lobbying and activism by the feminist driven Women’s Law Centre, the FBI also expanded the scope of the definition of rape to include consensual sex which occurs while a woman is under influence of alcohol or drugs.
Ideologically driven policy, based in unsupportable assumptions is rendered “valid” by the perversion of these previously reliable institutions like the BJS and the CDC.
In the emerging marriage between the various arms of national government and ideological radical feminism, we’re witnessing the collapse of the concept of human rights being a foundation of law in the West. This has been painfully evident as the Bush administration and following Bush, the Obama administration, have discarded, dismantled, and ignored almost every one of the ten amendments which constitute the American Bill of Rights.
The move towards a totalitarian state is unmistakable and not a matter of debate without a willful denial of observable reality. However, correlation between this observed phenomenon and the social and political primacy of radical feminism remains an area of deep public denial, due in part to the highly successful promotion by feminists of their agenda as if it is humanist or egalitarian.
“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”
This puerile nugget of unsavory and false martyrdom has the explicit purpose of pretending women are now, or have been regarded as if they were owned possessions, inanimate objects devoid of humanity. This is a falsehood of surprising depth and utility, as it implies a moral justification for the most overt bigotry and censure of anyone outside the approved victim demographic. This claimed victimhood, demanding of special consideration is the misdirecting cloak of the tyrant.
For individuals concerned about the rapid erosion of human rights in the US and elsewhere, the elephant in the room is the undeniable connection between economic, industrial, and political elites and the ideological actors of feminism, who by placement in academia and the non-profit public sector are themselves social elites. The public mythology promoted by feminism’s adherents holds this movement to be a grass-roots social movement driven by public conscience. This story, still accepted by most people, is the polar opposite of the truth. Feminism is a constructed social movement, conceived and sold to the public by society’s economic and political elites, through a fabricated narrative, flattering and exploiting women and men ready to set reason aside for social approval.
Prior to his death, documentary film producer Aaron Russo disclosed the content of a conversation with his friend Nicolas Rockefeller of the Rockefeller family. What follows is a transcription of an interview shown in full in Russo’s documentary “America, Freedom to Fascism”.
“We were at the house one night, and we were talking and he [Nicolas Rockefeller] started laughing.
Aaron, what do you think women’s liberation was all about? And, I said, I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point, and I said I think it’s about women having the right to work – get equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
You know, and he started to laugh, and he said you’re an idiot, and I said why am I an idiot? He said let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded women’s lib. You know, and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television, the Rockefeller Foundation. He says…you wanna know why? There were two primary reasons. And they were one reason was: we couldn’t tax half the population before women’s lib. And the second reason was: now we get the kids in school at an early age, we can indoctrinate the kids how to think.
This way it breaks up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family. At the school, at the officials, as their family. Not at their parents teaching them. And so, those are the two primary reasons for women’s lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. You know, when I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from and they created it and the thought of it, I saw, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.”
Taken alone, this revelation from Russo might be dismissed, and indeed, although its veracity has never been seriously challenged, it is ignored by the entirety of mainstream media.
It is not a coincidence that organized feminism has persistently attacked the family and the institution of marriage for the fast five decades.
•“The nuclear family must be destroyed…Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”
•“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
•“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” ~Sheila Cronin
In addition, much of second wave feminist literature specifically opposed marriage:
•Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1969)
•Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (1970)
•Marilyn French, The Women’s Room (1977)
•Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage (1972)
•Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)
This opposition has significantly abated in the current narrative of Big Feminism, due to two factors. Through changes to family law and the widespread advent of no fault divorce, marriage provides men with a number of major disincentives and onerous obligations without compensatory benefits. Also, because of decades of affirmative action in education, women are rapidly overtaking men in lifetime earnings expectations, de-motivating females from partnering with men of lesser earning power than themselves. Female hypergamy, the evolutionarily driven tendency to always cultivate financial and social relationships with higher position men combines with the changed economic landscape to create, for women, a perception of no suitable male partners.
This becomes comical when social conservative women’s organizations publicly campaign; exhorting men to step up, earn and provide, even as men are economically sidelined by decades of feminist affirmative action in higher education.
There is a glaringly obvious divergence between the public claims of organized feminism, that social or legal equality is any feminist actor’s goal, and the observable outcomes – the legal marginalization of men and an increasingly defunct social contract between men and women.
This is the contract in which men and women not only have understandable social roles, but also complement and cooperate with each other to mutual benefit. By more than a half century of continuous attack on men by a fully feminized culture, social cohesion and mutuality of respect, affection and cooperation are irreparably damaged.
Women are told and trained through all channels of mainstream media that they’re victims of an all encompassing system keeping them down, raping them, making them victims. The goal of this narrative is to cultivate anger, resentment, and justify ongoing removal of human rights from the “guilty” half of the human race.
The factual falsehood of this narrative does not matter, and no recitation of collected statistics or peer reviewed studies can trump the emotional appeal of the unimpeachable power of victimhood. In addition, as the disenfranchisement of men and boys becomes more pronounced, rather than women taking notice or acting out of ethical concern to correct this, another rationalization is manifested.
For women in a highly feminized society – one which suspends accountability and affords privilege, correction of such a system would require surrender of privilege and embrace of accountability. In a consumer culture driven by corporations and relying on women – who control more than 65% of discretionary spending, no pressure exists to do anything except continue telling women they are entitled, victims, and superior humans. This manifests as a cheerful willingness to manipulate and exploit men, as well as an absence of empathy toward men and a disregard for male targeting violence.
As this social system continues eroding men’s human rights while escalating pressure to perform, provide, and die for the benefit of women and elites, an increasing disaffection is building.
In addition to overt hostility and derision aimed at men in mainstream media, men are becoming increasingly aware of a number of metrics of social inequity. Some of these are mentioned, with cited sources in the first few paragraphs of this article.
The persistent denial of these facts, and the continued insistence of feminism’s proponents of false claims of oppression of women illustrate that feminism constitutes a belief system as rigid in its denial of reality as the most radical religious denials of demonstrable fact.
The Earth, for example – is not the center of the solar system. Galileo was summoned to Rome to stand trial for his reputed support of Copernicus’ heliocentric model in 1616, and was sentenced to permanent house arrest. A decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were “false” and “altogether contrary to Holy Scripture”, and suspending Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. 
Currently, some American Christian sects pursue a campaign to deny the scientific theory at the heart of modern biology. Interestingly, this reactionary denial of modern science is only 50 years old, and not shared by most European Christians, or by the Vatican.
However, the denial by feminists of the increasing dominance by feminism of Western culture and the commensurate social, legal and economic disenfranchisement of men has every character of intractable religious faith.
The real and ongoing damage done by occupation of the public zeitgeist by a doctrine ignoring the carnage of 90% of suicides being male, or 93% of workplace deaths being male, and pretending that further removal of male human rights will correct a nonexistent “patriarchy” indicates the need to identify this ideology as the vile, hateful, and anti-human cult it really is.
This ideology is a tool, created and funded by elites, and used to divide people against each other, to destroy the integrity of human bonds of love and family. The destruction done to families, both as a unit in society and as the stable foundation of every person, means individuals are greatly weakened and isolated from one another. This has the effect of making society weaker and more pliable to top-down control by increasingly far reaching government, and allowing elites in control of central banks a far more overt grip on public policy for their own benefit at the expense of loss of individual human rights.
Feminism cannot be afforded the continued illusion of legitimacy as a humanist movement. Its produced damage and human suffering is so overt that under whatever banner its collected ideologies operate, it must be rejected and denied in the same way racism or racial supremacism has been in the past.
The alternative is an increasingly totalitarian world, an ever diminishing standard of human rights, and the acceptance of continuously escalated human damage for the benefit and power of elites.
“Reasonable, that is human [individuals], will always be capable of compromise, but those who have dehumanized themselves by becoming blind worshippers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions make them the enemies of life”. ~Alan Watts
My two cents: It's not difficult to see how this twisted ideology led to the cruelty of abortion.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Right? How dare those taxpayers question our demands on their tax dollars? It's their job to pay up, not to have any say in what their tax dollars fund! What do they think this is, taxation with representation or something? We should be able to demand they pay for our mistakes without them asking anything in return!
Yeah! Where does the government get off interfering when statutory rape goes unreported by an abortionist or an abortion mill is reported for filthy conditions and illegal practices that kill women? How dare they protect women! The government should just fork over the cash for our abortions and meet all our demands while we shriek for them to get the hell out out of the other sides of our mouths!
Powerful testimony highlighting some of the typical reasons for aborting and the aftermath that prochoice routinely trivializes. Worth a few minutes of your time to listen to this woman relating her experience-I've heard her tale retold many times in nearly the same words.
Monday, February 20, 2012
WE WILL PAY directly for abortions in Obamacare, separate line item, watch starting at 14:40.
Remember contraceptive compromise? The day it was announced, Obama had already finalized the harsher rule, watch at 27:00
Thanks to LifeLetterJ for alerting me to this.
Let's play a little game I remember from watching Sesame Street as a kid. It's called One of These Things is Not Like the Others:
"Just moved into a bad neighborhood? Invest in a good lock, and use it. Wouldn't hurt to get a dog or install a security system, either."
Wow, great advice, thanks.
"Want a nice stereo for your car? Think about getting one you can remove from the dashboard and take with you when you park your car. And don't forget to stow any valuables out of sight."
"Cars these days have chips installed in the ignition keys. They're super-expensive to replace, but the car won't start without it--a great theft deterrent."
$50 well spent, in my opinion, if it means my car will stay where I left it.
"Heading to the convenience store at night? Those places usually have lots of windows for a reason--it's a good idea to check out who's inside and what they're up to before you go in. Better to err on the side of caution than end up walking in on the middle of a robbery in progress."
Hey, I never really thought about that, but it sounds smart.
"Same goes for using an ATM--always check out who's hanging around, and once you've got your money, stow it and move along ASAP."
"Drive defensively. There are plenty of crappy drivers around, not to mention drunks. You don't just want to avoid causing an accident, you want to avoid being involved in one someone else causes."
"Phishing scams are big money for fraud artists these days. No matter how legit an email looks, never give out personal info, or use the provided link to do it--always log into your bank's website or your paypal account the usual way."
Only common sense.
"Never buzz someone you don't know into your building. Not even if they claim to be a resident who's lost his keys--if he is, he can contact the landlord."
Yeah, no need to make it easy for burglars to get into the building.
"Oh, and if you want to avoid being raped, you should not dress like a slut. Especially if you're going to a party and there's going to be guys and drinking or drugs. I know you want male attention, but when you seek it out by dressing a certain way, you're can't control whose attention you're attracting--rapists or decent guys."
OMG! You slut-shaming, victim-blaming pig! How dare you tell me how to dress? You should be telling men not to rape women! How a woman dresses has NOTHING to do with rape! Little old ladies get raped! Rape is about power, not sex! I can dress however I want and I should be able to be safe from rape! Telling women they should behave in certain ways to prevent their own rapes is like saying that getting raped is their fault!!! Are you saying if I wear a short skirt I was asking for it??!!! ARE YOU!!???
Did you all spot it? If you need to go back and read through it again, go ahead, I'll wait. If you need help figuring it out (many women seem to need help understanding this kind of thing), all of the quoted bits are advice you might get from a parent, a concerned friend or the police on steps that you, as an individual, can take to minimize your risks becoming a victim of a crime or catastrophe.
See it now? No matter what the crime is--whether it's burglary, robbery, fraud, theft, mugging, drunk driving, or sexual assault--there are measures an individual can take to minimize their risk of being victimized. Not only are people willing to spend money on security measures to protect their valuables, they take no offense when concerned individuals educate them on how to avoid being targeted by criminals, or how to make themselves crime-proof enough that a criminal will choose someone else.
Except rape. A woman who reacts benignly at the suggestion that she not walk alone at night in a certain neighborhood to avoid being mugged will often rail against any suggestion that she enact the exact same cautionary measures in order to avoid being raped. She'll insist that any suggestion that she act in the interests of her own safety when it comes to sex crimes is tantamount to blaming victims and shaming sluts. While she can reconcile the notion that locking your doors does not make a burglar any less a criminal, while she can understand that recommending people protect their property will not encourage society to stop taking burglary seriously or place any blame on victims of burglary if they slip up and forget to turn the deadbolt...when it's rape? Don't anyone even hint that women could take steps to minimize their risks, because that's blaming victims in advance for being raped.
So why does this bizarre logical disconnect exist in women? Why do we, as a society, treat rape as a "special crime", one that requires extra-sensitive dialogue, tiptoeing around reality, and an acceptance that the entire onus for preventing rape be placed on rapists, bystanders, popular culture, movies, comedians, and pretty much everyone other than potential rape victims?
The slut-walk, an exercise in pointless bullshit and the dumbest protest ever, tells you everything you need to know. Hordes of mostly young, mostly white, mostly middle class women marched in anger over the slut-shaming, victim-blaming mentality of a Toronto police officer who had the audacity to suggest that women who dress provocatively are at a greater risk of rape. Granted, his wording was tactless and overly blunt, but the knee-jerk reaction to it was telling indeed. The problem feminists seem unable to grasp, however, is that the march itself--as a response to rape-prevention advice--represents one of the deepest hypocrisies of feminism:
The idea that rape is the most horrible, despicable violation anyone can commit against a woman, but that women should never be shamed for being promiscuous.
Think about it. Suspend your emotional center for a moment and read the following with the most logical frame of mind you can muster.
Rape is the unwanted and forcible version of an act women by the millions happily consent to every day under other circumstances. In ~80% of cases rape involves only as much violence as is necessary for a rapist to subdue his victim, and the majority of the time does not result in serious physical injury. Barring the rare severe injury, and the even rarer death, rape's long-term physical consequences (pregnancy and STDs) are largely mitigated by modern medicine.
Yet rape is seen as a greater violation of a woman's bodily autonomy than being severely beaten, which is horrible and a crime no matter who's doing it to you, can lead to life-changing physical consequences like broken bones, spinal cord injuries, paralysis, brain injury, months or years of physical therapy, and, well, serious risk of death.
Because despite the sexual revolution and despite (and because of) feminism, when it comes to rape women are still living in the 1850s, when Victorian ideals told them that their sexuality was their primary personal asset, and that once it was sullied, most of their value as a human being was gone. Under "patriarchy", a woman's entire virtue lay between her legs, and it went to the first man who stuck his dick there, whether she was willing or not. A women's sexual purity was the responsibility of society, to be protected above life and limb, because a soiled woman was worthless. Therefore rape was the direst of crimes, and women who gave it away willy-nilly were abhorred, shamed and shunned.
Say what you want about patriarchy, at least it was consistent.
But feminism? I don't think they've thought through their views on the sexual revolution and how they simply cannot be reconciled with the way they wish rape to be seen by society and treated under the law. Because the idea that women who are victims of sex crimes are special, extra-victimy victims and that rape is the worst violation imaginable is rooted in the exact same Victorian morality that slut-shaming is--the idea that a woman's sexual purity is the most important thing she has, and that she becomes valueless once that purity is gone.
Women today may be dipping their toes in the post-sexual-revolution era where a woman's sexuality supposedly has no bearing on her worth as a human being and a woman, where women should be free to explore sex and sexuality however they choose. Yet when it comes to sex without consent, women's other foot is still firmly planted in the fucking 1850s, where a woman's sexual integrity is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER, where rape is the most shameful conceivable violation that can be perpetrated on a woman, and where victims must be treated with kid gloves even before they've been victimized.
And feminism doesn't realize its own hypocrisy on this issue or how much that harms women, or that we can't live in the past and the present at the same time--that treating rape as a "special crime more horrible than any other" is the exact same thing as slut-shaming.
Yeah, you heard me. Treating rape differently than you would treat any other form of assault is the same thing as saying women who sleep around are whores who should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to get treated like shit. Because both of these attitudes tell women their sexual purity is the only part of themselves that's worth a goddamn thing to anyone. If feminism wants to eliminate slut-shaming and open the door for women to be truly liberated in their sexual lives, it needs to treat rape like the simple assault it is rather than a violation of the holiest of holies. It needs to stop perpetuating the notion that half an hour of unwanted sex is in any way worse than being the victim of any other kind of assault. It needs to stop reinforcing the shame victims feel by indulging it with its systemic kid-glove handling of the issues, and allow for frank and open discussion with women as a group, while leaving it to counsellors and therapists rather than society as a whole to help victims reconcile their individual trauma.
Because if feminism is going to force all of society to treat women's sexuality as sacrosanct when they've been sexually assaulted, then society is absolutely justified in shaming women who give that sexuality away to just anyone. Do you see how that works? Doesn't anyone else see how pedestalizing rape survivors as the ultimate victims of the most heinous violation ever only reinforces the notion that a woman is merely a sexual object, whose greatest source of self-worth and most important virtue in the eyes of humanity is...well, the state of her sex? That constantly enshrouding every discussion of rape in a suffocating blanket of shame and violation is only telling rape victims they're right in feeling ashamed when they're assaulted, and justifying the assholes of the world who place women's value as sexual objects above every other aspect of their humanity?
If feminism wants women to be able to freely express and explore their sexuality, without shame, in the liberated 2010s, it needs to stop treating women like it's 1850 the moment they've been raped.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
"Hey, let's accuse Congress of coming after abortion...ehhh birth control and say they started it as a way to distract the focus off the way we recently ground the Komen foundation under our 'nonprofit' heel-maybe they won't notice that we're demanding people violate their consciences to subsidize our sex lives, and we'll look like helpless victim feminists, and this will detract from our continual ramming of one size fits all healthcare down their throats while we cry rape and call ourselves 'prochoice'!"
Congrats, PPACT, you've won a free breakfast on us! (Courtesy of the taxpayers, of course) Your choices:
Friday, February 17, 2012
Proaborts are once again complaining about states that require women to view ultrasounds before having an abortion, their witch hunt of the day being House Bill 462. Their complaints aren’t particularly new, they've simply added the exploitation of rape victims to support their hysteria that ultrasound is emotional torture, and now they're conflating transvaginal ultrasound with rape. From the NY Times:
Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.
It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice.
But a number of women at the Birmingham clinic, which was the site of a fatal bombing in 1998, said they simply did not want to subject themselves to images that might haunt them. “You almost have to think of it as an alien,” said Carmen, 28, who was there for her second abortion in three years.
Like other patients, Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.
“You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.”
This makes the assumption that all women take the time to think an abortion through, that they all know week-by-week how the baby is growing in their uterus, that they have received medically accurate information. This is suspect at best.
Take Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. Approximately one third of Planned Parenthood’s clients are girls under the age of 18. Just how informed are they expected to be? Not only do these girls usually have no clue whatsoever about what they are about to go through, they don’t usually have medically accurate information. Prolife activist group Live Action gained fame from investigating Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover up the sexual abuse of minors and their willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for stautory rape with their Mona Lisa Project. They’ve also exposed Planned Parenthood's preabortion 'counseling' techniques with The Rosa Acuna Project, in which they documented Planned Parenthood giving medically inaccurate information to their clients.
Live Action caught on tape the counselors giving manipulative information filled with lies to clients who were scared or confused or unsure. Why? Because they don’t want women choosing to not have an abortion. Abortions are lucrative. Planned Parenthood doesn’t benefit if a woman decides to keep her baby.
And why would seeing an ultrasound before an abortion be emotional torture to a woman? Well, because most women aren’t prepared for the emotional roller coaster ride they’re about to go through with an abortion, for the anguish, regret, and guilt that many women feel. Many women aren’t prepared to confront the life they’ve just destroyed. An ultrasound forces them to confront that reality. Is it perhaps emotional torture because women are killing their children? Because women cannot bear to look at an ultrasound and see the life they are about to take away?
Bernard Nathanson is a prime example of this. Nathanson was once a pro-abortion activist who helped to found the National Abortion Rights Action League. NARAL was originally created to repeal abortion laws, and succeeded with the Roe v. Wade decision. Nathanson said he had performed over 75,000 abortions in his lifetime. However, with the advent of the ultrasound, he found that he couldn’t ignore the barbarity of abortions anymore, and became a staunch pro-life activist.
Ultrasound images are so powerful that Nathanson made two documentaries, The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason. The Silent Scream shows an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a baby eleven weeks after conception. Eclipse of Reason shows a late-term abortion being performed, and is even more horrifying. These ultrasound images were strong enough to convert Dr. Nathanson, the father of the pro-abortion movement still in action today. How would viewing an ultrasound be to an expectant mother who is confused, scared, and probably already feeling slightly guilty? Of course it would be emotional torture. She would look at that ultrasound and it would be like a knife going through her heart. It’s emotional torture because deep down, they know that they’re killing their child, and it’s heartbreaking.
Why would abortion advocates have such a problem with women being forced to view the ultrasound? Apparently, during first trimester abortions, women weren’t much dissuaded from the abortion because an unborn baby at, say, five weeks doesn't look like a fully developed infant yet. Once you start looking at second and third trimester abortions, however, the images are much harder for women to see. And regardless of when in the pregnancy the abortion takes place, women who are unsure about their choice are definitely swayed by viewing the ultrasound. The abortion lobby doesn’t want fewer women to have abortions, so making women view the child they’re about to kill doesn’t sit well with them — not because they care about the welfare of women, but because they don’t want to lose a potential sale. A woman who is already confused and scared and unsure about the choice to have an abortion who views the ultrasound is much more likely to change her mind than the woman who doesn’t see her baby first.
Deep down, their consciences will tell them that this is wrong, but they don’t want to admit that to themselves. That is what brings on the feelings of emotional torture. And it’s what proaborts don’t want women to know. The abortion lobby does not want women to be fully informed about the realities of abortion, because if women were, a much greater number of them would walk away. So proabort activists try to keep women in the dark, while screeching that they’re only fighting for women’s rights. Very prowoman, aren't they? They shriek demands for the rest of us to pay for their abortions, but consider an actual emotional reaction to the taking of a life an unnacceptable price to pay themselves. Funny how the champions of choice have no complaints about ultrasound when it's being used as a tool by abortionists in ultrasound guided abortions.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Except men aren't demanding that libtards pay for their 'boner pills'. Personally I think it would be funny as hell if they did. How many feminazis would cough it up? They can't be bothered to fund such unimporant things as lifesaving insulin, chemo treatments, or even food for hungry kids, but we're supposed to get all teary eyed that they might miss out on getting laid because they wouldn't cough up four bucks at Walgreens for some condoms? Yes, not getting laid is a life threatening condition for sex obssessed proabort morons. Who cares about the burden on single mothers and elderly people who can't afford their own medications, as long as they kick in some to keep the prochoice party going? Who's going to fund their fun when all the future taxpayers have been aborted out of existence?
It's actually in the abortion lobby's best interests to fund 'boner' pills-more boners mean more abortions. Cha ching $$$$.
Hear that, all you mothers out there? You can't really be considered a woman unless you abort-cuz this little feminist lapdog says so! True feminist empowerment comes from tearing down women who choose life for their children, and ceding control of your own reproduction to your nanny state-let someone else pay for your fun, preferrably with their lives.
Proaborts seem to think the only time women go to see doctors are for ladyparts issues. Really getting sick of the 'basic healthcare/Planned Parenthood' fairy tales-do you go to your gyno when you have an ear infection? Do you go to the cardioligist for an STD? Abortion isn't 'basic health care.' Would you take your kid to Planned Parenthood if he was running a fever, or to your family doctor? The only thing on the menu at PP is abortion, birth control pills, and the occasional referral for mammograms elsewhere because PP doesn't even do those. Cut the crap, prochoice. Dismembering gestating human beings isn't health care, basic or otherwise.