Is There a War On Women?
There’s been a lot of talk lately about a war on women. Much of this has been devised by the Obama administration and its cronies in order to divert our attention from their unprecedented and illegal attack on our Constitution’s guarantees of religious liberty. At its core is the old leftist canard that says if people won’t be taxed to pay for your goods and services, they are somehow denying you access to those goods and services. It’s low and dishonest garbage and the people who promulgate it should be kicked first out of office and then downstairs.
But this weekend, one of the Wall Street Journal’s better columnists, Peggy Noonan, while largely agreeing with the above, opined that there really is a war against women nonetheless. By this she means the rather frequent use of sexual slurs, mostly by leftist men but sometimes by men on the right as well, to denigrate women in high-profile positions. “The words used are vulgar,” Noonan says, “and are meant to tear down and embarrass.”
I enjoy Noonan’s column a lot, but I can’t agree with her here. It seems to me, in fact, that there has been an ongoing and wickedly offhanded war against men for the past forty years at least. It’s not just the outright insults that have been permissible in respectable outlets: i.e., calling men collectively and individually “pigs.” The war has been waged in far more subtle and disgraceful ways as well.
Consider the common phrase “he objectifies women,” which casually belittles and denigrates men’s sexual yearnings. Or think of the almost universal depiction of fathers and husbands in movies, television shows, and advertisements as weaklings and fools under their wife-mommy’s control. Imagine the knowing laughter that would follow if I were to remark that “women are smarter than men,” then imagine the furious outbursts that would result if I said, “men are smarter than women.” The war is waged not only in what is said and shown, but in what is not said, what is considered off-limits.
I hope you’re being facetious with this post. To say that there isn’t a concerted effort to put women back into their place is kind of ridiculous. And maybe it is part and parcel because of what you enumerated as a eroding of “maleness” in society.
I will agree that I don’t believe in double standards. Which is why I would be fine if male commentators took the time to refer to male politicians by their body parts, comment on what they’re wearing and if it’s dignified or slutty, wonder if they’re possibly frigid and how their wives deal with that and sell novelty toys highlighting stereotypical views. I dunno, like a nutcracker.
I also think that in order to normalize off-hand comments like, “sugar”, “baby”, “shorty” and “sweetheart” men should refer to other men as such. You know cause it’s not such a big deal and there are no special connotations wedded to those words. Cause as you say, it’s just “pal” with a little something special.
I absolutely thing that what Obama and his sycophants are doing is nothing but trying to change the argument. More to the point Obama and his staffers have no more respect for women than Rush and the rest. Look at the cardboard cutout they had of Hillary Clinton, and that is/was his speech writer. More to the point…this year Obama bumped an accomplished female speaker who was to give the commencement address at a female college. All so he could score some political points on the Fluke controversy. He is a complete and utter joke and I hope those young graduates saw through that pandering to the inherent hypocrisy of that move.
But I agree with Noonan more than you on this. I don’t think anyone should be given a pass on this stuff…left or right. And I don’t think double standards mean that it should be given a pass either. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Miss M:
Klavan’s right and no, there’s nothing “ridiculous” about saying that there isn’t any “concerted effort to put women back in their place”. If there’s a war on women, it’s the most spectacular failure since the Zulus decided to spear a small bunch of British guys at Rourkes Drift.
Unless you want to count things like outrageous rates of HPV infection, the managed disappearance of enough responsible males to take responsibility for being the husbands and fathers the next generation is going to require, and the ongoing and increasing purposeful abortion of females. And none of these things is exactly being driven by the American political right.
On the other hand, there has in fact been a war on men and it’s been succeeding for two generations. Personally I can’t imagine why any reasonable person would want to win that war but humanity is nothing if not depraved (John Calvin, call your office).
And no offense but if you marry you should seriously consider taking your husband’s name. I’m just saying.
We learn, unless incorrigible, that weapons must be cared for and respected in their proper uses. We know that the Constitution of the USA defends the Right to keep and bear arms. Are not words often the most powerful weapons to decide the lives of citizens. The Press, MadMen, and political pundits depend on them to influence to their aims over the lives of others.
BUT the same weapons can be destructive as well as protective.Depending on how,by whom with what intentions they are used. Ditto pictures as word surrogates.
And here, with the idea as manipulated by the “revolutionary feminists” born in the 1960s we can see stated intention was never the true intention. Destruction under the guise of protection/salvation. Known formerly as snake-oil. Sold with all the magic of technology.
Equality in and under Law of each citizen is embedded in the US Constitution. There are no recherche phrases or clauses, plain English. To side-step that with the aim to CHANGE that LAW to FAVOUR special GROUPS is no service to those groups singled out. Any such element that promises you a rose garden has ulterior intent. To CHANGE,TRANSFORM the USA as the most successful social enterprise for all when the principles and laws are applied in their entirety and intent. Americans fought a bloody civil war to assure the equality in law of all.
And now the “Progressives” – international collectivists/multiculturalists – anti-democracy and anti-american use words to further their aims for transformation.
For their own ends they established a civil war among Americans to divide the nation by providing special legal privileges inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL for any groups they decide should be favoured by them.
Peggy Noonan as master wordsmith must know this ABC of America. As must many other pundits and commentators on the social scene who nevertheless ignore it or even praise these new authoritarians.
Peggy Noonan as master wordsmith must know that these “protectors of women” were
generals of the army to overthrow equality of all as embedded in the Constitution of the USA. Inducing women to believe that BIG Daddy government would be their life-mate. Not emphasising the cost was absolute obedience to daddy’s dictats.
Obama was deliberately chosen by the DNC as the emblem of their triumph gulling Americans to cede their liberties to spurious “love” from the government paid by productive citizens labours for the privileges of the Chosen by the “Democrats”
Obama is the culmination of longterm planning and engineering of the anti-democratic, anti-american international Left who were given the helm of the Democratic Party in the late 1950s and 60s. Think Sputnik.
To say that there isn’t a concerted effort to put women back into their place is kind of ridiculous.
I agree. I’d like to see women put in their rightful place of being judged and graded exactly as men would. IOWs, complete equality of opportunity. For the past 35+ years, any business which receives government money in any way has been required to give women an advantage in hiring, promotions, raises and in workplace behavior criteria over men.
My wife, who works in the same field as I do, is constantly annoyed by preferential treatment because she would have no problem making it without helping “The Little Missy” along as she puts it. Me, I get the benefits of this policy of blatant sexism since our happy union profits from it, but that doesn’t make it right.
I’ll limit myself to your very first example, referring to people by a body part: what is more acceptable, calling a man a d-ck or a p-tz, or calling a woman a c-nt or a tw-t?
The second two words are far more denigrating than the first two.
If so, it’s only because overuse of the first two has weakened their “denigrating” powers.
No. It’s because we have been conditioned from a very early age to see it that way.
I wonder how the average American would survive in Northern England—although I have seen this usage further south in the Midlands and further north in Lowland Scotland. I mean: being addressed as “duck”, “love”, “sweetie”, “dear”, and other such variations. I can still recall being amazed at an Asian woman shopkeeoer addressing me as “love” in the West Yorkshire city of Bradford. She said that most of her customers were English! I should add that these are used by men to address women and by women to address either men or women.
Precisely. And since the male and female terms are functionally equivalent, does this tend to support Klavan’s or Noonan’s argument?
Willy,
In my unprofessional opinion, our conditioning to “see it that way” is at least partially a result of our casual and frequent usage of words like “d-ck” & “p-tz.” As Kim says, they are equivalent to “c-nt” & “tw-t” but we find “c-nt” & “tw-t” to be far more shocking. This would not be the case if words like “c-nt” & “tw-t” were bandied about as frequently as “d-ck” & “p-tz.”.
Regardless, I hope I’m not coming off like some kind of a dick, here.
Kim,
Klavan’s, right?
If I had a dollar for every time a woman called a man a d*ck, either to my face or on tv, I could retire. And why are the last two words MORE denigrating than the first two. Not to me. That very statement sums up what this “war on women” problem is. Thank you Mr. Klavan for hitting this nail on the head. I almost did not read this article because I am sick to death of hearing about this war on women, now from both sides of the “aisle” aimed at the other.
I remember hearing a women complain about the various tortures dished out to women during the middle ages, as a sign of the horrible misogyny of the period. When I explained to her the various methods used specifically for men, she went all quite. That little conversation spoke volumes.
How are they more degenerating?
As someone who was the 1st generation of concerted effort of the left to turn women from respectable wives and mothers into permiscuous whores and wage slaves I have to tell you that I don’t feel “liberated.”
But this is a whole different argument than what is really at issue here and that is forcing a religious institution to provide insurance coverage on a product that is agains their conscience.
Women have no problem getting birth control (either free or at a very low cost) from plenty of outlets besides their insurance carrier. To say they don’t is an outright lie.
Obama and his staffers have no more respect for women than Rush and the rest.
Limbaugh has a lot of respect for women. His comments about Sandy, the $65,000/year Georgetown law student and her “pay for my $1000/year BC pills” (actually only about $90/year at Wal-Mart) were, believe it or not, humor.
But, admittedly (and he did), comments were over the top.
As for Obama & his underlings, you can’t contest some of his assumptions, since Leftist women are generally not impressive in the brains department poster gals, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Queen Bee Nancy P, Babs Boxer, Patty Murray, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee…(I’ll get typers cramp with this list…)
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Yet this is precisely what you argue when you say “Which is why I would be fine if male commentators took the time to refer to male politicians by their body parts”.
No, there is no war on women. There is occasional disrespect towards women, especially conservative women. But, there is a CONCERTED EFFORT to reduce the amount of impact MEN have on society. That is a war on men.
I am tearing my hair over the sudden interest in a supposed “war on women”. Please see any of my blogs on feminism, written out of experience and study: http://clarespark.com/2012/03/19/links-to-feminist-blogs/.
Why? If I wanted to read your columns, I’d be at your site. But I’m here at PJM. Your constant attempts to snag readers from PJM are not appreciated by this regular reader.
Oh, SECONDED!
My Gosh, men in public life are continually being put down in sexual ways; you just don’t recognize it. They are accused of being wimpy or gay or whatever. P.S. Why do we think prison rape is funny?
Also, men in public life (Hollywood aside) do not generally dress in sexual ways. Was it dignified of the Fox anchor to do a “spread”? Admittedly, Fox is more guilty than she (a set designed to show her legs), but could you imagine O’reilly doing that? Men’s fashions are not generally designed to expose new parts of the body, as people get used to the old ones. (Read that in a fashion supplement.) Admittedly, again, the designers are as guilty, but women have fought back before.
PS It was Laura Schlesinger who started using terms like slut, to make women aware of how they’re being exploited.
The difference is biology: as a rule, “men love with their eyes, and women love with their ears”. In order to attract a male audience, women wriggle out of their clothes on camera. If a man did that, women would be more inclined to laugh. (Reminds me of “Slap Shot” somehow – which was really a hoot.) For men to attract a female audience, verbal flattery and blandishments, and musical accomplishment, are likelier to do the trick.
What we we call a man who testified as she did? Would he not be called a sleazebag?
Didn’t you hear the nature of the attacks on Rush? It was like, “of the nasty man saying a bad word to that poor girl”. Once more, false Chivalry.
Either we have paternalism or we have equality; no x for me and y for you.
By the way, the media and the Left did the same thing here in Israel a few months ago – turn an attack on religion into accusations of a “war on women”.
Leftists are fond of referring to Rightists as ‘flat-earthers’. But it isn’t immediately apparent that the earth is round. Conversely, any human older than 6 months has observed that men and women, boys and girls, are fundamentaly different in thought and action. If treating people who are the same differently is unjust, then treating people who are different the same is equally unjust. But, of course, women do not accept this, because women do not think like men. They ‘feel’ that they want to do what men do, so men just better stand aside and let them. Like a two-year-old, the wish is the end of the discussion — I want it, waaaaah!!!! The well-observed fact that every society ever known has established and enforced distinct roles and tasks for men and women means nothing. Leftism rejects normality in every instance. Someone desribed Leftism as an unrelenting war against every form of normality. It works for me.
Look Pal
You seem to think you can monitor other’s behavior like a hall monitor. I suggest you stop thinking with your genitals and come down to earth. When was the last time you walked anywhere where you might be accosted by tough female bully who would love to kick you Arkansas?
Have you never spent any time around men? They DO refer to each other as body parts, almost every breath. It’s how they communicate and bond. You want to be one of the guys? Deal with it!
The only times in my life I’ve felt treated “like a woman” instead of like a person, is when I’d be playing up the girly angle to get something. No one’s ever denied me anything or treated me like I’m stupid. Maybe it’s because I’ve been too busy living my life and doing what I want to do.
So far, everyone is correct.
Klavan’s saying don’t complain- feminists and lefties have no ground to stand on here.
It’s also a brave thing to say testosterone isn’t evil. Have a look at how routinely the things that make men men are ridiculed and demonised. We have to get over thinking men are just less functional women-
“You know you need to talk about it.”
“No, you need me to talk about it, I’m fine with internal processing.”
Anyway, Klavan is pointing out some tuths here. But Miss Malevolent, you are quite right. Having good cause for frustration and outrage does not give you the right to call anyone a slut. Your opponents having no right to complain doesn’t mean you have a right to say it. Didn’t our grandmas teach us, “There’s never any excuse for being rude.”
I’d like to see more commentators from the right call Limbaugh (and anyone else) on his rudeness. He needs to find a way to make the point without being rude.
But thanks Andrew, I keep coming back because you keep making us think.
You know, Mr. Limbaugh is on air 5 days a week, 3 hours a day and in all these years this is the first time that he’s felt that he, indeed, crossed a line and apologized. The response from the woman in question was to throw it back in his face. Had she accepted his apology others in the left would still skewer him (as they will – forever) ad nauseum because the left never forgives nor do they ever forget.
You can not deal with these people.
His apology was a mistake.
He should have doubled down and said that he was wrong to call her a slut because at least a slut gives something back for money and attention paid to her. Rather than a slut, Fluke is simply a dangerous and disgusting parasite, as her name implies.
Rush Limbaugh went on the air in 1988.
since then he’s been on the air 3 hours a day 5 days a week.
Assuming some time off let’s say that’s equivelant of 50 weeks a year for 24 years.
That’s Rush, on air, for 750 hours a year or 18,000 hours since he started.
The only – ONLY – example of rudness you can site is this one instance that adds up to two of his programs (at most 6 hours) or 3 thousandths of one percent of the time he’s been on air.
Yet you manage to make that representitive of his Entire Time on the air.
Hence the utter nonsense of your “Reasoned” approach (or Stealth leftism)
He apoligized! It’s done.
And your point that he need to ‘Find A Way’ to make a point without being rude looks quite lame when measured against Reality. He already has, for 24 years! I’d like to see anyone be on air 18,000 hours with NO SCRIPT and not have at least one slip up themselves.
Nice try though.
I miss Bill Clinton. His serial sexual peccadilloes and subsequent smearing of his “trailer trash” women forced the unmasking of the feminist wing of the left as being progressives first, progressives second and feminists last. Took them 10 years to recover the necessary camouflage to continue the false flag “struggle”.
=Tammy Bruce.
This war on women is ridiculous. I am a sucessful woman who has faced several instances of sexual harassment and discrimination over the past 25 years. I handled each situation accordingly. I don’t need government assistance or fake wars to prove I am a strong woman.
By the way, has anyone notices the plethora of ads with the “smart woman” and “dumb man”? My father who is 81 is disgusted by them as am I.
I have noticed the ads. I have also noticed the ads where the black guy puts one over on the “stupid white guy”. Maybe they seem innocuous and innocent but reverse the roles and the NAACP would be having a conniption.
I was raised to accept people in their own merits. Not to assume that a person couldn’t do something because of a stereotype. However, as I got older I still and always will acknowledge that women and men are different and for good reason. It has been “conventional wisdom” that has re-manufactured the roles of men and women in society today. Kids still need two parents, one male, one female. Simply stating that kids today grow up ok with just one parent is missing the point. Sure, many grow up “fine” but do they mature? I say that they generally do not.
There have always been historical cases of powerful women. I think people are more apt to accept that a woman can be powerful simply on its own merits rather than “making a federal case out of it”. But Jane Fonda will have to have her day and whine and fuss and carry on in order to “blame men” on all levels.
It’s never been so much that there’s a “war on women” but more of an obsession by those women who feel a need to provoke.
I work for a great company.
Love them. Buy their stock. Bleed for them if I had to.
Nobody is a bigger “company guy” than me.
But I just spend 3 hours of my life (that I’ll never get back) taking required online interactive “ethics” training at work.
It was scripted in the format of a “News Program”. All of the “anchors” and “experts” they interviewed, and every business situation depicted, was depicted with the (ahem) proper demographics.
All the “leaders” and “good employees” were depicted as female, black, asian, older, middle eastern, or “barack-types” of undeterminable, but definitely NOT white european heritage. The presence of 25-40 year old white european males, was few.
But (surprise!) every single example of “innapropriate behavior” was committed by either white people (male and female), or by a male (any type) against a woman (any type). The most obnoxious, rude, and clueless person behaving badly was a Cartoon Caricature of an uptight white evangelical female. Blonde, waspy, pointy upturned nose, blue eyes, snippy and arrogant in her old fashioned “church lady” outfit, in an office full of smooth and elegant hipsters.
Every person utilizing the “company policy” to heroically, competently, earnestly, honestly and fairly get to the bottom of the issue without rancor or “payback” was universally….
Yeah, you get the point..
I’m sure this was a program purchased by Corporate to efficiently train (read: C.Y.A.) a large workforce. My company did not create this themselves. It was a very well produced program, obviously high budget, great sets, acting and editing all smooth and seamless…No cheap cheesy training film, this was A Major Motion Picture level production…..which made it all the more frightening.
The Lefties arent fringe anymore…they are the ruling class, with huge budgets and lots of time to produce stuff like this. I doubt anything with a less “PC” message even exists in the world any more.
You WILL be indoctrinated, even in a “conservative” company like mine.
I’m sure this was a program purchased by Corporate to efficiently train (read: C.Y.A.) a large workforce. My company did not create this themselves.
Now we know where some of those “Grievance Studies” majors are employed.
I just finished that too, along with data security, and FDA device training.
You must work at the same corp I do…
It was high budget because those ethics/diversity training programs pull in some serious cash. Like $10,000 for just a couple of days of a live training seminar. All so that they can come in and make you do all the silly roleplaying. “Here talk to the diversity puppet and explain to him/her/it exactly why you are a evil white masochist wife-beater who secrectly wishes to enslave minorities, eat live kittens, and destroy the environment with your hillbilly monster truck. Purely for pretend of course…”
Bravo!
I hate male bashing. They only thing I hate more is women who insist on thinking they are victims of the male hegemony. It got to the point in my professional workplace where I felt compelled to lecture the women coming right out of college on a few facts of life in the real world. Chiefly that the only times in my long career I had ever been victimized it was by my own stupidity and wishful thinking.
“Chiefly that the only times in my long career I had ever been victimized it was by my own stupidity and wishful thinking.”
Great point.
The “smart woman, dumb man” thing is hardly new. Look back to old-time radio and you have “Fibber McGee and Molly”, “Phil Harris and Alice Faye”, “Life With Riley”, “Our Miss Brooks” — heck, the only one I can think of that had this reversed was Lucille Ball’s “My Favorite Husband” (and, remarkably, she continued that pattern in her TV show).
LOL. There have been a plethora of movies from days of ‘yore’ where the ‘dumb’ pretty women were showcased against the ‘smart’ handsome men.
George Burns to Gracie Allen, “Say G’night, Gracie”
Gracie Allen Replies, “G’night, Gracie!”
True. The “smart woman/dumb man” thing has been overworked to the point of being trite 40 years back.
I, too, am a successful woman in a female dominated field. I was told, on entering graduate school, that “unfortunately” my gender would not help me get into the program. Seriously. I was glad for that, because then I could get in on the content of my character. True, I hear the odd crude remark. I insist on the opportunity to deal with my own feelings, and when necessary fight my own battles, without Big Brother coming in to “rescue” me by restricting another (albeit crude) individual’s free speech.
Dear Miss Malevolent, I hope you don’t get your panties in a wad, sweetie, but you really need to find a husband.
Sorry.
I couldn’t resist.
Well, I could. But I chose not to.
BwaHaHaHaHa!
I think there is plenty of evidence that there is a war against both men and women. It’s just an extension of class warfare. Any self-respecting totalitarian government has to erode parental authority and destroy outmoded artificial constructs like marriage. How better to stir up strife by slinging disrespect on both sexes? It’s all part of the fundamental transformation.
Amen to that
Bingo. The “war” is against how society is organized, and has its roots in Marx whining that people could never be “truly equal” so long as we had gender differences.
I think you nailed it.
3rd wave Feminism is male chauvinism in drag. Its diametrically opposed beliefs are: everything masculine is better than everything feminine, and females are inherently better than males. So women should behave like men, because masculinity is better, and men kept all the best stuff, you know, physical labor, war, etc, for themselves. But if women behave like men, then men treating them as they treat other men is wrong wrong wrong because men are big jerks who constantly victimize poor helpless women.
The only people who gain in this slow burn of both sexes are those who are scum already, male or female. At least they think they gain, but their lives are endless misery and the illusion of improvement doesn’t actually change that in the long run.
I know a lot of men in their mid 30s who despise women because they simply don’t make very good men, and so have no possibility of a real relationship. I know a lot of husbands who are treated with near constant public cruelty by their wives, who just grin and bear it. I know men falsely accused of abusing their children so their wives could gain an advantage in a divorce. Some of those women have gone to jail.
I also know women who have been treated in very similar ways, and I keep wondering qui bono? And I think it’s pretty clear that wealthy men benefit. Women who have been shattered by mistreatment are easy prey once they turn cynical. Men who give up on women and turn to porn and video games instead of wives and children are less of a threat to the existing power structure, as lack of a family curbs ambition. The rise of homosexuality gives those wealthy men their pick of male or female, and the last frontier is children. The denigration of children is well under way in Hollywood, though it’s creepy and subtle, but it’s moving right along towards dehumanizing them as has already been done to men and women. Stay tuned for the next new thing–sell your children into sexual slavery in return for a Harvard education! Yep, how can you help your children more than by giving them to a rich man who’ll provide them with the best of everything, now that we know sex doesn’t harm children in any way!! And if you also get to pay off your mortgage, well, that’s just a side benefit! Nobody thinks you’re doing it for money!
Don’t think it’s not coming. Socialists, progressives, liberals, radicals, anarchists, libertarians, communists, fascists, Jacobins, Nazis, etc, all share one important philosophical cornerstone–romanticism. The goal is a Hellenistic instead of a Judeo-Christian society. Rich men are much better off, so they think, in a Hellenistic world. They get the best of everything, can do anything, all to excess with no barriers, and no preachers telling them it’s wrong. Women get the short end, and the poor don’t get any end at all. The middle class becomes prey, judges become mercenaries, and politics becomes nothing but a payoff game. What you don’t get in a Hellenistic society is Apple, or Google, or Ford, or JC Penney. Large enterprise doesn’t work, because trust goes out the airlock. Hellenistic society collapses in less than a generation, not because of decadence per se, but because of corruption. Once injustice becomes the norm, society breaks apart.
And that is what is wrong with feminism and its fruits–they are inherently unjust. Men and women should be judged on their individual merits, anything else is injustice. Early feminism worked because it redressed real injustices. The current crop think that a private club for millionaire golfers is oppression–and demand the right to impose injustices on everyone. We each of us must try to be just in our judgements, and this is no easy matter, considering the general ignorance that afflicts even the brightest human beings in the world. There is no war on women as women–there is a war on humans, and the goal is to reduce us all to animals that will obey our betters.
Thank you! Finally someone gets it. It’s all just more progressive slight of hand and snake oil salesmanship.
Elisa has the best take on this of all. To stir conflict based on gender (and family) plays into the progressive (fascist or socialist) strategy of destroying all parts of society that are independent of government. Good call Ms. Pardo.
It helps one to understand Noonan’s concerns if one has a daughter, as I do. I, too think that both AK and PN have valid points. My personal view? Men are barbarians who need to be civilized by women. Unfortunately due to blowback from rampant feminism, woman have become barbarians, too. So who’s going to civilize us? It’s incumbent upon men, being the stronger vessel, to behave in a higher and more honorable way. A little kindness goes a long way towards transforming a feminazi into the civilizing influence God intended her to be.
Study after study shows that it is strong fathers who civilize women in the first place. In fact, there is increasing evidence to show that having an actively involved father figure is actually even more important than having a mother for children of both genders.
Teenage girls are some of the nastiest, most vicious creatures on the planet.
Who civilizes them?
…”It’s incumbent upon men, being the stronger vessel, to behave in a higher and more honorable way.”
Are you kidding?…you are equating physical strength as “strong” – it was the same mistake that Samson made with Delilah. You realize that it sounds as if you are giving woman an excuse to indulge in less than moral behavior just because they are the “weaker vessel” and that men by virtue of being a man, should be held to a higher standard. That interpretation is seriously flawed.
Love that picture, BTW.
“I don’t want to be what other people want me to be.”
Conservatives don’t get that idea, unless it’s the government functioning against them. Then they get it.
Please explain that so my poor conservative brain can understand it. Cite examples and cases where you know this to be true so that even I can grasp it. Thank you.
The evidence is in your asking: like I said, they don’t get it. This may be the Right’s biggest shortcoming.
It’s important to frequently switch between NPR and Rush Limbaugh, as they are both terribly wrong about life and this planet. Granted Rush is a better philosopher than any democrat, more anti-hypocrite, anti-foolishness… but he is overtly xenophobic and chauvinist. No one’s perfect.
“Xenophobic”?
Oh, how wonderful it must be to be able to read someone’s mind!
“The evidence is in your asking”.
Again, how so? You have not presented one cogent, salient point to address what is, essentially, your opinion. That being “Conservatives don’t get that ‘I don’t want to be what other people want me to be”.
First, let’s approach that statement from the point of view that you presume that liberals “get it” while conservatives don’t.
I’m a die-hard conservative and I had read a great many books by people I consider heroes. Eddie Rickenbacker, for one, who grew up dirt poor but who had a phenomenal work ethic, a good mind and unquestionable moral background. He had no real formal education, having to leave school to work in order to provide for the family, as all his siblings did.
He became an ace in WWI, a president of an airline and all the while, there were people who told him to be something that he didn’t want to be. Charles Lindbergh, people told him he was a fool and that crossing the Atlantic solo was ridiculous and he’d get himself killed.
Going against the grain is NOT strictly reserved for the liberals who largely like to “rise up against the man, man”. Usually, it’s for some innocuous and meaningless “goal” of being a rock singer or saving the spotted owl.
I have run up against many of my own stripe who tried to tell me how to act, how to think and how to be. I don’t listen to them very much, never have.
So, there you have some rhetorical evidence as to understand where my position emanates from. You simply stated an opinion, a general notion that “conservatives don’t get that people like to choose their own path for themselves” if I understand your statement correctly. I submit that it’s conservatives that understand it all too well and actually support it. By extension, I am only assuming that you think conservatism means that we all want everyone to be a bible-thumping, gun-toting zealot who wears only one style of haircut, no short skirts, etc. Well, to you I submit that it’s the hippies and national socialists who think that conservatives are “stuck in yesteryear”.
What YOU seem to be missing or ignoring is that the Constitution allows for the nation to grow, evolve and change while still keeping a system that allows for freedom for all and the rights to pursue individual liberty. That includes being able to grow up and be whatever a person wants to be.
You seem to have made assumptions about my intellect, my character and most certainly my alleged inability to understand your lead statement.
Now that I’ve established that I understand your point…please provide with cited cases where conservatives fail to understand free choice.
I can wait. Take your time.
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Seeing as how most conservatives want smaller, less intrusive government with limited powers, I’m pretty sure we grasp it just fine.
It’s the other side that wants to tax the hell out of everything so they can pay for more and more social programs
Fail.
I’ll offer something more concise: the Rainbow Coalition sees itself as Robin Hood’s merry men. They have been oppressed by white men. The End.
Here is the enlightened real world difference. Failure in and of itself is not the fault of someone else. Success is where you find it, not where you desperately wish it to be.
If the shoe fits, wear it, learn to like it cuz it’s your destiny and one million words explaining why it shouldn’t, wouldn’t and couldn’t be won’t change a damn thing. You can explain and mitigate and hold hands and apply bandages and give out crutches and Egyptians still won’t put men on the Moon, they’re still working on figuring out doorknobs – trust me on this one as a man who has Doorknob/Slamophobia just like Oliver Hardy had Hornophobia.
In the meantime, the Dem Party should have some kind of scorecard keeping track of how well racist anti-racism works cuz I don’t think it’s a workable paradigm from a strictly moral point of view. Unless you’re a congenital idiot.
Democrats– Rainbow Coalition and ALL the rest– projecting themselves as “Robin Hood” have always had me rolling on the floor, laughing.
Robin of Locksley was fighting the GOVERNMENT. The rich WERE the government. The government was overtaxing the poor and artisan classes, and Robin stole their money back for them.
There is no “War against women.” Obama is just thinking up ANYTHING that will take people’s minds off of the lousy economy.
There is a war against men. Women are always the victims, men are always the Misogynist pigs. It’s getting old, even by White House standards. And Obama keeps thinking if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. And there are a lot of women out there in the media who just can’t give up any opportunity to play the victim. I saw a headline and photograph of Angelica Houston on the Drudge Report the other day with the headline “Men want to take women back to the dark ages.” Nice to see that there are still some people out in Hollywood with an “open mind.”
Face it, men are sunk no matter how you look at it. If you listened to some women lately on TV, there’s no difference between living here in America and living in Saudi Arabia. None at all. And if women can’t see the stupidity in that line of thinking, if they can’t see that they are just falling for a lot of spin from a Democratic machine that is desperate to hold on to power, then they are fools.
Perhaps the only thing left for me to do is to move to Saudi Arabia. If I’m going to be called a Misogynist, at least I’d want my accusers to be accurate.
Of course the notion of a “war on women” over the free-contraceptives mandate is purely a tactic. But it’s also doing what it was designed to do: distract us from more important matters.
The sexes aren’t getting along well at the moment. My theory is that it conforms point-for-point to the tension between the races. You cannot tell a group of people with some common characteristic that distinguishes them from others that they’ve been oppressed and are therefore owed, and not expect them to try to “collect.” So while women and Negroes, who’ve been told repeatedly that they’re owed by virtue of the treatment their forebears received, have become strident about it all, men and Caucasians, who are expected to pay (in many senses, not just the financial one), have experienced a swelling resentment over it, and are beginning to stiffen up.
The resulting behavior, verbal and otherwise, is deplorable. But it won’t cease until the underlying convictions about who owes whom, and for what, are dispelled. I don’t intend to hold my breath waiting for that.
DING! DING! DING! We have a *winner*!
Klavan starts the piece alerting the reader to the diversionary tactic of Obama for the 2012 campaign…and then promptly falls into exactly the trap as desired by the Left. Andrew, you’re getting a bit confused these days…everything OK by you, buddy?
Yeah, war on women..Yada yada yada. War on men, too. Yada yada yada.
TRY THIS: DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Whatever faction *can* be split, SPLIT IT for the November election. The Obama Machine will be very grateful if YOU do the work, so it can focus its energie$ elsewhere. FOOLS.
We are talking here as if there are two wars, one against men and one against women. It’s really a war against anyone who stands on their own two feet that is being fought on two fronts based on gender. In the liberal world, men by nature have no need of the nanny state so must be ridiculed down to managable, metrosexual size. Women who have gained financially and professionally have no need of the nanny state either so they too must be whittled back down to helpless dependence.
Sadly these discussions always degrade into griping about who has had it the worst and for how long. This gets us no where and distracts from the real target: the strong, smart, independent men and women of this country. So while we argue among ourselves as if the attacks on men and women are separate issues, we fall for the third front in the war where dissent among ourselves keeps us too busy to fight back effectively.
EXCELLENT point, Eva. The fact of the matter is that strong women look at all this media hysteria about a “war on women” as pure stupidity. We don’t need other people taking care of us like we’re some weak-willed wallflowers. And men who aren’t afraid to be men, and who refuse to fall into the stereotypical modern view of the American male (boorish and stupid or effeminate and bland) are in high demand. Give me a cowboy over a prancing twerp any day!
“Give me a cowboy over a prancing twerp any day!”
Me too, MWR, me too!
Bang!
Knockout and winner.
Eva Nailed it!
They sit around and dream this stuff up at “strategy sessions”* in the Oval Office.
“We’ll paint republicans (aka people who might have a little problem throwing billions down the drain on not ready for prime time “green” projects) as anti-technology AND convince women that republicans want to take away their contraception & have them all pregnant and barefoot.”
The war on women is the assumption that women are dumb enough to believe that crap.
(*That is, when Barack isn’t flying around the country on AF1 raising money at campaign events. It takes almost 5 $38,000/head dinners to pay for even one hour of operating the airplane.)
When Obama (or any previous president) travels on AF1* for campaign purposes, he doesn’t get charged the full operating cost of the plane. From what I’ve read, he gets billed the cost of a first class airline ticket. Obama pushes this even further than most previous presidents by calling a trip “official business” and then making it a campaign stop.
*Any Air Force plane that the president rides on is “Air Force One” for that flight. He doesn’t always have to take one of the 747s but AFAIK, Obama always does. In addition to the operating costs for AF1 itself, there’s the cost of the support planes carrying the presidential limo or helicopter and Secret Service support costs.
It costs approximately $180,000/per hour to operate the plane on which Barack flies around on his campaign jaunts.
Who is paying isn’t really the point although, of course, it seems like the taxpayer pays, for the planes, the equipment, the attendant security, all the huge expenses.
Taking PM Cameron to the basketball game last week cost the American taxpayer something like $365,000.
At this point in a re-election campaign, the Campaigner in Chief has held approximately twice the the number of fundraisers as GWB did in his 2004 re-election bid.
From the Daily Caller yesterday:
“President Barack Obama is about to launch a 5,000-mile, four-state, two-day trip on Air Force One to contain the political damage caused by high gas prices.
Obama is slated to fly out this Wednesday to camera-ready podiums in Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Colorado, from where he’ll tout his administration’s efforts to reduce the nation’s use of gasoline.
His 5,000-mile trip will consume roughly 25,000 gallons of jet fuel, according to Boeing.
That adds up to a fuel bill of $80,000, assuming the Air Force buys jet fuel at the cheapest cost, now estimated at $3.20 a gallon by the U.S. Energy Administration. The retail price for jet-fuel at local airports is just over $6 a gallon, including taxes.”
Yes, it costs about $180,000 an hour to operate one of the two presidential 747 aircraft. Throw in the cost of a C-5 or C-17 to carry the presidential limo or helicopter. Add in the cost of flying a Secret Service support team at least a day in advance, additional local police support costs, etc and the costs are very high, indeed.
All I was pointing out is that when any president uses AF1 for campaign purposes, they’re only billed the cost of a first class ticket. We taxpayers get stuck with the rest of the bill.
I think it is more about competing ideologies than a war of the sexes. I dated a man who was more of a “feminist” than I was (raised by a single feminist mother). That may be ideal for some women, but definately was not for me. The truth is we are all individuals, with different beliefs. I wanted children, he did not. We could have spared ourselves the waste of time if he had just gone to the local Planned Parenthood to pick up his dream girl. It really annoys me that because I am a woman, it is assumed that I am a clone of the sisterhood and if I am not then I deserve ridicule and harassment.
Someone should do a study to find out if male “feminists” actually outnumber female “feminists”. Didn’t you know, Bill Maher, Anthony Weiner, and Bill Clinton are real women because they support “women’s health” (preventing the disease of pregnancy). However women with self respect are not real women because they actually care about their health and don’t consider pregnancy a disease. See how that works. Men who think pregnancy is a disease are feminists. Women who want babies are backwards neanderthals, not real women.
For a hilarious satirical piece on the “War on Women” read the Washington Fancy’s “Peeing Outside the Box: A Washington Fancy Interview with Rush Limbaugh.” As you slog through Rush Limbaugh’s metaphor about Obama and the Democrats doing what his cat Punkin does when she suffers from feline urinary tract infections, you’ll realize just who is conducting the “War on Women” and it’s not America’s “Harmless Loveable Little Fuzzball.” Check it out.
Http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2012/03/15/peeing-outside-the-box-a-washington-fancy-interview-with-rush-limbaugh/11149
She exhibited greater gentleness and generosity in the full knowledge that men would provide the muscle and money to protect her
You know that was only ever true for a small subset of wealthy women, right? The majority of women have always had to work to support and protect themselves and their families. (Until the creation of the welfare state…now they can sit at home and watch TV while men and other women work to provide for them. Pffft.)
Try reading some first-hand accounts of the lives of colonial and pioneer women. They were out there working every bit as hard as the men, and if they or their children were in danger (from animals or people), they were just as apt to pick up a rifle and remove the threat.
Mr. Klavan, I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this issue of the denigration and belittling of men FINALLY becoming mainstream. I’m a woman, but by God, there is nothing that makes me so ANGRY as listening to supposedly intelligent people prattle on about how women are under attack by people who want to send them back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Just making mention of it is enough to make me sizzle with incandescent, pure rage.
The fact is that this country has been bending over backwards for at least the last thirty years, if not longer, to bring “equality” to the sexes. But rather than trying to bring women up, the primary manner of going about this social engineering fiasco has been to drag men down.
Young boys are reprimanded and medicated for acting like boys in school. You constantly hear about how teachers must “adapt” their teaching style to suit each student,. But if that student happens to be an energetic young boy who can’t sit still because little boys aren’t programmed to sit still, too bad! Time to bring out the ritalin and the trips to the principal’s office for unruly behavior. Not only does this undermine our boys’ educations, it also dilutes the consequences for students of either gender who are genuinely rowdy, unthinking, or malicious.
There are countless scholarships and grant awards available for young women who wish to go to college, particularly in one of the hard sciences. Try looking up a scholarship aimed solely at men. Good luck. Unless you happen to be a male in a minority group, or a stellar athlete, you’re out of luck. See, your education isn’t as important as the education of the girls in your class. And since you’re a troublemaker and an idiot (as evidenced by your many trips to the principal’s office for unruly behavior and your subsequently bad grades), you’re not wanted anyway. Unless you can run around and hit things. That’s what men do best, right? Hit things? That’s why every man is secretly a wife beater, even if they’ve never laid a hand on a woman.
Did you know girls always seem to fare less well on standardized math and science exams than boys? They do! It’s a national calamity! What’s that you say? Maybe we should be encouraging boys to pursue their strengths in these areas instead of acting like their success in the science and math fields is some kind of roadblock to female empowerment? Are you insane? We need more women engineers, not more male ones!
Eh? Then maybe we should encourage young men to pursue careers in some of the more traditional female fields? Like what, childcare? CREEPY! We all know men are just dying to rape little girls. No way I’d let a man babysit my little girl. I don’t care if he’s a father of five daughters! He probably raped them, too!
So where does that leave men you ask? What do you mean? Because their successes in math and science are in the way of female empowerment, and because they’re ill-skilled to work in areas of expertise typically dominated by women, where are they supposed to find a job? What do I look like, a career counseler? Why don’t they just kill themselves and get out of the way.
What’s that? What population in the United States has the highest rate of successful suicide attempts? Oh, men, of course. Men are four times more likely to die by suicide than women. It’s the seventh leading cause of death for all men; it isn’t even in the women’s top ten. After unintentional injuries, suicide is the leading cause of death in young white men aged 15-34, at a rate of between 14-16% of deaths for this population.
But that doesn’t matter, because we know men are overly aggressive anyway, so it’s only natural that they’d die an unnatural death. Since they’re more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than a woman is (56% vs 30%, respectively), of course they’re more likely to succeed. There’s nothing we can really do about that because it’s in the nature of the human male to be destructive. Well, unless we just out and out ban guns, but those silly bitter clingers won’t let us.
Now WOMEN – WOMEN are more likely to ATTEMPT suicide than men; three times more likely! That’s a bad thing!
(Yes, yes, there’s one successful female suicide for every three male suicides, but as noted above, there’s nothing we can do about men’s self-destructive behaviors. All those trips to the principal’s office should have clued you in! Focus on the WOMEN.)
The only reason women aren’t more successful in their suicide attempts is that they tend to use less catastrophic options. Women are much more likely to overdose or ingest poison (40%) to commit suicide; for men, that rate is 13%. If treated immediately, such self-wounding behaviors can be remedied and the woman can get counseling to prevent further self-harm.
And face it, women have a lot more reasons to commit suicide than men. Men have the eternal paternalistic hegemony to take care of them and make them feel good about themselves. Look at all the reasons that a woman would have to commit suicide that a man wouldn’t: unintentional pregnancy; sexual molestation; rape; “mean girl” bullying; poor self image. The list just goes on and on.
Oh, sure, boys and men can suffer under similar negative stimuli, but they’re boys so they’re tough. They can always fight back, unlike weak girls and women who are constantly under threat of assault from the aggressive men around them. And men can’t get pregnant, so that doesn’t count. And no, it doesn’t matter if they commit suicide because they’re devastated that their girlfriend got an abortion. They’re just MEN. If they really need help they can go talk to a shrink or something.
Eh? What if they’re being abused themselves? They’re probably being abused by a man, so that’s not my problem. Yes yes, I know that domestic violence shelters are almost solely used for women and men aren’t allowed in them. That’s because men are scary! Maybe we should set up some kind of safe house system for abused men and boys, too? Are you nuts? Men would never show up to use them! Because they’re too humiliated by their inability to protect themselves you say, which undermines their masculinity and cuts to the very core of what it means to be a man?
Then they can just suck it up and deal. They’ve been raping and abusing women for centuries. Payback’s a b!tch.
Where was I? Oh, right. The naturally destructive nature of the male population and why it’s useless to try and help them. Did you know that the leading cause of death for young black men between the ages of 15-34 is homicide? (It’s the 4th leading cause of death for black men overall.) The rate of death by homicide in the 15-34 age group is 30-53%, with the highest rate of death by homicide in the 15-19 age range (53%). The next leading cause of death in the 15-34 black male population is unintentional injuries, at a whopping… 20%.
But young black men are all gang members, right? So who cares if they kill themselves off. Not like they’d be around at home anyway to be daddies to their broods of children from various babymamas. They always run off to deal drugs or rape women instead of being good fathers. Might as well be dead, amiright? There’s not a chance that the ghastly rate of single motherhood in the black community could have ANYTHING to do with the fact that young black men die in droves via homicide. Nope, no chance. None. And they’re all a bunch of illiterate dropouts anyway, so good riddance.
Oh, and don’t get me STARTED on the hispanics! Sheesh! If they aren’t killing each other (homicide rate for young hispanic men aged 15-34: 18-28%, the second leading cause of death in this age group, with the highest rate in the 15-19 range), then they’re killing themselves (suicide rate for young hispanic men aged 15-34: from 9-11%, the third leading cause of death in this age group).
Whatever. They’re all just illegal immigrant chicanos, right? Chauvinist pigs the lot of them, and like as not members of some brutal Mexican drug cartel. Whatever.
Native American men? They die by suicide at a rate of 15-23% in the 15-34 age range. But they’re just indians, so who cares. They’re like, what? A drop in the bucket of the American population? If they haven’t been out there raping white women, complaining about the dumping of nuclear waste, or opening casinos then they really don’t show up on our national radar, so we can safely ignore them.
Oh, yeah! Don’t forget to sign up for the next 5K Walk for Breast Cancer Research! We need to raise lots of money to focus on this one cancer. It’s really important. What’s that you say? Where are the 5K’s for testicular cancer? Prostate cancer? Well if men want money for those things, they can create their own damn walk. No, I don’t care that men are less likely to seek medical attention than women, and I really don’t care that they’re less comfortable discussing their health openly with health care professionals. Frankly if they’re that stupid we might as well just let them die. They can go have their nice little heart attacks while women take care of themselves.
Speaking of which, did you know fatal heart attacks are on the rise in women? They are! It’s a tragedy! We must throw gobs of money at the problem to teach women to eat healthier and get more exercise! Yeah heart disease is still a bigger risk in men, but again, if men are too stupid to go to the doctor, they might as well just die.
Now leave me alone, because I have to go organize a rally for Women’s Reproductive Rights.
Hmm? What about a man’s reproductive rights?
*laughing hysterically!*
You’re kidding, right?
Have enjoyed all your posts. Outstanding.
Thank you, dcanner! I tend to ramble, but one just has to get this stuff off one’s chest.
You just described my entire expeience of growing up.
(none of this is directed at you, BTW – yours was an excellent post.)
Minus all the girls in school who thought it was just fine to hit me, or being jumped by 8 people while a freakin’ TEACHER restrained me so they could, or my sister threatening me with a fire poker – But when I picked up an object to defend myself, social services came after ME. The school suspended ME. (Over and over again) The district demanded the person medicated was ME.
My parents? Yeah, no help there. Latch-key kid who got his ass kicked by his father daily anyway. My jaw’s permenantly dislocated from one of his loving corrections. Shall we add in the sexual abuse (Men and women on that one.)
Yeah all those loving, caring, perceptive women were sooooo clued in to a child who was in obvious pain and suffering. And what did they do? Added to it.
Those drugs have destroyed the only thing I could do well which was create. My only escape. Music was my great love. Turns out I have Aspergers. On top of all the other bullshit. I had synethesia which influenced my art, but it’s been burned out.
Can’t hold a job. Have anxiety attacks so severe I twitch and seize. My last job was an entire office of women with me as the lone male. Trying to seek help for lyme’s and all the damage caused from a lifetime of BS they decided it was their time to play with the poor little mouse in the corner. All those bitter divorces and morbildy obese backstabbers, those shrewish crazy nutjobs that should never be allowed near a shoelace, much less a male. That entire job was a hate crime if you even subscribe to that nonsense.
So now I’m broken and a parasite. “Not living, just killing time.” I look normal, if not a little intimidating due to my size and how I carry myself. Always on the defensive, always waiting for the next hit. Always with a plan of attack and escape.
But I’m not. I’m a damned cripple. And I know exactly who to blame for it. Despite that, I don’t hate ladies. I will NEVER trust them, however.
My goal is to spay this movement so the next generation of boys never ever deals with what I did.
If I have a son, I’ll follow the good professors idea and necklace the first “official” to suggest my kid be put on medications.
I probably shouldn’t even post this, but I’m not going to be ashamed of what others have done to me. I’m going to keep trying to fix it.
So sorry for the life you’ve had to live. I admire your gumption and desire to still make things right. I hope you’re not offended if I pray for you to have healing and peace.
Not at all, I’m grateful. Thank you.
The church was the one place that I ever felt safe growing up. I recently found one around here and it’s helped me tremendously.
You should be posting this, you are one of the good guys. MWR’s post had information on suicide stats, and I think I have a little insight on that.
As a little girl in elementary school, I had trouble with depression. Even now, I occassionally hit a jag of depression, but I know how to just wait it out. Over the years, I learned not to trust my emotions, and to always give myself time to decide my true feelings and beliefs.
I think that women’s emotions fluctuate a lot more than men’s, but that does not mean that men are not emotional. On the contrary, in my observation, men’s emotions are actually stronger than women’s, without the fluctuation. So, when men experience a sudden drop in their mood, they are unfamiliar with it. This is the point of danger with men and suicide. We women are already used to this roller coaster.
My best advice? If you become depressed, make a deal with yourself. Give yourself four months to feel better. In my experience, I always felt better before the four months were up.
Bless you, PHM. You’ve lived what sounds like a truly awful, harrowing life with little in the way of comfort. Trust me when I say that the fact you made it threw all that and are still here to talk about it is a testament to your fortitude. Hard as it may be, I hope and pray that you’ll find something or someone to make you happy and soothe your soul.
Thank you all. I just wanted to let people know that this stuff has absolute concrete consequences.
This left-wing theme of a “Republican War Against Women” goes back about 15 years.
It actually started with a book of that title, written in 1996 by Tanya Melich–a former Republican herself!
http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Against-Women-Insiders/dp/0553378163
[Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with either Amazon.com or this author]
In the 1970s and 1980s, Tanya Melich had been part of a group of pro-choice Republicans. They tried to get the GOP to back the Equal Rights Amendment and to soften its stance on abortion. They failed; and in fact the GOP became more socially conservative over the years.
Ms. Melich walked out of the GOP and wrote this book. By “a war against women,” she meant specifically opposition to abortion rights.
And that’s still what the Dems mean today. When they say “A War Against Women,” they really mean “A War Against Abortion Rights”, just as Ms. Melich meant in 1996.
I’m always amused by the pictures lefties paint of Republicans wanting to leave women bloody and dying on the hospital floor instead of providing medical care for them (that medical care presumably having to do with an abortion). As if this is something that happens every day. As if abortion is some kind of clean, sterile procedure itself with no after effects.
You try and point them towards the fine, friendly service of Kermit Gosnell — who really DID leave women bleeding and ignored, and who was perfectly fine with snipping the spinal cords of babies who survived the abortion process — and they tell you, “Oh, he was just an aberration. He was one person. If Republicans have their way and defund Planned Parenthood, women will die by the thousands!”
No logic. No sense. Nothing but blind demagoguery.
The whole “War on Women” trope is just another smokescreen thrown up by progressives to mask our massive deficit problem and the need to address entitlements in a grown-up manner. The “women’s movement” has proven itse;f to be anything but grown-up. Part of the program is that, thourhg some alchemestic process, they have been granted the exclusive right by the MSM to commetn on “reproductive rights”, abortion, gender and sexual relations in general. In short they have somehow been granted “official ownership” on all issues sexual.
Women (at least those in the professional women’s movement) constantly complain that they don’t receive enough “respect.” I always ask “How much do you need?” For all their claims of “toughness”, modern women break down and start hysterically whining (no other phrase fits) whenever some mean old (white, conservative) man says something that either disagrees with their agenda or isn’t sufficiently complimentary. Who the hell are these people to expect that everything that is said in public about them must be either cringingly servile or unabashedly laudatory?
The women’s movement has built itself on the concept of the “two-setting switch” which can only be either on or off. These women are either “Strong, independent-minded heroines bravely surmounting the many obstacles to their success put down by an obsolescent patriarchy” OR they are “Victims of oppression courageously speaking truth to power.” There is no third setting. To listen to their over-heated rhetoric you would think that they are the Sabine women about to be carried off into bondage by rapacious Romans.
One of the posters above correctly pointed out that Rush has been on the air a long time and this is his first (ungraciously received) apology. Why is it that Maher, Stewart, Olbermann, Matthews, and everyone at MSNBC can routinely smear opponents with the most odious and libelous language and almost never issue a peep of an apology?
“Why is it that Maher, Stewart, Olbermann, Matthews, and everyone at MSNBC can routinely smear opponents with the most odious and libelous language and almost never issue a peep of an apology?”
Because that’s good hate speech, hate speech Lefty women like, when Sarah Palin or her daughter or Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin is the target.
(Of course, the pettiness of character of the guys you mention cannot be underestimated, so there’s that element, too.)
The head of NOW was enjoying the brouhaha surrounding Limbaugh’s remarks, really getting off on the controversy, the perceived difficulty it cause him.
She was not the least bit offended, just using the situation for all it was worth to vilify the opposition.
I’d conduct a war on the women Barack has appointed to cabinet positions, like…
Lisa “I know nothing about science but love any rule Barack dreams up” Jackson at EPA, Kathleen “cough into your sleeve” Sebelius at HHS, Janet “feel up old ladies” Napolitano, Hilda “Hispanic bias is my middle name” Solis at Labor, Hillary, appointed in the spirit of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” Clinton, who denigrated Barack when they were both running for the nomination…
And the Chicago slumlord Valerie Jarrett who goes everywhere with Barack these days.
It’s said that Susan Rice (“the UN”), Samantha Power and Hillary actually convinced Barack to do the Libya thing in the name of “using US power to effect social justice.”
Chickified foreign policy.
yeah. what you said.
except, can we call it “bone-headed stupid beyond belief” foreign policy, instead of “chick” foreign policy? B/c the moms I know are okay with “blow them up over there, instead of over here” and voted for Bush.
And then are saying “hey, why are all the countries in the world trying to borrow our military? It’s like the kid next door asking to borrow your Wii: they promise to borrow it, use it responsibly, not break it, and bring it back quickly- and they never do.” which is why you can’t bring your legos to school, or loan out your favorite dress, or promise to bring some other kid on our family vacation.
I can’t help it that Samantha Powers sounds smart, without having any clue about military ethics. But I can call her an ignorant foreign policy fake. I can make jokes about how von Clausewitz and Bismarck would beat her at poker, bridge and lawn tennis. and how she might want to bone up on how world war 1 started.
The irony in this war on men is that modern, self described liberated upper class women are as obsessed with marriage as the most desperate female character in a Jane Austen novel. It is even more ironic that once such a creature makes that match wit her high status male the odds are it will last. There is also a good chance that she will decide to stop working because her family won’t need the second income and she finds more contentment as a mother.
In the meantime we have an entire generation of lower status men who have decided the rules are stacked against them and who have abdicated their roles as husbands, fathers and breadwinners.
Well done feminists!
I suspect most people still privately think any woman (or man) who demands anyone—other than her (his) lover—pay for the equipment or the consequences of her (his) sex life is a s–t. So Limbaugh’s comments about Fluke’s so called “reproductive rights” aren’t evidence of a war on women or men.
There is no war on women. As long as a woman doesn’t defend traditional, faith based values, no pundits will call her a “slut for the right” or the Tword or Cword. They won’t talk about imagining her with a man’s testicles in her mouth or about wanting to hate f–k her. They won’t say hate filled, degrading things about her defenseless child.
There is an attack on conservative women. It’s an important part of the left’s war on traditional manhood.
I am a woman and I believe the war is being waged against -
Anyone who serves the Kingdom Of God above government.
Anyone who believes in private property.
Anyone who believes that it is desirable for as many people as possible to own their means of earning a living.
Anyone who desires less bureaucracy and regulation at every level of government.
Anyone who believes that innovation is desirable, and does not come from a governmental committee.
The rest of it is smoke.
It seems to me that there is a full scale war against everybody. It seems to be a divide and conquer strategy. Each segment of mankind is concentrated on their own fears. The brotherhood of man, which includes women, is at war with itself. And it has to be by design. The post above, by Really, speaks volumes.
Actually, we men are at least partially to blame for this. We tolerated the bullying out of some false sense of some unearned guilt (at least most of us), and then it took root. Big mistake.
It is intellectually dishonest to not admit there has been a war on white males since the 70s; in popular culture, in corporate business, in education, in divorce courts, in legal courts, and society at large. The cure has been taken to the extreme, and I blame white males for tolerating it. Frankly, most of you males in corporate America are gutless in facilitating the proper correction; too scared for your job; too scared because some woman might call you misogynist; too scared your reputation would be damaged and you might not get that promotion, etc…
Anybody that has worked in any large corporation has met these shrews – they are the sorriest, most despicable people on earth. Guarantee Sandra Fluke would have made the classic HR misandrist.
Now, before you feminists accuse me of being a pig, understand my four favorite people in the world are in this order: my wife, my two daughters, my mom. My wife has always made more than I have, my two daughters are both smarter than I am – both of whom I would go to the gates of hell for, my wife is my everything including best friend, and I am forever grateful for my loving, sweet mother. But my friends are mostly male, and I am telling you man hating females for the sake of you, if my little world is any representation, you’re treading on thin ice and too dumb to know it.
I would remind these man hating feminists not to push it too far because, if you have any sense of perception at all, you’re getting a sense of the blowback. Because eventually white males are going to get to the point of saturation of being your target of scorn and ridicule, and nature has pretty much clearly dictated when the war finally breaks, the loser(s) will most definitely be you. One way, or another.
Men aren’t blameless. In the late 60′s, their attitude toward women was: You have the pill now, so stop demanding marriage. But it gets us nowhere now to point fingers at each other. And I certainly pray (for my daughter’s sake as much as my son’s) you’re right about the current crop of feminist hags eventually losing.
To that end, there’s a country wide rally for religious liberty at 12 noon on Friday, March 23. Google “Stand Up For Religious Liberty”. I hope we all make an effort to get to a rally near us.
Re comment # 26
I agree with you about what the war is actually being waged against.
I can’t help but suspect that even feminists like to keep one dainty foot in their “place.” Why would anyone want to give up an advantage?
“As women have entered positions of power, equaled men in earnings, and outstripped men in education, men have begun to fight back against this ongoing assault.”
I don’t see that women obtaining an education or applying successfully for jobs can be viewed an “assault” on men – unless one is remarkably insecure. It may qualify as competition, but in that respect it is more closely analagous to athletes racing in parallel lanes than prizefighters slogging it out in the ring. The job market is not a zero-sum game. In a rational society, one competitor’s gain need not be another’s loss. As to the limits or scope of fair play, by all means use what you would do to a man as your testing stone. Would you, er,comment on a male colleague’s derriere, Mr Klavan?
As for the claim that a misogynist is “the flip side of a feminist,” it is surprising that a man who makes his living through the use of words should present such a spurious assertion. The most charitable interpretation of such ignorence is that you still hold in your head the narrow image of the ultra-militant “feminist” of the nineteen seventies and cannot see the broader definition beyond that. To say that anyone who campaigns for women’s equality before the law or in the workplace is motivated by hatred of men is like accusing Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King of being anti-white.
zzzzzz. The always effervescent analogy of race from the metrosexual male, believing it will move him from beta to alpha amongst the shrews. Give it up.
Undoubtedly, an “author” like you has never worked in a corporation where it the duty of each newly hired male to be immediately indoctrinated upon entering into the “Sexual Harassment 101″ classes, generally taught by uber misandrists with bad hair cuts.
Speaking of spurious, your analogy was a really bad one. So I’ll add my own. The corporate version of “feminist” is much like the radical version of “Muslim.”
You create a problem where none exists, and then claim victimization from the problem you created to begin with.
“The always effervescent analogy of race from the metrosexual male, believing it will move him from beta to alpha amongst the shrews. Give it up.”
You’ll have to do better than that. I use the analogy because it is so apropos.
I have worked in a corporation and I have even had to contend with female colleagues using their “charms” to gain an advantage. But such females were NOT feminists and didn’t pretend to be.
“The corporate version of “feminist” is much like the radical version of ‘Muslim.’ ”
Maybe in America. I guess corporations bring out the worst in people.
Charm had nothing to do with it. Undoubtedly, you haven’t met the shrews and therefore aren’t qualified to speak about corporations and rampant feminist browbeating that takes place. Liberal, limp wristed journalistic environments were hardly to what I was referring
And yes, your analogy was not only specious, it was nauseating.
” Liberal, limp wristed journalistic environments were hardly to what I was referring”
And here I was thinking that jumping to conclusions and speaking from a position of ignorance were FEMALE vices
(Oh well, I suppose even I’m guilty then.)
The place I was worked at the time was actually a specialist computer software and peripheral company.
“you haven’t met the shrews and therefore aren’t qualified to speak”
Methinks the pot…
Sounds very much like the 1970′s stereotype to which I alluded. Are you sure you’re not extrapolating from your own personal unfortunate experiences?
“…if my little world is any representation…”
As I thought, you ARE extrapolating. Learning from experience is fine, but your little world isn’t necessarily a microcosm of THE world and more than mine is.
Andrew, great column. A mutual admirer of your column actually wrote something similar this weekend and has been deluged with frothing feminist hatred. Sarah Hoyt is a writer of romance, mystery and science fiction, and finally had enough of the hyperbole in the “War on Womyn.” It has likely cost her about 1/3 of her readership, but Andrew, Sarah and the rest of us *must* take a stand to combat the creeping erosion of our culture and our liberties.
Sarah’s comments are here:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2012/03/18/war-is-hell/
Anyone interested, please take a look and weigh in.
(and no, I’m not related to her, just a fan and a friend, as well as a fan of Andrew – it’s just that in so many ways, they are saying the same thing – we need to get the word out!
I am all for women having access to make any career come true, with equal pay and everything else. But I remember when I was in the military and I was an aircraft maintenance person. The day came when women were allowed to become “mechanics”. I had no problem with that, but when I was told that the women were restricted to how much weight they were allowed to lift, I became a little upset. The women wer not allowed to lift their tool boxes, men had to do it for them. They weren’t allowed to handle anything over a certain weight. The women didn’t set these limits, but the limits were put in place to prevent physical harm. I know women are not frail or un-able to many tasks. This so-called “war on women” is just plain silly. Competition is part of life, the strong survive. Any man who feels inadequate to compete with a woman is a weak man, and knows it. “Man Up” and be a man.
Andrew Klavan has it right on. I warned my two boys years ago that there was a discriminatory attack on white males going on the the politically correct world, and if they were going to address it effectively, it should not be as “victim.” Rather, they needed to recognize the hypocritical b@ll sh&t being served up, and speak up.
Fortunately, neither has given up competing on merit. Sadly, they are unmistakenly influenced by the indoctrinating narrative they are constitutively served in the media, by their educators, and by their own friends who have become devoted to the notion of handing advantage to folks for any reason other than merit.
Character, not Color.
Substance, not Sex.
Liberty, not Labels.
God, not Chaos.
Love, not Hate.
The end is always near.
all you have to be/do to know the ” war on women” is real, is to read all the comments here.
A well paid well edjucated woman manager, or company oresident does not feel it. I feel it, I’m 64, have half a BA and have read everything I can get my hands on my entire life. I make a home for my husband, and did for my chidren. I am looked down on, mocked, denegrated, you name it including date rape by a supposed ” friend” who was putting drugs in my diet coke.
Oh poor men, they have to pay alimony, and child support, well toot’s I paid alamony, why because my ex made 75% of his money as a NYC cab driver off the books so I had to keep him on my health insurance and ay him a third, yes a third of my salary, 23K at the time. He took vacations I got a second job.
NO not all men are scum, and some women sure are. Right wing politicians and there minions want to repeal roe vs waide, and make BC against the aw. Its not just about money, its about old white men wanting to control womens bodies. Men, Real men should be yelling about this long and loud instead of taking cheap potshots at women from the safty of the internet. the irony of this My Husband sent this article to me, does he want a frying pan up side the head, verbal, or what ???
Control womens bodies? The only thing we want to control what women do is their ability to steal our life and money. Or maybe allow us into the decision of terminating the children we would be on the hook for for the better part of two decades at least.
Any other argument is bulls***.
Your entire premise is annoyingly simple-minded for someone of your years.
Grow up.
Cite me one man who wants to deny women legal access to birth control.
Instead of complaining on the internet show some gumption. My grade school educated granny had a cast iron frying pan. She didn’t complain about life being unfair even though she was a widow with two daughters to support before Social Security. If her second husband got out of line she raised it in his face and threatened to conk him over the head with it.
One of my first mentors answered the question How do you get to be boss around here with three words. Act like one.
The reverse to that is How do you get treated as a victim your entire life? Whine like one.
Liz,
I’m 55. Up until my second marriage to a good hearted man with bad eyesight, I also made bad decisions regarding relationships. Here’s the thing : I think abortion at any stage is murder. But up until recently, I hoped things would one day change so that I would not be complicit in it. For instance, I hoped Planned Parenthood would one day be completely funded with voluntary donations. I thought people, who wanted no part of enabling abortion through their tax dollars, would one day have freedom of conscience regardless of Roe v. Wade. For a while now, but especially since March 16th, I’ve been wondering how I ever had such unrealistic hopes.
As for men controlling women’s bodies, you need to talk to a woman who succumbed to pressure, from the father of her unborn child, and had an abortion. Her sorrow, anger and/or guilt is often palpable, even many years later. (Nobody talks about what it does to a woman to violate her own nature. We teach her to deny to herself that she has one.) We should stop reflexively demonizing men who believe abortion is murder; and stop denying that some men who are fine with abortion are brutally selfish.
To answer the authors original question; No. There is a war on stupidity. It is a happy coincidence that the two seem fairly well linked.
There is a total war against men and boys everywhere and anywhere. It’s all fair game. American women are in for one hell of a rude awakening in the next few decades.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Ya’ll feeling any better yet? Got it resolved? I suppose it’s all settled now right?
There will be ‘equality’ amongst the sexes when you see women used as cannon fodder and coming home from wars with limbs blown off or PTSD.
People seem to be overlooking something which should be flagrantly obvious. At least half of the people who get aborted are females (or would have been). That is the real war on women.
No, Richard. 50/50 male/female abortion is not a war on ‘women’. It’s a war on ‘humanity’.
I recall an Hispanic woman news anchor in Chicago (the name escapes me) who, when fired, whined that it was only because she was an Hispanic woman. Of course, the only reason she was hired was because she was an Hispanic woman. Had she been a fat, bald, white guy she’d be the “camera person.”
If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
Speaking of what people call people, does anyone remember seeing old movies, or reading in old novels, evidence that in, say, 1930, men often called a woman “sister”? I think a man addressed a woman he didn’t know well this way to assert that he did not consider himself socially beneath her, and to convey that she was trying his patience , as in “Look, sister, I ain’t got all day.” But doesn’t the term also suggest a limit to the amount and type of hostile behavior the man is willing to show?
“(a misogynist being the flip side of a feminist)”
Yes, feminism = misandry = the hatred, demeaning, disrespecting and dismissal of men. And not just men but of small boys too.
The “War on Women”is a pseudo-conflict that is the latest strawman developed by Team Obama to promote civic unrest this election season. For example, as a Catholic woman, I am attending the “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” rally this Friday — one of 50 being held at noon across the county.
My Tea Party group has eyes/ears among our “opposition”, including the local Occupy group. It has come to our attention, that these groups are thinking to disrupt our event is some way — using the “War on Women” as their righteous shield. Since when does the desire to NOT PAY for another’s OPTIONAL medical items constitute “War”.
What should be most concerning to the Team Obama minions and trolls who may be reading the Professor — I am a Democratic woman, and I will be carpooling with other such women to the March 23rd rally. I don’t think this “War on Women” is going quite the way Obama’s brain trust has
Mutnodjmet,
So glad for your comment. I’m computer inept and couldn’t put up the link. Take care of yourself Friday ! As we all have heard :
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (or women) do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
Kudos to Ireland and Bristol Palin, Brickbats to the Corrupt MSM
Some events and people receive insufficient public plaudits for outstanding contributions to the progress of humanity or to exposing political hypocrisy. Other people receive either commendation for their degradation of American culture or scant notice of their foul commentary by the mainstream media.
Following are a few examples of under-reported events and individuals and a number that exemplify the remarkably uncivil and hate-filled atmosphere that permeates America’s left wing.
KUDOS TO:
IRELAND: In a stunning rebuke of the United Nations and evidence that The Land of Saints and Scholars hasn’t totally lost its soul, the government of the Republic of Ireland has refused to accede to U.N. pressure to violate Ireland’s constitution by legalizing the practice of murdering pre-born human babies.
According to National Right to Life News Today, “In rejecting the UN recommendations, Ireland stood by its sovereign right to make its own laws and uphold its constitutional protection for unborn children while assisting mothers during pregnancy and childbirth.”
In doing so, the Irish government has concurred with the Irish people who have repeatedly rejected legalizing abortion in various referenda, a decision never accorded the American people by our government.
BRISTOL PALIN: The eldest daughter of Sarah and Todd Palin has written a letter to President Barack Hussein Obama acquainting him with his hypocrisy and insensitivity toward women, his wife, and his daughters by not condemning Bill Maher for his repulsive comments about the Palins and women in general by not rejecting Maher’s million dollar gift to an Obama PAC.
In her respectful missive, the twenty-one year old Bristol admits her past mistakes in conceiving an out of wedlock child and attests she has found “forgiveness and redemption” in God, something Bill Maher will never find.
Ms. Palin cites Maher’s reference to her Down Syndrome brother saying, I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” She fails to mention Maher’s description of her mother as a “c*nt” and his other misogynistic comments and wonders why the president hasn’t called her to express his indignation and support yet has accepted Maher’s million.
(In a related story, the FLOTUS, Lady O, appeared on Letterman Monday and Dirty Dave obsequiously groveled before his “lovely” guest. There were no references to Maher or to Dirty Dave’s calling Sarah Palin slutty nor to his hilarious comment that Bristol’s underage sister engaged in sex with Alex Rodriquez out in left field at Yankee Stadium.)
BRICKBATS TO:
THE MSM
Brickbats should be tossed in the direction of Obama’s mainstream media which has successfully concealed our president’s radical past and radical agenda as well as condoning obscene and hateful remarks by Obama aficionados.
One recently-uncovered news item concerning the source of the mysterious funding that enabled a poor, semi-black kid from Hawaii to attend prestigious and expensive Harvard University has escaped notice by the MSM.
It turns out, as per the recollections of a humble public servant, a postman who delivered mail to the home of the parents of unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, Obama got to Harvard not on his good looks but thanks to the beneficence of Ayers’ Marxist parents, Tom and Mary Ayers, who thought Obama was a foreigner.
The parents virtually adopted the young Barry Obama and bankrolled Barry’s college expenses since the future president fit the Ayers’ hopes for a communist revolution in America.
The now-retired postman, Allen Hulton, recalls Mary Ayers enthusiastically praising Obama, whom she thought might be Kenyan, and remembers once meeting Obama outside the Ayers’ home. Out of the blue, he told Hulton he planned to become president.
To determine Mr. Hulton’s credibility, see the full story and a video of an interview with the letter carrier here.
For more than four years, the mainstream media have failed to do their job by reporting on Obama’s connections with any of the Ayers, with Bernardine Dohrn, or with any other revolutionary associates of the president.
The MSM has also fumbled the “slut ball” ever since Rush Limbaugh used the derogatory term to describe leftist activist, Sandra Fluke. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=17983.)
Berlet98,
Your post floored me. I was completely unaware of Irelands stand. Also, I hadn’t read B. Palin’s smart and brave letter.
Feminism is the idea that men and women are equals unless there is responsibility involved. Then men have to “man up” and give Snowflake her way or else be labeled as “misogynist.”
Andrew Klavan is correct. Next subject.
War on women?? I was reading Andrew’s article about the same time I was reading about yet another state legislature pushing a bill to require a woman seeking an abortion to first get an ultrasound procedure.
The usual rhetoric was presented as justification for the bill: “We want to make sure that women have access to all the medical knowledge that they need before making this important decision.” Meaning that women aren’t smart enough to make their own medical decisions; even after consulting with their families and their doctors. Since women don’t have this basic intelligence, big government must step in and make sure they know.
I think it will be interesting if women begin to get tired of the big government nanny-state trying to control their private lives; and just start telling these idiot politicians to “f***k off and get the hell out of my life.” Could become an interesting civil disobedience situation.
A woman can certainly be pressured into an abortion by , say, her family, or the biological father of her unborn child. (I personally know of two cases of the former, two cases of the latter. With all four of these women, the emotional damage of acting against their deepest desire was not evident immediately, very evident years later.) I would think the ultrasound procedure would give medical professionals a chance to observe the woman—to see where she seems to be coming from, so to speak, and–if she seems very conflicted, to offer her information about an alternative.
An unplanned pregnancy can cloud the thinking of anyone who has a stake in how the mother handles it. And an abortion is an irreversible decision.
By the way, the I doubt this ultrasound is anything more than annoying to any woman who is sure she wants the abortion more than her other — in her mind– miserable options. Should anyone else have an abortion?
“Tell idiot politicians to get the **** out of our life…”
This needs to be adopted by all members of American society.
To learn more about the war on men/women (in truth America) read “The Tinderbox How Multiculturalism Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service,” issued March 6, 2012. Simply key in the above title, Stairway Press, Christopher Burchfield. Now available from Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
“Is There a War On Women?”
Yup, and so far we’ve lost every battle, and the enemy is freely employing torture.
We should have surrendered eons ago.
The way I’ve put it for the last couple weeks, a way that I don’t recommend as it has garnered no friends, is, “Ladies, if you can’t stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.”
Oops.
I’m a bit confused about this so called “War on Women”.
It seems that when it was required of a man to open a door for a woman it was an act of submission and respect by the male. It seems that when a man was expected to lift a lady upon a carriage that it showed that he would be subservient and attentive to women. It seems to me that when a man went to war it was so that his wife, sisters and daughters would not have to do so.
It seems that these were gifts of sacrifice from the male to the female. It was expected of a man. A man, a real man, was required to suffer any indignity himself before he would allow a woman to.
But now, it is portrayed as if these acts were simply manifestations of condescension, of arrogance, of male sadism. That is what we are told by the modern feminists. Those acts are dismissed as mere ‘covers’ for male tyranny. Men did these things only as a surreptitious way of oppressing women – never as a real act of respect. That’s what we are told now. I wonder which version of this is true?
Male leadership and sacrifice is true. (But I think play boys denied, and misrepresented this truth in one way before malevolent crones misrepresented it in another. Once they’re both in Hell, I hope Hugh Hefner and Betty Friedan are forced to spend eternity locked together in the same windowless room. Oh well.)
How did we get to where we have, for instance, the kind of disasters that Christopher describes in “The Tinderbox…..”? (see comment 49) More importantly, what can average people do toward bringing about a restoration? We could start by standing up for our religious liberty tomorrow. (See comment 44.)
A war on men? Oh, boo hoo hoo! Poor widdle men!
Try being a woman for a few decades and see how you feel about it then.
There are so many lies, half-truths and obfuscations in your post and in the remarks of most of your commentors that I hardly know where to begin. I’ll start off my drawing your attention to the fact that women, on average, are still paid significantly less than their male counterparts for the same work. The law student example that gets some fold riled up smacks of class envy due to the fact that it is invariably mentioned that she attends a prestigous university with a high tuition. The fact that she needed birth control pills to treat a medical condition gets conveniently overlooked by Rush and his ilk. For all we know the student is like most law students and is not wading in hundred dollar bills. Why shouldn’t student health services pay for her medicine? Rush’s comments were every bit as evil and slanderous as the racial and sexual slurs against the Rutgers women’s basketball team that were made on the Don Imus show.
IMHO we are wasting our time arguing whether the war is against women or against men: It is a war against our civil rights and our Constitution. Do you like Homeland Security? Is it making you “feel safe” as the snivellers like to say? Do you like the fact that over 2 million US citizens are imprisoned right now, many for non-violent crimes? Do you like the fact that the government monitors our email and internet activity? Do you like living in an Orwellian society? If so, enjoy life inside the panopticon; it’s only going to get worse until we stop acting like children having a boys-against-5*3xgirls squabble and take back our country from the megapacs, Big Brother and Big Business.
Nice shaming language there. Got anything else in your bag of tricks?
Women making less than men is abunch of garbage. I grew up after all the changes were made and I’ve witnessed firsthand, women are given far more leeway, better understanding for time off and using their benefits, more leeway when emotional at work, allowed to commit violence and their pay is equal. It is illegal for it to be otherwise.
So stop the nonsense. We’re done coddling this idiocy. Is that why you’re so vitrolic? You see the gravy train ending?
As to the second half of your post, I absolutely agree. But you destroy your credibility by acting the fool in the beginning.
“The fact that she needed birth control pills to treat a medical condition gets conveniently overlooked by Rush and his ilk.”
Contrary to popular belief, Georgetown University already does cover birth control pills to treat medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy. Sandra Fluke’s testimony included a reference to that fact. She never said she needed birth control pills for a medical condition. What Fluke is advocating is that Georgetown cover birth control pills for any reason whatsoever – i.e., to supplement optional, leisurely sexual activity.
“Why shouldn’t student health services pay for her medicine?”
Because it is not the purpose of insurance to cover optional, leisurely expenses.
Good read on this topic..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html
And to the dumbing down of men, my Mom has been saying that for years, sitcoms, books, children’s books(Berenstein Bears), etc. Food for thought.
YES. Exactly.
Heidi, Thank you so much. This Robin of Berkeley puts her finger right on it.
HEY EVERYONE ! CLICK ON THE LINK AT COMMENT 54. Read that article.
Ha. The feminists are getting social equality and finding out it doesn’t exactly taste good.
Many of my friends are liberals. With some prodding from me, most were able to agree that Bill Maher was as worthy of an irate letter as Rush was, and one friend even wrote one to Mr. Maher.
But Rush’s ill-spoken words and whether of not insurance covers the pill, are of far less concern to me than the 135 and counting pieces of legislation that are being submitted at a state level. The idea that one could be arrested for refusing a life-threatening c-section, be forced to carry a rape child, or a dead or dying fetus to term is very frightening. Women should not loose their civil rights to due process of law, informed consent, bodily integrity, liberty and life because they are pregnant. This is the real war on women.
I am pleased that Romney has chosen not to sign the personhood pledge. This gives me confidence that he is prepared to respect the separation of church and state.
This “I am the victim” mindset is what is going on here. There is no war on women, women have been given elite status for a very long time. Mostly we (I am a woman) have been unhappy that it is not enough.
The way that I see it men have taken the moral high ground for a long time, being gentlemen in spite of the_________(what ever derogatory female word you want to put in there)attitudes, otherwise we would not have gotten here. Women didn’t realize that they had it so good, being mothers and wives was the best. Who else could change the future by teaching their children their values. You know “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world”. But that wasn’t good enough. And women gave up all that power just to have some public recognition, staying home wasn’t good enough, lovingly influencing your husband wasn’t good enough. stomping on men on the way to the top is just not good enough. getting rid of men won’t be good enough either, because women are not NEVER going to be happy.