In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Tag: Stupidity

From Russia With Love

Well, not so much for Condoleezza Rice. The headline to this article — and I shit you not — is Condoleezza Rice’s anti-Russian stance based on sexual problems. And we aren’t talking Bob Dole-style sexual problems; no, apparently Condi hates Russia “because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all.”

Says who? Some right-wing Russian rag? No, that quote is more properly attributed to the leader of the Liberal and Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

“Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: “Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian! What a courageous, tough and strong female she is!

…

“Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though.

“This is really scary. Ms. Rice’s personal complexes affect the entire field of international politics. This is an irritating factor for everyone, especially for the East and the Islamic world. When they look at her, they go mad.

“Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied. On the other hand, she can hardly be satisfied because of her age. This is a complex. She needs to return to her university and teach students there. She could also deal with psychological analysis.

“The true reason of Ms. Rice’s attack against Russia is very simple. Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men’s attention. Releasing such stupid remarks gives her the feeling of being fulfilled. This is the only way for her to attract men’s attention,” Vladimir Zhirinovsky said.

And yet that empty-wombed bitch still manages to surprise the world with her slim figure.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said once that he was unable to conduct negotiations about the regulation of the Middle East conflict in Ms. Rice’s presence. The elderly Israeli premier gets confused when his eyes stop on Ms. Rice’s slim legs!

…

Condoleezza Rice is a very feminine woman in spite of the fact that many people call her “a man in a skirt.” Her assistants say that she always wants to look immaculate. She likes expensive designer clothes by Armani and Oscar de la Renta; there are legends going about her impressive collection of shoes. Everyone in the USA knows that Condoleezza Rice uses Yves Saint Laurent lipstick, likes high heels shoes and Led Zeppelin’s music.

Ms. Rice posed for Vogue magazine during George W. Bush’s latest election campaign and answered readers’ questions for Glamour magazine. White House spokespeople explained that the sessions were meant to attract the votes of glamorous ladies, but Ms. Rice obviously had her own reasons to pose for Vogue. Being in her fifties, Condoleezza Rice can boast of her slim figure and almost the absolute absence of wrinkles.

I can’t wait for the day when someone writes an article about the slim legs or childless lives of male politicians.

Do You Do That Dance?

Thursday evening, 7pm Eastern time, I want everyone to run outside and wiggle your bums, chanting, “Snow DAY! Snow DAY!” Then head indoors and recite incantations for to sky to dump four inches of snow on Central Indiana.

You down?

Posted in Uncategorized

Oh Townhall…

Amanda did it the other day, and I’m stealing the idea. Shorter Townhall:

Ben Shapiro: I haven’t actually seen Munich, but since it’s written and directed by Hollywood liberals it is probably not only supporting the homosexual agenda, but also pure evil. And since it’s about the Israel-Palestine conflict and it’s not being produced by a total right-wing or left-wing nutjob, we can assume that it might actually portray the conflict as complex and nuanced when, really, it isn’t at all. What it comes down to is that Israel has never done anything wrong ever, and if you criticize the Israeli government you’re an anti-Semite, even if you are both Jewish and the producer of Schindler’s List. Additionally, Palestinians are like Hitler. Best you-couldn’t-make-it-up-if-you-tried quote: “This is the problem: Today’s left, and the Hollywood left in particular, sees everyone as human.” Oh, the horror!

Dennis Prager: Here’s some marriage advice you’ve never heard before: (1) Marry your best friend, not just some dude; (2) Marry someone who you’re actually attracted to; (3) Marry someone with basic social skills. And — you won’t believe this one — even men can find women more attractive over time. Amazing.

Thomas Sowell: Lots of us here at Townhall write really bad books that no one wants to buy. If you are a real Christian who does not hate Christmas, you will buy them.

Terance Jeffrey: The Solomon Amendment is about a basic Constitutional right: freedom of choice. The Supreme Court should use the example of car salesmen to decide this case. And that, my friends, is why I failed Understanding Consitutional Basics 101.

Armstrong Williams: The real heroes in the world are working class people who, clearly, are all men. Where are the women, you ask? Well, they get two mentions: (1) Unnamed female neighbor has a brother (Billy) who is serving in Iraq; and (2) the “peers having babies out of wedlock.” Which is how it should be.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Morality of Rape

I really didn’t want to post anything about V-x D-y ever again. I stopped reading his blog. I agreed with commenters who said that linking to him only gives him more attention. I won’t write out his whole name — that way, when he googles himself for masturbatory material, hopefully he’ll come up short. I vowed never to link to him again.

Except now he has a column on WorldNet Daily about the same issue, where he spells out his “Christian Libertarian” beliefs even more clearly (and, naturally, they’re even more offensive than you thought):

The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of rape to be evil and justly holding the rapist accountable. But this ethic does not offer a blanket excuse to victims, near victims and would-be victims either, since the element of consent – which today draws the dividing line between sex and rape – can also provide a contrarian condemnation of the woman’s own actions.

Rape isn’t bad because it’s harmful to people — it’s bad because it pollutes God’s house.

To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman’s victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.

And there you have it: Rape is no worse than consensual, but extra-marital, sex. And unless you were hiding in your house, wrapped in clothing from head to toe, and not even thinking about sex, you aren’t wholly innocent if you’re raped.

Oh, plus he’s just flat-out wrong about Christianity. There are, in fact, different kinds of sins, and some are taken more seriously than others. All sins can be forgiven, sure, and we’re all sinners, but all sins are not created equal. Glad my twice-a-year church visits have taught me something that even a Christian Libertarian with a Satanist haircut doesn’t seem to understand.

His basic point is this: Only Christian morality makes rape “bad,” and even then it’s only as bad as any other sin (or, though he doesn’t say this explicitly, perhaps he means it’s only as bad as any other sexual sin). Without Jesus, we have no basis to make moral judgments.

For someone who claims to be a member of Mensa, this seems like a pretty shallow wade into understanding morality — and one has to wonder about a person who truly believes that the only reason something is wrong is because a certain book tells him so.

“Stay tight, wear white”

–advice from a father to his 13-year-old daughter. Is it just me, or is that a completely disgusting thing to be saying?

Feministing scours this one quite nicely, pointing out the huge double-standards in how parents talk about sex with their kids and how it perpetuates young people internalizing this kind of sexism. It’s worth a read, even if a lot of the comments will make you cringe. Not-so-surprising point: In every category of sexual experience, the kids have done quite a bit more than their parents thought they had. For example, only 1 parent thought their kid had given oral sex, while 51 actually had (on the other hand, 10 parents thought their kid had received oral sex; perhaps they believe their children to be selfish?).

And if that’s not gross enough for you, allow Twisty’s latest to stir up some righteous rage about our neighbor to the north: In Canada, you can now get away with rape if you claim you had “sexsomnia.” That’s right, if you rape a woman and claim that you were sleeping while doing it, you’re a-ok — you didn’t know what you were doing, even if you did have the sleep-raping foresight to put on a condom.

Hey, Retarded Homo AIDS Spreaders: Quit Making Me Be PC!

I wish I could have made up that insult all on my own, but I didn’t. It comes from a massive boo-hoo from a poor oppressed white guy who really doesn’t like it when you ask him not to call you the n-word — you’re limiting his right to free speech! Or something. He’s not quite sure.

The best part of the article is when he actually argues that “PC chokes off normal human expression by strangling natural speech, dividing humanity into imaginary classes, pitting races against each other, and polarizing politics.” So… the ideology that racial slurs and sexually harassing comments probably aren’t appropriate in the workplace or classroom pits the races against eachother and divides humanity into classes? Ok, I see his point. It was a whole lot easier when white guys were unquestionably at the top, and all the bitches and the coloreds knew their place.

He also goes the mature route of being politically incorrect in the column itself — because see, political incorrectness is great! And it’s funny!

So don’t go calling me racist, sexist, ageist, lookist, ableist, or heightist – especially if you’re some pipsqueak runt – because I’ll punch your lights out, you retarded hick.

(See, I thought that hicks voted Republican and hated political correctness too. I guess you learn something new every day).

In the good old USA, we celebrated diversity. That phrase is now just code for the idea that we should be happy to have millions of wrecked, fatherless families producing legions of very un-gay homosexuals spreading AIDS.

Yes, remember back in the day, when we had real diversity in places like public pools, water fountains, and lunch counters? You could just look at the signs — “Coloreds Only” — and see how unique and diverse the country really was. Now, because we aren’t allowed to call them negroes and coloreds without getting dirty looks, and because we can’t sexually harass women with impunity, they’ve gotten all out of hand and have started producing homosexuals by the bushel (and by the way, what is an un-gay homosexual? I really don’t get it. Does he mean “unhappy”?).

The whole “Being PC has ruined America!” argument is a little silly. Can I see how people would get tired of being super-sensitive to every little thing? Sure. But generally, I think most “PC” language just falls under the heading of basic manners and social skills. Using racial slurs, claiming that AIDS is a gay disease and sexually harassing people is generally considered rude — it’s not like liberals are going around slapping you on the wrist every time you call someone a retard, but it’s not considered acceptable in polite company. (And there are plenty of places where rude, un-PC language and actions thrive). It’s also not a violation of your free speech if I tell you that I’m offended by what you say — we’re both exercising our rights there. But when the rest of the argument is so backwards, I guess I can’t expect that this author would be able to grasp such a basic concept.

Posted in Uncategorized

Saturday Stupid Shit

Did partisan politics deny The Boss rightful recognition? Sure sounds like it when American Idol Carrie Underwood gets a Congressional resolution in her honor, and Bruce’s proposed resolution gets voted down.

Using your celebrity status to promote condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa is a good thing, right? The Catholic Church doesn’t think so.

A schoolteacher is fired for being pregnant and unwed. Big surprise here: she worked at a Catholic school. And this is what I love about the “pro-life” view embodied by this school and the Catholic church: They’ll talk about how women who face unintended or unwanted pregnancies should be brave, good religious followers and carry the pregnancy to term, and then they punish them for choosing to do so.

“I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I’m pregnant and am choosing to have this baby,” said McCusker, who was fired last month. “I held the Catholic religion to a higher standard.”

But it’s all about morals:

The key issue in McCusker’s case, McCaffrey said, is that Catholic-school teachers don’t simply teach subjects like math and history. They are also expected to teach morals and must lead by example.

“It’s not like we’re saying that she is a sinner and can’t be a role model,” McCaffrey said. “But there’s a visible sign. She’s pregnant. To have children looking at that, and say it’s OK, is not the example the church wants to set.”

McCusker’s supporters, however, assert that the church is being hypocritical.

“Had she been a student in a Catholic institution, and a pregnant single woman, church authorities would have counseled her — indeed, may have even pressured her — to continue her pregnancy,” Eileen Moran, a member of Catholics for a Free Choice, said at the news conference. “Yet, as her employer, in spite of all the official pronouncements of being pro-child, pro-parent and pro-family, St. Rose fired her.”