My latest salvo in the “war on women.”
Unrelated (sort of) is my speech last month from Wisconsin:
My latest salvo in the “war on women.”
Unrelated (sort of) is my speech last month from Wisconsin:
I was very pleased to have taken part in a documentary about conservative women featuring some of the finest, including Michelle Bachmann and Phyllis Schlafly. It premieres next week. Here is the trailer:
Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft?
I attribute her rise to the laze of the third wave grrrl movement, where eroticism lacks creativity and mystery, where everything is splayed on a table like a cheap buffet without the courtesy of a sneeze guard – for the sake of the patrons, not the buffet. Shock is the prostitute of art. Cheap and imitable.
Equality is not met by comparing oppression or mediocrity, but by comparing potential and excellence; nor is it met by tearing down the opposition or suppressing ability. Liberal women are quick to ignore their strengths and unique qualities and measure their success by masculine standards in the workplace, in sports or in the home.
Conservative women are active because the liberal idea of feminism has failed. An entire generation of berated men have been hog-tied by the chick card, and conservative women are tired of the liberal stereotype that they’re all simpletons who only raise their voices to sing in church.
More from me on this topic again very soon.
I’m embarrassed for the lack of economic understanding demonstrated by these women, really by the group exploiting them, in this video.
One woman complains about Republicans and asserts that they want to do away with unemployment benefits which is false; Republicans are asking why they have to be extended to nearly two years – especially when, during the 80s, unemployment was at 10.8% and unemployment benefits were less than what they are now. Instead of asking why capital must be diverted towards non-production, Emily’s List ought to be asking why this administration isn’t doing anything about the 9.5% unemployment rate which – and this may shock these costumed ladies – is directly related to unemployment benefits! SHOCKERZ! They ought to ask why excessive government manipulation and intervention is ongoing despite the carcasses of failures in its wake.
If the government got its hands out of the private sector and eased up on small businesses we wouldn’t be engaged in this discussion of whether or not to turn extended unemployment benefits into a new, quasi-welfare system.
And what was that about their little cubs not having health care?
Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
Of course, it seems they were too busy fighting over the feminist mantle, their bread and butter, to pay attention to their pretense of actual advocacy for women.
Their indignation at why The Man won’t pay for their female genocide, the litmus of abortion, pops in at :24 in; they are angry at The Man telling them no abortion on demand (because babies come from MAGIC, not from sex that a woman can choose to have, just as she can choose to walk up into Wal-Mart and buy herself a box of condoms, spermicidal gel, a diaphragm, the pill, et. al.) but are perfectly A-OK with The Man telling what they can or cannot do in every other aspect of their medical choices. Side note – is it really “independent” to claim girl power when you have to have The Man pay for your medical choices, a la abortion? Curious.
What about Emily’s List mama grizzlies being shut out of their existing health care plan?
Under the most likely scenario, 87 million Americans will no longer be able to retain the health plan they have and the number could be as high as 117 million. Small businesses will be especially hard hit. As many as 80% will lose their grandfather status by 2013, for example. One reason: any change of insurers (say, to take advantage of lower premiums) will cause a loss of such status. By contrast, a self-insured union plan is free to change its third-party administrator and still keep its grandfather status.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (OCNA) today urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to allow the use of the drug bevacizumab, commonly known as Avastin, for metastatic breast cancer patients, noting that it is effective for some patients and warning of a chilling effect on new drug development if approval is withdrawn…
The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited “effectiveness” grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that “cost effectiveness” was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.
No, instead of focusing on these actual issues, Emily’s List is trying desperately to keep their meal ticket – the facade of caring about women’s issues a la “feminism” while selling them out to the pimp with the most restrictive entitlements – from being used by any woman that dares not carry water for the DNC. Meanwhile women dealing with breast cancer suffer, women who thought their children would be included in this joke of health care reform suffer, women who are trying to put food on the table and pay their bills suffer because Emily’s List thinks it more important to fight over who can call themselves “feminist” and who can’t.
That’s what this issue is really about: liberal feminists unable to justify their support for a party that contributed to the dismal economic situation, a party that enabled The Man to control their medical decisions (irony!), a party that does more to squelch freedom and opportunity in the name of equal misery for all than any others.
Emily’s List is mad that modern day women are giving the one finger salute to the liberal establishment, slipping on shoes and walking out of the kitchen. They’ve said loud and clear that liberal “feminists” don’t speak for them, for us, for me. Now groups like Emily’s List have come full circle: they’ve become cannibals to the very group for which they originated to protect; in order to keep control of their shtick they must attack any woman who dares question it.
And this is how liberal feminism became irrelevant.
When three teenage burglars pried open the door of a northwest Albuquerque home they had no idea they would be met by a brave little girl, police said Wednesday.
Alyssa Gutierrez, 11, took matters into her own hands Tuesday when police said when Miguel Marquez, Eduardo Zubiate and Jesus Quintana broke into her home.
Gutierrez armed herself with a loaded rifle.
“I was planning, if they came right next to me, I would shoot them,” Gutierrez said.
But Gutierrez, who will start sixth grade next week, never got the chance because she’d spooked the burglars.
This young lady is hardcore and unafraid, ready to defend herself against becoming yet another statistic in not just home invasions and burglary, but against possibly worse. She knew the serious nature of handling the firearm and knew how to handle it. Not sure I’m all up with an 11-year-old left home alone, even though she seems incredibly mature and one-year away from the age where many kids are left alone while parents work or run errands, but that’s beside the point: even at 11-years-old this young woman knew how to handle her defense proving once again that no one is ever too young to learn defensive techniques, firearm safety, and how to handle, etc. firearms, period.
Phyllis Schlafly has politically outlived her opposition from the ERA days and now finds herself the aim of criticism due to her remarks about unmarried women:
“Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have big brother government to be your provider.”
I’ve long pointed out the irony of claiming the feminist mantle while promoting policies that make you dependent upon The Man.
Of course, the libs are silent on this:
They criticize because Schlafly hits too close to home.
*From RS McCain, though I disagree with him about right-sphere conservatism because popularly-defined feminism isn’t about liberating women from the patriarchy but about beholding them to a political party whose policies clearly impact women negatively, as highlighted by one of my links above. Right-thinking feminism is liberation of women from that.
And yes, any GOPer who throws Schlafly under the bus deserves a slap to the face. I had the privilege of taking part in a documentary about women on the right, currently in production, with Mrs. Schlafly and featuring some other ladies with names as big as hers.