More Stuff

Because the week is crammed with stuff.




The dumpy leftist woman's war on conservative women:

Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel delivers the “slut shaming,” throwing in an old picture of Matthews in her uniform for good measure:

In a hypocritical turn, Matthews seems totally fine with selling chaste sexiness but not permitting sexuality — she used to be a waitress at Hooters. Now, short of cooking meth or murdering enemies of the mob, doing what you have to do to work your way through college is generally admirable, and Matthews shouldn't be faulted for donning the shiny suntan nylons and orange short shorts of the Hooters uniform. As they say, if you've got it, flaunt it.
But profiting from selling a plasticized form of unnatural sexiness designed to arouse men while simultaneously believing that women should be forced to face the "consequences" of actually giving into to their sexual desires is a pretty backward way of thinking. And she should be taken to task for it. So we've posted this hilarious picture of her in her Hooters uniform to illustrate the ridiculousness of all of this — Walker, Matthews, their wacky beliefs, and the general asshats who we've somehow elevated to positions like Governor of an entire goddamn state. Vote, people! This is what happens when you don't!

Look at the way Ryan understands sexuality. In her imagination, unplanned pregnancies happen because of women “actually giving into to their sexual desires.” A woman’s reproductive urge is a primal, divine force that no law or lack of money should dare impede. Any opposition to the right to abortion on demand is akin to “not permitting sexuality.”

So is there any surprise that Ryan would so resent the emotionally and intellectually mature conservative woman? That she would loathe women who don’t live in fear that someday they’ll wake up with “consequences” as a result of a night trying to heal their emotional brokenness with self-destructive casual sex? That she would long to destroy those who have mastered the art of being sexy without being promiscuous--of being a multilayered, complex woman who can take charge of her own life and know how to draw out her partner’s respect, commitment and desire?

It galls useless leftist feminists that Sarah Palin was better than them in every respect. Now this.



Vote Romney just to cheese them off.




Do you want to see what a lion's den looks like?

"Lately, in fielding the "war on women" issue, the Republicans are trying to frame it as "well, we're better for women because we're better on their economic issues."
Leaving aside the fact that the GOP has historically sucked ass when it came to the economy, anyone who doesn't get that contraception, including abortion, is a HUGE economic issue for women is too immature, irresponsible and/or clueless to be having sex."

(Sidebar: well, no, it isn't a HUGE issue for women, at least most women who have their lives together and aren't so in the tank with the likes of Obama that they're scraping the bottom. Thanks for playing.)

" "As a health service, Weitz explained, abortions are relatively simple — from a purely medical standpoint, a first term abortion is roughly equivalent to having your wisdom teeth pulled."
Did this sentence give anyone else a horrible mental image?"

(Sidebar: someone else can parse over that total pig crap.)

"Women's rights question. And for the moment let's assume consensual, unprotected sex. And let's just air it out and be clear -- I'm an atheist, and I care nothing about what the Bible says or doesn't say on this issue.
At what point does a female inside the body of another female get her human rights?
Does a woman's right to be alive trump another woman's other rights?"

The answers:

"Can the fetus survive outside the body? If it can, who will be physically and financially responsible for the next two to three decades of care required?"

"but if it comes to a human fetus just being dependent on their mother to live, what does that mean for physically disabled people who can't survive on their own, are they less human?"  

"As a fellow atheist, I too am not burdened by the Bible, so I'm going with a female inside the body of another female gets her rights when she leaves the womb. "Fetal rights" are simply a way to deny actual women their rights."

"No human has the right to use the body of any other human against that person's will. Which is why we don't compel blood, tissue or organ donation to save lives. Your right to be alive doesn't mean other people have to keep you alive at risk to themselves, regardless of your stage of development or their relationship to you. "

(Sidebar: wow. Another leftist with no clue how human propagation works. Colour me stunned.)








Then there's this wanker in denial:

"Great, informative article! Kudos!
But can you PLEASE remove the images of fully-developed fetuses from this article? It gives a misleading impression of what abortion is.
Choice advocates have enough trouble convincing people that they aren't advocates for infanticide, it doesn't help to use stylized stock images of babies that are ready-to-pop in an article about how politicized abortion has become."

Yes, we can't have any visuals. It would destroy someone's "argument".




And then there's this lone wolf against the tirade of selfishness and misinformation:

"As someone who is pro-life, and a member of Feminists for Life, we recognize this reality: that when a woman chooses an abortion due to an unplanned pregnancy, it's primarily due to the belief that society will not be there to give practical support. Which is why we have started initiatives with college women to provide the support on-campus necessary to carry the baby to term."

" Agree with Annalee. It's not just those 9 months, it's the 18 years after that are the big problem. If your answer is to encourage them all to give up their babies for adoption, that doesn't sit right with me, either. There have to be more options. If I was going to lose it to someone else anyhow, I'd rather lose it without having to carry it for 9 months and go through the very dangerous procedure known as childbirth."

"Yeah, so many of the anti-choice zealots simply seem unable to grasp the concept that many women don't ever WANT to have a child, or that it might be dangerous and her birth control failed. What are these women supposed to do -- give up sex? Like that ever happens.
An early medical abortion is less likely to have serious complications or death than carrying to term and giving birth does."

"I prefer it when people use the term "anti-choice" to "pro-life". It describes the sentiments much more clearly.
I don't ever want children. I know I'm in the minority on this, and I've been told by my doctor that I won't be able to find a surgeon to sterilize me because I'm not yet 30 with 2 children. I really think that paternalistic attitude has to change."

" That situation is why I now have two unplanned children. Yes, I love them, but my life would have been much better had I received the tubal ligation when I asked for it."

That's how allegedly reasonable people argue about abortion, with such personal venom and complete illogic that it baffles the mind. 








Related: Heather Mallick's craziness rates somewhere between "batsh--" and "oh my God! I can't believe you're not sedated!":

The need to control women and their bodies is a never-ending quest.

 Many GTA hospitals, particularly those in “ethnic” areas, the Star reported Tuesday, won’t let their ultrasound staff tell pregnant women the sex of the fetus. One admitted it worries that women and their spouses (if any) might have the female fetus aborted in order to try again for a male.

A recent study done by St. Michael’s Hospital researchers has shown that though the male/female ratio for the first child of immigrants born in India is normal Canadian stuff — 105 boys to 100 girls — the ratio for third children born to such women was 136 boys to 100 girls. This may mean something. This may mean something wildly other than what it seems.

It’s complicated.




The study, inspired by a Canadian Medical Association Journal editorial calling sex-selection “repugnant,” has many limitations, its three authors admit. Ethnicity, personal family history and multi-fetal pregnancies, all these areas remain blurry. These are overall figures, with hypotheses.

As if it matters in the end. Ultrasounds are here to stay. Refusing to say “girl” or “boy” is akin to those languid doctor committees of yore that decided whether a desperate woman would be allowed her abortion or not. Canadian women have control over their own bodies. Is this to be denied to Canadians of South Asian and South Korean origin?

It’s not our business.

The Star recently quoted Toronto “bioethicist” Tom Koch on pregnant women who choose to abort a fetus with Down syndrome. “We’re engaged in eugenics, sure,” he said, going on to blithely deplore heartbroken couples who realize they can’t cope with a disabled child or a second disabled child. 

“Eugenics” has a horrific ring to it, just as the medical term “feticide” sounds worse than “abortion” and is used by this study’s authors.

But Canadian law says abortion is a personal decision. I’m mystified by those who say it’s ironic that feminists wanted choice and now that choice is reducing the number of females born. Women aren’t Toyota, looking to increase market share. We’re individuals.

Go blame ultrasounds, not women, the same ultrasounds that primitive southern U.S. states force women to undergo to shame them pre-abortion. Ultrasounds, so handy in Texas, so fraught in Brampton. The sexism in this medical story simply reeks....

Here’s an idea. Why don’t we show immigrants from South Asia how fair-minded Canada is toward women? As well you know, 87.2 per cent of the House of Commons is female, there is no wage gap and when women go for their ultrasound, the results aren’t snatched away from them with a “That’s for me to know and you to find out, young lady.”

When immigrants see how women are treated, they’ll realize that girls and boys have an equal chance in Canadian life. Problem solved. You’re welcome.

Not that anyone asked this harridan but sex selection abortions have become something of a litmus test for white liberal feminists. Do they extoll the virtues of cultural equivalence all the while allowing future possible feminists to be fed into the meat-grinder or do they decry abortion as the elimination of a girl human being, thereby backtracking on the "fetus isn't human" rhetoric? "None of our business"?  I know no one wants to talk about this but the taxpayer pays for abortions, so, yes, this is very much the public business. Canada as "fair-minded"? If no one is willing to point out how backward this practice is but shrug it off or pretend it does not happen, just how will these immigrants be stunned by the glow of our moral certitude? And wouldn't that be "imperialist" of us? Then there's that crack about Texas which is so lazily fatuous and fictive that it doesn't deserve a response. 






Just read what happens when we don't 'mind our business' about female feticide:

Thousands of North Korean women who fled famine in their homeland in recent years are believed to have been sold as "brides" to Chinese men, who often put them to backbreaking labor and subject them to constant fear, physical assault, and sexual abuse...

A severe shortage of younger women in Chinese rural communities has meant that bachelors seeking wives are faced with either heading to the cities themselves, or with spending large sums to buy a trafficked bride.

Moving on....






Johnny Ramone: punk icon, Republican.



Muslims beat and strip a Christian woman for "dressing up":

A Christian woman was harassed, beaten and stripped in public by some Muslims belonging to the local land mafia because in her family people like to dress up too much. Her son almost suffered a worse fate. When he tried to help her, they fire at him but narrowly missed. As tragic as this is, it is typical of the violence and persecution Christians endure. More than a month after the incident, which occurred in mid-March, both police and the courts have not brought any redress or punished the offenders. "These thugs pursue their own interests," a local priest said; in so doing, they violate the rights of the "weakest elements in society."

Shamin Bibi, a 42-year-old mother of five, works in a brick kiln. She is originally from Chak 179 G.B., in Gojra, a town in Toba Tek Singh District (Punjab), where several Christians died in an attack in 2009. 

During her brutal assault, her attackers badly beat her and ripped her clothes off. When her 22-year-old son Naqshaq Masih tried to intervene, they attacked him with bricks and shot at him. Luckily, they missed.

Two Muslim landlords, brothers Sajid Ali and Abid Ashan, were responsible for the attack. They exert a mafia-style control over the area.  

The reason for their action appears even more absurd than the action itself. They do not want Christians to "dress up", even on holidays or Sunday for Mass.

As second-class subjects, not much better than animals, minority Christians are not allowed to wear elegant clothes. They can only dress rough garments. In the past, they have often been subject to mafia-styled threats and "warnings".  In fact, another of Shamin Bibi's sons had to flee to avoid being killed. 

On the day of the attack, the Christian woman was at home alone with a daughter, and pleaded to the men to go away because there was no male member of the family present. 

Initially, police opened a first information report and arrested the offenders. However, a week later they were released after paying off the police.

Being a Christian and having pride in yourself is a double threat in a country of theocratic inbred thugs.



(with thanks)




And now, watch this cat cross a brook: