BarbWire Contributor Robert Stacy McCain: "Ray Rice Punched His Girlfriend Out Of Fear, Feminism" [TW: Victim Blaming, Victim Shaming, Trivialization of Abuse]
The far-right outlet BarbWire published a column by Robert Stacy McCain today, in which he makes the case that Ray Rice punched his girlfriend in an Atlantic City casino elevator because feminists have turned men and women into equals, and therefore he was treating her just as he would treat anyone who was provoking him in an elevator.
McCain writes that women are temperamental and prone to rage, and thanks to feminism, now provoke their male partners into violence.Everybody has focused on the obvious horror of Rice’s punch — the brute force of a 200-pound professional athlete used against a woman — and nobody seems interested in what Janay did immediately before the punch. The couple were in a confined space, inside an elevator, when Janay “got in his face,” screaming and lunging toward Rice. Of course, Janay’s behavior does not justify Rice hitting her, but one wonders why she acted that way, just as one wonders whether the circumstance of being trapped in an elevator with this enraged woman in some way explains Rice’s reaction. That is to say, if her angry rage triggered Rice’s fight-or-flight instinct, he couldn’t flee from her while they were on the elevator, and his adrenalin surge produced an autonomic reflex: BOOM.
From the feminist perspective, this isn’t about one man hitting one woman. This is about a “culture.” This is about “the power structure” of “patriarchy.” Individual responsibility disappears and the conversation is about “a larger systemic injustice.”
The world is full of “systemic injustice,” if you want to look at it that way, and almost everyone can somehow claim victimhood.
Do we have any evidence that Ray Rice is a chronic menace to women? Is there an established record of Ray Rice as a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence? Was this horrific incident caught on video part of a long-term pattern? Who benefits, and who is harmed, by dropping him from the Ravens lineup and indefinitely suspending him from the NFL? Insofar as Ray Rice is suffering the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful behavior, I have no complaint. But it seems to me that Ray Rice — and Janay Rice, and everyone with a direct stake in Ray Rice’s NFL career — is being made to suffer an extraordinary penalty because (a) feminists have turned this into a political cause célèbre, and (b) the NFL is run by cowardly swine who care more about their image than they care about human beings.
This stringent zero-tolerance policy — “Boys don’t hit girls” – sets up a problem: What happens if a woman loses her temper, behaves in an insulting manner, and even acts violently against a man? Some women are simply crazy, and some women have been spoiled rotten by over-indulgent parents who put up with tantrums. The “Daddy’s Precious Darling” Syndrome, as I call it, involves an entitlement mentality that makes it impossible for some women to admit wrongdoing or to accept criticism. If she can’t get what she wants, or if her bad behavior exposes her to criticism, Daddy’s Precious Darling can’t deal with it. She flies into a rage, and whoever she blames for thwarting her will — failing to kowtow to imperious demands or daring to criticize her selfish attitude — will become the target of unrestrained hatred. “Hell hath no fury,” et cetera.
What if, instead of going to the casino with a date, Ray Rice had gone to the casino with a male buddy who got drunk and caused a scene? What if, after Ray and his buddy got on the elevator, the buddy had started yelling angrily at him, “getting in his face?”
There’s your equality. How do you like it?
Of course, feminists don’t believe in this kind of equality, an equality which would make women and men equally vulnerable to the consequences of “getting in the face” of a 200-pound pro athlete. However, as a skinny man who doesn’t enjoy pain, I can absolutely guarantee you that I would never make the mistake of engaging in a face-to-face shouting match with a guy like Ray Rice.
Here’s some helpful advice: Just walk away.
This advice applies to anyone who is tempted to provoke a confrontation, and it also applies equally to anyone who finds themselves confronted with a helpless fool looking for trouble. It especially applies to any man whose girlfriend or wife loses her temper, goes into a rage and begins insulting or threatening him.
Just walk away.
None of this makes sense in the context of radical equality, where the selfish quest for power turns man and woman into rivals.
There’s your equality. How do you like it?
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
#FlushRush: Top Democrat Urges Radio Stations To Drop Rush Limbaugh After He Suggested ‘No Means Yes’
A top Democrat is calling on radio stations to stop broadcasting The Rush Limbaugh Show after the conservative radio host made headlines for mocking Ohio State University’s new sexual assault policies, which require students to actively and explicitly agree to sexual activity. On his show on Monday, Limbaugh claimed that requiring affirmative consent is an unreasonable standard because guys know that “no means yes if you know how to spot it.”
In the segment, which was first flagged by Media Matters, Limbaugh claimed that “seduction used to be an art” and college campuses are now making it into something that is considered to be “brutish” and “predatory.” He suggested it’s unrealistic to require students to ask for permission every step of the way during a sexual encounter. “Are these not lawsuits waiting to happen?” the radio host said.
Limbaugh’s critics wasted no time calling for his removal, pointing out that his approach to sexual assault has no place in a society that’s currently grappling with the best way to respond to intimate partner violence and campus rape cases.
“There’s simply no excusing comments of this offensive nature, especially at a time where our country is having a long-overdue conversation about violence against women,” Democratic Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) said in a statement released on Tuesday morning. “Plain and simple — Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of sexual assault and should be taken off the air immediately.”
Limbaugh is no stranger to criticism along those lines, especially when it comes to issues of misogyny. In 2012, he infamously called law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she advocated for Obamacare’s contraception mandate. He also once said that single mothers are “semen receptacles” and that feminism was created to give ugly women a place in society. Over the past several years, petitions and boycott groups have urged Clear Channel to drop him, to no avail. Limbaugh has also been the subject of an ongoing campaign attempting to convince advertisers to stop supporting his show.
Limbaugh’s critiques of Ohio State’s affirmative consent policy aren’t entirely unusual. After California approved legislation that requires all college campuses to adopt a “yes means yes” standard of consent, critics rushed to argue that it was an over-reaching standard that would essentially “kill the mood” and turn everyone into rapists in the eyes of the law. In reality, affirmative consent simply encourages sexual partners to engage in open and honest communication to ensure they’re both interested in having sex with each other.
WND Pundit Gina Loudon: "Feminists To Blame For Domestic Abuse, Ray Rice Case" [TW: Trivialization of Abuse, Domestic Abuse, Anti-Feminism]
Gina Loudon of WorldNetDaily knows who is really to blame for domestic abuse in America: feminists.
Loudon writes today that feminists have convinced women, such as Janay Rice, that “women are the same as men” and therefore do not need protection from their violent male partners, leading to “more abuse of women (and men).”
While Loudon doesn’t have any evidence that feminism is somehow linked to abuse, she believes no “intellectually honest” person could disagree with her analysis.Where were the bra-burning, old-guard feminists this week in the Ray Rice abuse controversy? If women and men are truly the same as they claim, then why weren’t they screaming in protest of his punishment? If women are the same as men, then how can they argue that a woman beaten by her boyfriend deserves special protection? Were they consistent, the feminist hypocrites would be decrying the NFL for extending protection to women that they do not need (by their own standards).
Feminists demand that training be “equalized” to facilitate women becoming firefighters and combat troops (in mixed-gender units), but on the other hand, they sit quietly when special protections are extended to women. Is there one intellectually honest liberal who will point to this hypocrisy?
The difficult part is that for so long, feminists have said there is no difference between men and women, and the American Psychological Association has backed them up. If that’s true, then you can’t say that male abusers are more at fault than female abusers. That muddies the waters in cases like the Ray Rice controversy. The feminists have not done women a favor here. Clearly, Rice is at least double the size of his now wife. That is a clear difference that should not be overlooked. Despite old feminists’ fantasies, women and men are not the same.
American culture used to value the special protection of women, and now it doesn’t. Feminists burned bras and emasculated men to reach “sameness.” Now they have it, but real women are waking up and asking, “Do we really want to be the same as men?” Less than 20 percent of women today want to call themselves feminists. The old-school feminists wanted military equality (front-line combat), gender neutrality and partnerships instead of the protections for women and children in marriage.
I believe it is that shift to sameness over the past 50 years that has led to more abuse of women (and men). Now taxpayers are forced to fund these myths (that there is no difference between men and women) through “feminist studies” programs in our schools and universities. …
The Rice case is critical to the fiber of our culture, and to those one in four women (and men) out there who understand Palmer’s plight all too well. We can thank the old feminists for putting us here. The question is, can we be honest enough to look at the opposite sex, and admit that equal does not mean same?
h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW
On “Generations Radio” this week, host Kevin Swanson brought Religious Right activist Jay Grimstead on the air to warn of the coming destruction of America, and the principles needed to “rebuild civilization” following its inevitable demise. Swanson and Grimstead agreed that society has become imperiled by the dissolution of Christian values at the hands of radical deviants.
“We are at the point where social security won’t provide, euthanasia’s coming on like a steam train,” Swanson said. “[Progressives] have destroyed the character of the next generation: they broke down faith, family and freedom, manhood, womanhood. And I’m at the point where I’m not playing patty-cake with the feminists and the homosexuals and the socialists…as many do.”
Later in the program, Swanson and Grimstead disparaged liberal arts colleges as minefields for Christian students that seek to dismantle the conservative values they were raised on. “A huge percentage of kids coming out of nice little red-state homes and churches get off to the blue-state universities, and they are corrupted again and again and again and again,” Swanson said. “How do we reform education, especially university-level education, where the kids who graduate aren’t more pro-feministic, aren’t pro-homosexual or pro-socialistic, pro-big government and pro-evolution, pro-everything that is anti-Scripture?”
In the face of secular adversity, Grimstead added that evangelicals must “prepare” and “protect” their children from the onslaught of liberalism, or else parents might as well be placing their children “into Nazi territory.”
A group of conservative women told Fox News on Tuesday that feminism was dangerous because it had “sexualized” women and made them “afraid to be stay-at-home moms.”
In an appearance on Fox & Friends to promote their new book, “What Women Really Want,” hosts of the Internet video show Politichicks explained to host Anna Kooiman that liberal women were “intolerant.”
“They claim they’re feminists, but what they actually are, they are sexualists,” Politichicks Editor in Chief Ann-Marie Murrell opined. “It has nothing to do with empowering women anymore.”
“We earned the right to vote, we have equality in the workplace,” she continued. “If we don’t, we can fight that on a one-on-one basis. But everything they’re about now is kind of about from the head down. It has nothing to do with women’s brains or their hearts.”
Kooiman suggested that “the left was tolerant as long as you agreed with them 100 percent.”
“Women don’t want to be objectified, and what the feminist movement has successfully done, is really, sexualized women instead of feminizing women,” Politichicks host Dr. Gina Loudon asserted. “So, we’re here with a new brand of feminism, saying drop the shackles of the old feminism. It’s time for women who really want to be women, who want to be feminine, who want to be what God designed them to be.”
“They claim that we put women back into the 50s where women stayed home and took care of their children,” Murrell added. “I say that what they’re doing, they are like cave women waiting for a caveman to bonk them on the head and drag them into the cave by the hair. That’s who they are. They’re the ones putting us back into the stone ages.”
Politichicks host Morgan Brittany argued that feminists had created a stigma that made women ashamed to stay at home with their children.
“And they want less government in their lives,” she remarked. “They want to make their own decisions, they want freedom to choose for their children, their families. That’s what women really want.”
“And they also want real men,” Brittany insisted. “We love real men. We absolutely love them.”
“Stop shaving, men!” Murrell exclaimed.
“We want no more of this feminists politicizing our bodies, and what happens in our bedrooms,” Loudon concluded. “That’s all that the feminist movement has successfully done. And we’re here to battle back, and say we know what women really want.”
Watch the video below from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, broadcast Sept. 2, 2014.
Fox spent much of its VMA coverage questioning Beyonce’s ability to promote feminism while being "extremely sexual."
Megyn Kelly labeled Beyonce’s message and lyrics as “skanky,” while a FoxNews.com article claimed the singer “seemed to ensure her behind was the focus on each song, all the while educating young viewers about feminism.”
On The Five, Fox hosts suggested “she’s auditioning for a future husband,” and Greg Gutfeld announced that ”the greatest thing about pop culture is convincing women that acting like strippers is empowering.”
What Fox failed to recognize is that expressing sexuality does not automatically remove a woman’s right to discuss equality. Instead, the network righteously shamed Beyonce and used her performance as basis to attack feminism as a whole. In reality, such policing of women’s sexuality has harmed progress toward equality. The very same mindset has been used to dismiss women’s need to access contraception, and blame rape survivors for their own assaults.
If anyone is going to be shamed, it should be Fox and its irresponsible coverage of women’s issues.
From the 08.25.2014 edition of FNC’s The Kelly File:
When many people think of the men’s rights movement, the image that springs to mind is lonely men lurking in chat rooms and railing against women. But in recent years, a group of brash, witty female activists has taken up the cause. And some of them are emerging as the movement’s leading voices. It may seem counterintuitive that women would be helping drive the conversation about a movement that’s fighting anti-male discrimination and campaigning fiercely against feminism. But according to Dean Esmay of the men’s rights organization A Voice for Men, the fact that they shatter expectations is what makes them such good emissaries. “People want to believe we’re a bunch of sad, pathetic losers who can’t get laid and are just bitter because our wives left us,” Esmay explains. “The very presence of women in the movement creates cognitive dissonance.” Often, he adds, this dissonance makes people more receptive than they otherwise would be.
Who are these women men’s rights activists? And why do the embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they’re seen as luminaries.
Karen Straughan: The YouTube Sensation
In late 2011, Straughan, a foul-mouthed fortysomething Canadian waitress and mother of three, sat down at her kitchen table and began ruminating about the sexes: “I keep hearing from the feminist camp that femaleness has always been undervalued. But I’ve always contended that it’s the exact opposite…If it comes down to a man and a woman in a burning building and you can only save one, the expectation is that you choose the woman every single time. So honestly, whose humanity are we placing above whose?” She then posted a video of her talk on YouTube, where it has racked up more than a million views.
Straughan, who has a brazen air and a taste for ribbed tank tops (a.k.a. “wife beaters”), has since become one of the most visible faces of the men’s rights movement. She has nearly 70,000 YouTube subscribers. Often, she says, she gets emails from men around the world who stumble on her videos and spend hours on end binge watching. The firebrand vlogger, who wrote erotic fiction as a sideline before getting involved in men’s rights, also helped launch the Honey Badger Brigade, a ragtag group of female men’s rights activists. This summer, when protesters threatened to shut down A Voice for Men’s first conference in Detroit, the Honey Badgers collected more than $8,000 in donations and flew to Motor City to act as “human shields.” The Honey Badgers also produce an online radio show, covering men’s issues and geek culture. Recent topics include false rape allegations, the treatment of military veterans, and “the shit feminists say.”
Helen Smith: The Renegade Psychologist
According to Smith, a forensic psychologist from Knoxville, Tennessee, who is married to conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds, men have had it with women and society in general. Last year, Smith published a book called Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream—and Why It Matters, which argues that the decks are stacked against men in every sphere, from the home and workplace to the justice system (the result of sexual harassment policies and gender bias in schools and family courts). In response, many men are following John Galt’s lead and opting out of high-paid work and family life. Smith, who previously worked with violent children, also blogs about men’s issues for the conservative news and opinion website PJ Media. In a post earlier this year, she argued that “feminists and their supporters who block funding and education going to boys’ and men’s issues” may have been “to blame” for Elliot Rodger’s deadly shooting rampage in Santa Barbara last March.
Erin Pizzey: Feminism’s Bête Noire
Pizzey, a 75-year-old British author and anti-domestic-violence advocate, traces her interest in men’s rights back to her own childhood and years of brutal beatings from her mother. She later went on to found England’s first shelter for battered women. Pizzey maintains that most of the victims who sought refuge there were themselves violent. She came to believe that women deserved a share of the blame for domestic abuse and that the fledgling feminist movement unfairly demonized men by casting them as the sole aggressors. “This huge edifice of radical feminism made this about ‘patriarchy’ rather that human relationships,” she says. “In the process, it pulled the whole discussion away from the needs of people in violent families.”
Pizzey eventually began offering shelter to battered men while crusading against feminism, which she dubs “the Evil Empire.” After a bomb scare and a string of death threats, in 1979 she fled to the United States, where she helped set up domestic-violence shelters in 21 cities. She also worked with lawyers to defend men claiming they had been falsely accused of rape and domestic violence—an endeavor she funded by writing adventure novels. Pizzey later embraced nonfiction, and wrote frequently for British newspapers, such as the Daily Mail (sample headline: “Why I loathe feminism…and believe it will ultimately destroy the family”). She also traveled the world speaking to battered men’s groups. Today, she is editor-at-large of A Voice for Men, and a hero of the men’s rights movement. She feels very much in her element. “For many years, I was this lone voice, and I was hated for it,” she explains. “Now, you just don’t feel quite so lonely.”
Janet Bloomfield: The Social-Media Provocateur
Bloomfield has landed in the spotlight recently as a driving force behind Women Against Feminism, a social-media campaign featuring photos of women with scraps of paper listing their reasons for rejecting feminism. Since the week before last, when the campaign went viral, Bloomfield—a thirtysomething homemaker and doctoral candidate—has been making the network rounds, with interviews on ABC, the BBC, and NBC’s Today Show.She calls single mothers “bona fide idiots” who don’t “give a shit” about their children’s well-being and pens blog posts with titles like “Why Don’t We Have a Dumb Fucking Whore Registry? Now That Would Be Justice.”
Bloomfield, who lives somewhere in Canada (she keeps her location and the names of her three children secret to shield them from harassment), is an unlikely champion for men’s rights. In college, she studied film theory, and learned to view the world through a feminist lens. But after giving birth to her first child, she decided to stay home and was shocked by the reaction from other women. “It wasn’t so much the disdain for my choice or the idea that I wasted my education,” she says. “It was that they treated me like I was crazy to rely on my husband—as if somewhere lurking inside of him was a sex-starved monster who would toss me out like trash.” Bloomberg began trading letters with her friend, Pixie, who was camped out in the hospital after giving birth to a critically ill baby boy and believed the intensive care staff was treating the sick baby girls more tenderly. Their letters soon morphed into grumbling about the lot of boys and the treatment of stay-at-home moms.
After immersing themselves in the men’s rights blogosphere, in 2012, the pair launched the in-your-face blog, JudgyBitch.com. Bloomfield’s anti-feminist screeds, piled with obscenities and inflammatory theories about rape and domestic violence, made a splash in the men’s rights circles, and the following year she began writing for A Voice for Men, where she now manages social media. She’s also broken into mainstream news and opinion sites, including Thought Catalog, which recently published Bloomfield’s essay, “I’m an Anti-Sexist, Liberal Doctoral Student, Wife, and Mother Who Supports the Men’s Rights Movement Over Feminism, Here’s Why.”
In reality, while Bloomfield takes a progressive stand on some issues—she supports gay marriage and a women’s right to choose, for example—many of the ideas she flogs are anything but. She calls single mothers “bona fide idiots” who don’t “give a shit” about their children’s well-being and pens blog posts with titles like “Why Don’t We Have a Dumb Fucking Whore Registry? Now That Would Be Justice.” She also dismisses concept of “rape culture,” as “a giant rape fantasy—one in which all women can imagine all men desire them with such force and such passion that they’re willing to commit a crime.”
Suzanne Venker: The Traditionalist
For much of her career, Venker followed the path blazed by her aunt, the anti-feminist crusader Phyllis Schlafly. In 2011, the pair even cowrote a book, The Flipside of Feminism, arguing that freedom and power have only made women unhappy. But their paths began to diverge the following year when Venker, who in addition to authoring books is a frequent Fox News commentator, published a column on FoxNews.com called “The War on Men.” It made the case that men were opting out of marriage because career-minded women had lost their womanly qualities and become angry and competitive. And it urged women to “surrender to their nature—their femininity” if they wanted to find husbands. Predictably, the piece went viral, stirring up a whirlwind of criticism. But Venker was also flooded with grateful emails from male readers. “Men were writing to say, ‘Thank you, thank you!’” she recalls. “‘Finally, somebody gets it!’” Inspired by the outpouring, Venker launch the men’s rights blog Women for Men and shifted the focus of her own commentary to men’s issues. In her recent FoxNews.com columns, Venker argues that white men face oppression “unlike anything American women have faced,” andclaims that men’s “success in fields such as medicine, engineering and technology have done more to liberate women from the constraints of their former lives than a busload of feminists could ever hope to do.” She also maintains that surrendering to male power is an “aphrodisiac” that “grants women access to the deepest parts of a man’s soul.”
Anne Cools: The Parliamentarian
In 1969, Cools took part in a supposedly peaceful sit-in to protest racism at a Montreal university. It ended up exploding into one of the most violent student riots in Canada’s history, with protesters setting fires and tossing computers out of windows. Cools, who was sentenced to four months in prison but later pardoned, went on to found one of Canada’s first shelters for battered women. Then, in 1984, the Barbados native became the first black person ever to serve in the Canadian Senate.
According to the Globe and Mail, “Women’s groups applauded the addition of a minority firebrand to the chamber of dozy old white men.” Her belief that domestic violence was a two-way street later put her at odds with the feminist movement, but many Canadians embraced her ideas. In 1995, when Cools told an International Women’s Day gathering that “behind every abusing husband is an abusing mother,” she was inundated with grateful handwritten letters. Many of them were from people who had been abused by their mothers or men claiming they had been falsely accused of domestic violence during divorce proceedings.
Galvanized, Cools—a Liberal Party member turned independent—helped launch a parliamentary committee that traveled the country holding emotional standing-room-only hearings on child custody laws. Critics branded it the “politically incorrect committee” because it heard testimony from hundreds of men, grandparents, and second wives, who spoke tearfully about being cut off from children by a legal system that they alleged favored mothers. For Cools, who lost two siblings to childhood illness, their stories hit close to home. “I understood very early in life what it meant for parents to lose a child,” she told the National Post in the late 1990s. “I’ve always known a parent cannot recover from that. And this is why I will not tolerate the thought of any parent taking a child away from another parent.”
The committee’s final report recommended rewriting custody laws to ensure both parents access to the children and making false domestic violence allegations a crime. Despite overwhelming public support, a decade and a half later, Cools is still fighting to bring these proposals to fruition. Her dogged struggle has won her adoration in men’s rights circles—so much so that A Voice for Men invited the regal, silver-haired septuagenarian to deliver the first speech at its inaugural conference. “The cause that before you and the things that you fight for are valid and just,” Cools told the gathering. “I am on the home stretch of my public career, so you and younger soldiers must come. I encourage soldiers to arm themselves, and to put on battle gear, because it is a fight.”
My #WCW this week goes out to the six heroes of the women’s reproductive rights movement.
They are: Sonia Sotomayor, Sandra Fluke, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sarah Slamen, Wendy Davis, and Cecile Richards.
Throughout the ongoing debate over Obamacare’s contraceptive coverage requirement, a common theme has emerged among many of Hobby Lobby’s supporters: the idea that ensuring access to affordable birth control is harmful to society because it leads to promiscuity and infidelity. Several right-wing groups filed amicus briefs in favor of the crafts chain arguing that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. But where exactly does this idea come from? One research paper offers a theory.
According to new research published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, the attitude that women shouldn’t be having sex can at least partly be traced back to the idea that women are supposed to be economically dependent on men. The researchers suggest that this link may drive conservative religious communities’ insistence on sexual purity.
After surveying Americans about their attitudes toward promiscuity — asking them whether they agreed with statements like “It is fine for a woman to have sex with a man she has just met, if they both want to” — the researchers also asked them whether they believed women tend to rely on income from their male partner. They found that the people who believe that casual sex is wrong also tend to believe that women need a partner to support them financially. Within that worldview, sex outside of a serious monogamous relationship is simply too risky. If women don’t have “paternity certainty,” then how will they know who they need to rely on to support them and their future child?
The researchers conclude that this outdated attitude toward women’s pregnancy risks and financial needs hasn’t totally gone away, despite the fact that modern contraception, legal abortion rights, and greater workplace equality have created an entirely different society.
“The beliefs may persist due to cultural evolutionary adaptive lag, that is, because the environment has changed faster than the moral system,” the paper concludes. “Religious and conservative moral systems may be anti-promiscuity because they themselves arose in environments where females depended heavily on male investment.”
In response to the right-wing claims that women who support Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate are “sluts” who want the government to fund their sex lives, many birth control proponents have focused on the medical reasons that women need access to contraception. But there’s also a growing push to confront the deep-seated resistance to acknowledging women’s sex lives. “Women like sex. Stop making ‘health’ excuses for why we use birth control,” feminist writer Jessica Valenti argues in a Guardian column published this week.
On top of the changing societal norms that ensure women don’t actually have to be guided by “paternity certainy” anymore, there’s also scientific evidence that increasing access to birth control doesn’t have any relationship to promiscuity. A large study published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal earlier this year found that giving women access to no-cost contraception doesn’t lead them to make riskier sexual choices. The researchers noted their results should dispel social conservatives’ fears that the risk of pregnancy is “the only thing standing between women and promiscuity.”
The host of Fox & Friends on Sunday fell for an Internet hoax that feminists had hatched a plot for bringing down Father’s Day, and possibly “ending men” altogether. As Death and Taxes reported on Friday, pranksters at the website 4Chan had created…
Republican Habitual Whiner Dana Loesch Completely Misses The Point of The #YesAllWomen Hashtag & In Doing So, Contributes To Misogyny Herself
Not surprising to hear this from Dana Loesch. She continually misses the point of the hashtag.
I’m speechless. Please, some of you help me figure these crap tweets out.
She’s cray-cray beyond belief.
More than 40 years after the Equal Rights Amendment was first passed by the U.S. Congress, an Illinois state senator is taking another crack at getting her colleagues in Springfield to adopt the provision that would enshrine in the U.S. Constitution the idea that rights can’t be abridged on account of sex.
Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, said the proposed amendment is still relevant today given the ongoing debates about equal pay, abortion rights and other issues on which women are fighting for equality.
And she said it’s symbolically important to “get Illinois off the list” of 15 states that have not yet adopted the proposed amendment. The other holdouts are mostly traditionally more conservative states in the southern and western parts of the country.
"Illinois has been in the forefront of equal rights," Steans said. "I think this is some unfinished business, an opportunity to right a historic wrong."
Steans has supported proposals for the General Assembly to adopt the amendment in previous years, without success.
The amendment appeared to die in 1982 after only 35 states passed it by the deadline that Congress set after adopting it in 1972. That was three short of the 38 needed to amend the Constitution. Supporters of the amendment are now pushing a “three state solution,” arguing the 1982 deadline should not apply. If three more states pass it, the supporters will try to make the case that there is no need for the U.S. Congress to start the amendment process over.
Steans’ proposal is scheduled to get a hearing on Wednesday, she said.
The American Enterprise Institute’s “Factual Feminist” podcast declared this week that while sexual assault on campus is a genuine problem, a “rape culture crusade” is a counter-productive and hysterical “solution” to it. In the podcast…
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Wednesday opposed the National Women’s History Museum by connecting it to “eugenics” and same-sex marriage. During a House debate on whether or not Congress should appoint a commission to study how to move forward…