Karl Marx’s Bearded Ladies
Used to be you needed to go to the traveling carnival for a good old-fashioned freak show. What with Lobster Boy, the Bearded Lady, and the occasional fire-eater or sword-swallower, you were guaranteed an evening of ewws and agghhs. Nowadays you don’t have to wait for the carnies to come to town. You just need to read the latest dispatches from today’s Left, particularly the world of modern feminism.
Case in point: Pennsylvania state Rep. Babette Josephs, who likened pro-life women to “men with breasts” because of their support for a pro-life bill. Objecting to the proposed law to require women seeking abortions to first get an ultrasound, Josephs said,
I do not understand how a woman in this Legislature can say to herself: “I’m not capable of making my own health decisions … but I can get elected and make them for somebody else.” What is wrong with these women? … Are they women? Or are they men with breasts?
The multiple unquestioned assumptions behind this statement make it difficult to know where to begin, but let’s start with the biggest one: all women as women have the same goals and aspirations. All women as women think alike. There can be no deviation. If a woman expresses an opinion that differs from what women “should” think, she cannot be a woman. She must be a man, albeit with breasts. Or a bearded lady, such is the freakiness of her position.
This is nothing more than warmed-over Marxism. Everyone is a member of a class, whether she realizes it or not, and each class has its own interests. While Marx was satisfied with only two classes, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, today’s Leftism sees multiple “communities”—no one wants to use the word class anymore—where people are pigeonholed according to their economic strata, race, gender, sexual preference, you name it. The categories are as mutable as a ball of Silly Putty. (I’m a proud member of the Caucaso-American of Uncertain Northern European Heritage But There’s Probably Some Danish In There Somewhere Community. My wife is a member of the Caucaso-Britannic With A Dash of Irish Thrown In Community.)
If only you’d picked some example other than abortion. And this sentence isn’t entirely logical:
“This crazy talk of preferring babies and motherhood cannot be something a real woman would think.”
Actually there are many pro-choice mothers.
You mean pro-baby killing mothers. Yeah, pro choice if murder be a choice.
You are the one with faulty logic. Apparently you missed the word: “preferring”. A woman can be a mother but prefer to not be one. Your conclusion is non sequitur.
“She is seemingly mystified that any woman could be against abortion on demand. Don’t they know that abortion is a woman’s issue on which all women should think the same? Don’t they know that only women can talk about women’s “health care”? This crazy talk of preferring babies and motherhood cannot be something a real woman would think. Only a man can think this way.”
It seems so strange that liberals scream that they represent the party of choice, yet when women do NOT choose to be like them then there simply must be something mentally wrong with them. Liberals are nothing but a bunch of bullies, just like the Marxists were and still are. They represent the complete opposite of freedom, because it’s either their way or the highway. It goes well beyond hypocrisy with these people. They would be willing to drag a whole nation down into the mud rather than allow other people to have their say, let alone do what they want.
And any woman that would have the temerity to opt to stay at home with her kids rather than work in corporate America is obviously either a slacker or a traiter to all of the feminist views these Marxists demanded since the 1960s. And should any woman decide that a child should live rather than be aborted, well then they, too, must be mental deficients or under some “spell” from a midwestern male. How little these arrogant marxist women think of other women. Who knew that, after all these years, a woman’s primary obstacle to leading a truly free lifestyle was and still is other women?
I don’t even attempt to engage people like that in debate. My (housewife/mother of eight/math degree) responses to people like that are along the lines of: “I have bad news for you. All eight of them are pro-life conservatives.” or “DH and I have an obligation to the gene pool” and when she (almost always a she) responds that SHE only has zero or one, I thank her for making our job a little easier. Or “We’re making a desperate attempt to save Social Security”, “There are two kinds of contraceptives: the stuff that doesn’t work and the stuff that’s really bad for you”. My favorite?
“You’re being intolerant of my alternative lifestyle”
Well, this is a bit dark.. but if there is a silver lining in killing babies in the womb. It is one of ideological Darwinism. Liberals/progressives offing their own spawn.
It’s sometimes called the “Roe Effect” where liberals are having fewer children, partly through abortion and partly through contraception while conservatives generally have larger families. This may be why liberals are so intent on controlling education and mass media. They aren’t having many children of their own so their survival as a political class depends on converting the children of conservatives.
That’s something else I throw back at them. Think of it: almost all Americans agree that there are TOO MANY liberals in this country. We’d like for them to change their minds, but they’d rather annihilate their lines through same-sex marriage, ESCR, contraceptives EVERYWHERE, abortion, euthanasia. I’m as pro-life as all get-out, but if liberals insist on killing themselves off, I only have so much time, energy and power to keep them from doing so (and because I’m not a very good Catholic, I only have so much interest in “saving the baby liberals”). I mean, who wishes Bill Maher would reproduce? Elena Kagan? Janet Reno? I know I’m not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief when then-Senator Obama admitted that if his daughter got pregnant, he wouldn’t want to “punish” America with another Obama.
Through this lens, the ACORN scandal came about because their children are mostly dead so cheating is the only way they can get new voters (my teens and most of their friends are Ronulans). It’s kind of pathetic, really.
“You’re being intolerant of my alternative lifestyle”
I /like/ that one.
Yeah, I especially enjoy the way her jaw audibly snaps shut and then she usually shoots eye daggers.
It’s fun to throw their own rhetoric back at them to expose their hypocricy, isn’t it? I’m a stereotype bashing conservative who drives a Prius (hey, I like getting 50 MPG, especially with today’s gas prices!). I’m looking for a “Drill Baby Drill” bumper sticker to put on it just to watch liberals’ heads explode.
I’m afraid you’re right. After all these years, it IS women baiting, taunting and hassling other women over their own personal choices. I’m so depressed & dispirited I can’t begin to say.
I was right there for “women’s lib”, but only in the sense that I just wanted women to have the opportunity & choice to live as they wished, WHATEVER THAT HAPPENED TO BE, with no artificial, created barriers. You wanna work outside the home for $$? Go for it! You wanna stay home & homeschool your 2, 4, 8 kidlets? Cool! (btw, darn near all women are “working” women!) I’ve never been a man-hating female, and am sure things have now gone waaaay too far. I don’t advocate putting ANYONE down, or kicking them while down either. Why then do in partic. lib/Dem women see any alleged defection from their skinny, straight path as making those who disagree less than women? Talk about so narrow-minded they could kneel down and look thru a keyhole with BOTH eyes …
Why I’m at where I am: When my husband’s parents divorced in 1974 his mom couldn’t even open a bank acct. for herself w/o a man’s co-signature; that was b.s. Around the same time, my folks were ranchers/farmers; when dad had a separated pelvis from being bucked off a horse (who then landed on him) and was in the hospital for a month, one of the notes came due at the bank. Although my mom had signed along w/dad for the initial amount, they would not let her sign to extend the note for a month alone; that too was b.s. These kinds of things have been corrected, as they should be.
My own hobby horse in this battle (as it’s STILL shaped up to be) is this: what ever happened to the old slogan, “If it’s happening to one of my sisters, it’s happening to me!”? These same lib/Dem women have NOTHING to say about the oppression & cruelty practiced on women in (ahem) certain countries. They allow esp. physical disfiguration & outright killing to continue in the name of “cultural diversity” with nary a peep. As if there’s any moral relativity! Makes me sick, and depressed. I’m tired of fighting this same battle over and over and OVER. I realize this is a conflict of visions, but damn — can’t we just leave people alone?! No woman speaks for all women; no group of women speaks for all women. We’re all different and entitled to be so. If I’m not mistaken that’s what America’s supposed to be all about.
Consider the pioneer women that settled the continent.
The ones who’s men died and they carried on with their conestoga wagons and the kids.
The ones who defended their small stakes from marauding and raping Indians when their men went to war, then worse, marauding and raping Union soldiers.
Were they Liberals or Conservatives?
What would they think of us now?
The Dishonorable Miss Josephs is speaking collectivism. Ultimately, all collectivisms reduce to a single commandment: subordinate your judgement and your priorities to the will of the group, however the group may be defined.
Then, of course, the power-monger merely needs to be viewed as the authoritative spokesman for the group. Miss Josephs might not realize that she’s espousing a collectivist doctrine…but being a Democrat, and an office-holder, I’d say the odds tilt in the other direction.
I’m picturing Josephs staggering out into the street:
“It’s TRAPS! Conservative women is traps!”
Just since Roe v. Wade, wordwide Abortion has killed 151 more female babies than men and the overall profits from this genocide overwhelmingly went in the pockets of male doctors who profit from the blood letting. Obviously, like the slim majority of the justices on the Roe v. Wade panel, the proponents and profiteers of abortion on demand are the men who, as a result, get sex on demand. Only a man with breasts could be female and support abortion on demand which as far as I can see is a holocaust for women, mortally for the female children, psychologically and morally for the female mothers who have to undergo the procedure. I thought the female objective of abortion was so women could pursue guiltless sex which traditionally has been the immoral stomping ground mostly of men. So the men with breasts are obviously the female supporters of abortion. Who could possibly argue with that with any believability? Lies always come back to bite the liars in the appropriate physiological feature from which the lies first emanated. (Partisan full disclosure: Yes, I am male so consider the source, the same as when reaading the statements of Josephs).
I’m guessing that your “abortion has killed 151 more women than men” is a typo? I’m very interested in the actual number, please, because we all know it’s a lot more than that.
I think the word “million” was supposed to be after 151. It wouldn’t surprise me, since there are over 40 million abortions annually throughout the world.
That makes more sense. You’re probably right.
Right. A 151 million missing women. Killed in the womb or shortly after I must assume. Those women who were killed I am sure are all in favor of the Marxist view that they should have been killed because women, of course, are supposed to think that way. But what if the mothers who killed them were brow beaten into it because pater wanted a son? Hmmm! Probably not alot of women are brow beaten into abortions but, yes, I am believing it could happen, maybe by male doctors who misread the tests or were being overly cautious. Not all anti life motives come from women exclusively.
While perusing a “Project Rachel”-type website a few years back, I read a survey of the women who went to the site for post-abortive healing. The most common reason given for having an abortion was: “I didn’t think I had a choice”. Obviously, given the demographic of the respondents, you can’t extrapolate to the general population of post-abortive women but it does mean that a large number of women consider themselves to have been coerced in some way into having an abortion.
It’s odd that this editorial failed to address the biggest leftist fiction. They cast this issue as being solely about women’s health (actually, Roe v. Wade was about privacy). The other side of this issue is the right of a fetus to live. To forget this is to allow leftists to dictate the terms of the conservation.
The Left shifts their “reasoning” according to what polls well. If privacy is the hot button, they’ll contort their message to resonate accordingly. If “women’s health” is the popular theme, they’ll spin to that tune. Operating by the great anti-ethic — the end justifies the means — the Left has no moral restraint whatsoever. It’s whatever works, and it is always set up to function as a funhouse social mirror. If you listen closely to their manufactured echoes, you will hear things that were added, or deleted from, the original sounds they mimicked.
In their warped world view, fetuses have no rights, period. How could they acknowledge the right to life of a fetus when they don’t believe individual adults have any rights, including to life? The only “rights” the Left considers valid are those of the groups that they have culled from society and turned into victims. Those “rights” are merely a means to leverage votes, gain power, and keep their constituency isolated from other people.
Collective thinking reduces babies to “globs of cells”. Collectivists won’t openly say it, but all individuals are cells of the collective, as expendable and replaceable as the tail of a lizard. If they have to eliminate someone, presumably for failure to adhere to the orthodoxy, they see it as cutting off the tail to save the cold-blooded lizard. There are always new “cells” to replace the lost member.
Thank you for stepping up to the plate and echoing Ann Coulture’s message of leftists being Godless; it is true in our society today and I feel that is where we defeat these vermin in November-the churches. How can anyone who claims to even remotely follow the teachings of Christ support these immoral, deceitful, obscene people? I know that there are the “reverends” wright-sharpton-jackson out there (and we wonder why the black community is in such terrible shape as a whole)and the “father” flager’s in the world, but they are all so obviously hypocritical and such false messengers. This is much more than a political fight between two parties ladies and gentlemen, this is a battle for the soul of our great nation. Be on the side of God and stand up against tyranny….I’ll stand there with you.
If all women thought one way, then men would have figured them out by now.
ROTFLMAO.
Aaaaaa-MAN, Bro.
Read up on Antonio Gramschi.
Indeed. This passage:
“This is nothing more than warmed-over Marxism. Everyone is a member of a class, whether she realizes it or not, and each class has its own interests. While Marx was satisfied with only two classes, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, today’s Leftism sees multiple “communities”—no one wants to use the word class anymore—where people are pigeonholed according to their economic strata, race, gender, sexual preference, you name it.”
That latter idea of multiple “communities” or minorities comes directly from Gramsci, who fathered the concept of “Cultural Hegemony”. All those various minorities and supposedly subordinate groups as defined above (i.e. defined by their ethnicity or religion or gender or sexual orientation or socio-economic status) are supposed to join forces to topple the current hegemonic or dominant group (e.g. in the US white-Christian-male-capitalists) and replace it with an “alternative hegemony”. That’s why many leftists ally with Islamists, in spite of them being diametrically opposed to one another on most ideological issues, but they view them as one of the subaltern groups (another term coined by Gramsci), both on a local level (versus the white-Christian-male-capitalist hegemony) and a global level (versus the Western/American global hegemony).
Gramsci also created the blueprint for a slow, gradual socialist revolution by gradually taking over popular culture, the media, the education system, and infiltrating social, political and even religious organizations.
For anyone wanting a clear insight into today’s Western culture Antonio Gramsci is a good place to start.
It’s the nature of “progressive” advocacy groups to eventually take a proprietary atttitude toward those they are “helping.” Not to put too fine a point on it but white liberals and civil rights “activists” frequently act like they own (no other word fits) the black population of the U.S. You can see this whenever some black journalist, politician or academic wanders “off of the idealogical reservation.” (Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell etc.) These people are regarded not merely as wrong but rather as your typical southern plantation owner must have viewed slave unrest in the 1850′s.
The same is true with women. The triumph of feminism (and it’s male allies) has created a new paradigm and the feminists are in charge. This paradigm is ust as iron-clad and inflexible as the old. (Idealogues tend to be that way.) There is only one “right” way to be a woman and this is to swallow the whole reproductive rights agenda without question. Women who stop short of this are not “authentic” women and therefore have no right to comment on these issues. (Hence the “men with breasts” crack.)
I’ve always been surprised that the Left isn’t more aware of their own tactics but they aren’t the most perceptive group of people. Besides, like most who profess to be continually “compassionate”, they don’t seem to like people very much.
Good point, but I’m not sure the left lacks awareness. Everything they do is to promote their agenda against the evil right. Manipulation, subterfuge, and lying are perfectly acceptable tactics. Hayek said in “The Road to Serfdom” that to socialists, information and science should serve the political agenda. To critical theorists, some forms of speech should be banned because they convey the deepseated biases inherent in our culture. People of principle may see the hypocrisy, but to leftists, “hypocrisy” happens when one of their gambits fails; they shrug and move on to creating more distortions and lies.
Very well stated! The events of the past few years amply demonstrates the willingness of the Left to manipulate every possible event or story in the service of their agenda. I always argue (tactfully but firmly) that the greatest danger to freedom of speech and freedom of expression comes from the Left. When you have convinced yourself (as our progressive friends have done) that everything you do and are is “virtuous” then it is a short jump to limiting the freedom of others in the name of that virtue. (For their own good of course.) Edmund Burke saw that over two hundred years ago yet the lesson still hasn’t sunk in.
Babbette said:
“I do not understand how a woman in this Legislature can say to herself: ‘I’m not capable of making my own health decisions … but I can get elected and make them for somebody else.’ ”
Wooaahhh Nellie! I don’t want ANYONE in government making health decisions for me. Not democrat (national socialist) or otherwise. It is NOT the function of government/bureaucracy to do that.
Thus we have the crux of the problem where said speaker self-identifies as a socialist.
Excellent point. The same people who staunchly defend freedom of choice also favor IPAD. So here we go with another hypocrisy proving that they are unprincipled.
Isn’t there a quote by someone who said “You might not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you?” That’s how I feel: no matter how hard I want to just be “Me,” there are people with power and money who make decisions that affect my life and they consider me a White Middle-Class Male Heterosexual. That’s all they know about me and all they want to know. To them, my race, gender and class are what define me. They think I have many things in common with every other White Middle Class Male Heterosexual – we think alike, we vote alike, we all have the same power relationships with women, black people, homosexuals, and other “special” classes. I am the group I belong to.
Of course, I guess that’s not surprising considering how anti-individualist liberals actually are. The idea that you can be yourself separate from your assigned class strikes them as insane.
Where do these people buy groceries? Do they notice the magazines right there at the checkout? Have they even walked by the magazine rack?
The left marginalizes people who oppose their “vision of the anointed” as Dr. Sowell labeled their preposterous schemes. Conservative blacks are uncle Toms, conservative Hispanics are Tio Tacos. Filipina Michelle Malkin is likened to a Subic Bay whore doing tricks with ping pong balls for opposing the left agenda and on and on.
So conservative women who oppose infanticide are considered “men with breasts” At the risk of being accused of “lookism” , it seems most of the left wing women in the public eye are flat chested “women without breasts”, ugly fat heifers who have nothing to worry about this side of a turkey baster as far as unwanted pregnancy goes , ugly bitter shrews whose wombs are probably as dried up as their personalities or tatted up herpes farms like Jeanine Garafalo. Beauty is only skin deep but ugly cuts to the bone.
Great post!
Don’t believe the hype — the U.S economy is not recovering, it’s getting sicker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd5IO_LMBs
President Obama vowed to make top income earners and small businesses pay their “fair share.” What exactly is a “fair share?’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpVePoI5Fyg&feature=player_embedded
The chick with the beard is hot. I’d like to wash her, shave her (or not), and show her affection.
The shemale protesth too much, methinks.
So if conservative women are being outed as men with breasts can we now out radical feminists as chicks with well….you know. Not like it was a big secret anyway.
One of my favorite sayings is: “This ain’t rocket science.” The thirst and hunger for power isn’t new. Some pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nero, Attila, Genghis Khan, Bonaparte, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam Hussein all were characterized by a mania for power. And today, we can observe the leaders of Iran, Venezuela and certain prominent “leaders” in the U.S.,which I shan’t mention, to avoid controversy. But I will say that the Black Panthers and the SDS WERE about power. They had no talent or education for leading a nation or its economy.