To Democrats, Women are Vagina's

To the Democrats, women are just vagina's. A few weeks ago they had an ad, since taken down, telling women to vote with their lady parts. In their view women are only interested in abortion and contraception. Nearly all their Convention dealt with abortion and contraception, and most of the campaign ads I've seen are. Don't bother their pretty little heads with things like economics and foreign policy. The feminist movement was arguably the most effective social movement in US history. It devolved into a Leftist ideological advocacy movement, and that has turn out to women being, by Leftists, disregarded as sex parts. Back to square one for women in America? Or will they smarten up and vote for the things that work, that provide economic growth and national security?

This is a tasteless ad comparing voting for the first time with losing one's virginity, which, I'm told, is often painful.

http://youtu.be/o6G3nwhPuR4

Great parody of the ad.

http://youtu.be/sSxDE1QCHA4

Feminist Lies About Catholic Women

N Y Times columnist Maureen Dowd this past Saturday wrote an article lamenting the fact that she's just as oppressed by Catholicism as a group of Saudi women she met with in Saudi Arabia.

I asked why they were not more upset about living in a country where women’s rights were strangled, an inbred and autocratic state more like an archaic men’s club than a modern nation. They told me, somewhat defensively, that the kingdom was moving at its own pace, glacial as that seemed to outsiders.

How could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?

I was puzzling over that one when it hit me: As a Catholic woman, I was doing the same thing.

I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.

I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.

I, too, rationalized as men in dresses allowed our religious kingdom to decay and to cling to outdated misogynistic rituals, blind to the benefits of welcoming women’s brains, talents and hearts into their ancient fraternity.

Can any sensible, self honest person believe that she suffers as much as a member of the Catholic Church as a Muslim woman in Iraq or Saudi Arabia?

A similar article in "Newsweek" by Lisa Miller,

The chasm between the church's stated principles and its functional reality yawns wide. In the U.S., 60 percent of Sunday massgoers are women; thus most of the contributions to the collection plate—$6 billion a year—are made by women. And yet the presence of women anywhere within the institutional power structure is virtually nil. The number of women who hold top-tier positions in any of the dicasteries, or committees, that make up the Vatican structure can be counted on one hand. Few women retain high-profile management jobs, such as chancellor, within dioceses. And though nuns dramatically outnumber priests worldwide, they are mostly so invisible that when a group of them speaks up, as they did recently on health-care reform, everyone takes notice.

Actually there are more women represented in positions of power than there are in corporations. Here's a PDF of the breakdown.

The Church hierarchy allowed women to accomplish great things throughout history.
Nathanial Hawthorne's daughter Rose founded the Hawthorne Dominicans, and they took care of cancer patients for free, and did it all on donations.

General Patton's daughter worked with a nun Mother Benedict of France after WWII and formed the Abbey of Regina Laudis here in the U S, and is world renowned for the all the artists, writers and musicians it has trained. Mother Benedict during WWII was a doctor that hid Jews.

Teresa of Avila built and managed several monasteries. I'll write later about monasteries; they were the center of Western Civilization for centuries. Of course Dowd and Miller seem to think that isn't such a good thing, being that Christianity, Islamofascism, and Muslim misogyny are all equally as oppressive.

The Church, both Protestant and Catholic have for centuries supported women's achievements. Of course stupid men said and did stupid things, but overall, there's a record of allowing women to serve and grow. “I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans of fullness, not of harm, to give you a future and a hope…” (Jeremiah 29:11) This is for women too.

How free are women like Dowd and Miller, when having ultimate freedom, the result of Judaic-Christian principals, claim to be oppressed, when there is nothing at all that kept them from becoming the successes they are now? How many women in Islamofacist countries have done what they have?

School's Out- For Men

There is a serious decline in educated men. Guys are not going to college at a rate that women are. Women are a 4-3 ratio on campus, and men make up only 43% of graduates.

Reports are beginning to emerge linking feminist sexism to the trend. Boys are taught from kindergarten on that they are oppressors of girls and women, with that increasing up through college where there are 'gender studies' which are in fact anti-male indoctrination. Some reports from elementary schools are linking the lack of physical activity, PE being abolished, games like tag, dodge ball, kickball, being outlawed, and recess no longer a time to play and run off energy. There's no physical outlet there for little boys. At the college level, since Title IX, non-money making sports for men have been close to eliminated. Over 400 men's collegiate athletic teams have been cut since Title IX went into effect. At the corporate level, most men now walk on eggshells around women for fear of a sexual harassment charge.

Here's the question. What are or will be the sociological effects of under educated men and educated women? Current studies show the mismatch is affecting marriage and is part of the increased divorce rate. I'm wondering if that is because women aren't accepting of less educated mates, or is it a self esteem issue with men? Is this part of the increase of single moms? I wonder too at the corporate level, and in politics how things will change. Those might be for the better, unless the sexual discrimination gets inverted; which may happen since the anti-male indoctination is all throughout childhood and into college.

Is the femininization of America (and Western Civilization?) a good thing?

Feminism Is Dead (Good Riddance) -S.E. Cupp (female writer)

Thank you, Barbara Boxer, for hammering the final nail in the coffin of angry and irrelevant pseudo-feminism. If there were any life left in its wheezing and flailing body, her latest experiment in the utterly ridiculous effectively pulled the plug.

The venomous brand of feminism that cuts men off at the knees to make women arbitrarily taller is no longer credible. When Boxer had the audacity – and some would argue, questionable mental clarity – to publicly scold a US Army general for calling her “ma’am” instead of “senator,” it telegraphed to the rest of the world the sheer inanity of today’s modern feminism, a rusting relic of the 60’s that’s been pushed so far to the extreme borders of relevance that it actually has Boxer hearing things. Yes, in today’s feminism, calling a woman “ma’am” is a mark of disrespect.

But calling another woman a “slutty flight attendant” is apparently hilarious. Never mind that the woman is a United States Governor, the first woman to hold that post in her state, and the youngest. Never mind that she’s an accomplished and hard-working, self-made woman and mother of five. Because she’s a Republican, she’s fair game for the lunatic left who, when it comes to Sarah Palin, seems to have forgotten their Feminism For Dummies handbook at their beach houses.

Letterman’s disgusting attack on Palin and her children is just the latest in a long line of reprehensible moments for limousine liberals, who, these days, eventually end up embarrassing whatever cause they seem to be promoting. Margaret Cho called Palin “the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11.” Bill Maher said she was “hot and dumb.” Roseanne Barr called her “Bad Mother Palin,” and Randi Rhodes joked that she’s “friends with all the teenage boys. You have to say no when your kids say ‘can we sleep over at the Palin’s? No! NO!” Sandra Bernhard warned she’d be gang raped in New York City, and in a stroke of absolute genius, Hollywood’s favorite little recluse, Lindsay Lohan, called her “media obsessed.”

Yet, where was the outcry from Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and other perceived protectors of women’s rights? Where was the National Organization for Women when Perez Hilton called Palin a pig or Carrie Prejean a “c” word? Where was Gloria Steinem? All we heard were crickets.

Feminism of this ilk was on its last legs back in the early 90s, when Kay Bailey Hutchison ran for Senate. Steinem slammed her conservative politics by calling her a “female impersonator.” Molly Ivins called her a “Breck girl,” for the way she tossed her hair. And actress Annie Potts said “she’s just the same old thing in a skirt.” It was a classy moment for sure, but in spite of the reverse-feminism attacks against her, Hutchison won, and became the first woman to represent Texas in the US Senate.

Flash forward 15 years and it’s clear that liberal feminism is still up to the same old tricks, wearing the same empty pant suit, and pretending to fight for women – but really it’s fighting for political gain. The credibility it once held as an agent for change and proponent of equal rights is long gone thanks to its anti-woman rhetoric, its blatant hypocrisy and the new levels of lunacy it’s reached just in the past few years. Its messengers have ruined its message.

It’s not the first time Barbara Boxer’s been criticized for helping to drive feminism into the ground to make a bizarre political statement. When she suggested that then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wasn’t qualified to do her job because she was childless and single, Tony Snow rightly called it “a great leap backward for feminism.”

Telling a decorated general that he can’t call her “ma’am,” when she’s been both a silent and vocal enemy to women like Rice, Palin, Prejean and others with whom she philosophically disagrees, is a fairly presumptuous demand for the very respect she hasn’t afforded others in her position.

With Pelosi irrationally attacking the integrity of the CIA, and Boxer publicly criticizing an Army general for a totally imagined slight, it’s a wonder women are taken seriously at all anymore. And as one, I admit I’m more than a little embarrassed by their behavior. They do not speak for me.

So I’d like to go on record and say that soldiers everywhere are free to call me “ma’am,” with no fear of retribution. But I do have an admittedly bizarre request in return: Please don’t call me “slutty” or some similar derivative. It sounds crazy and counter-intuitive, I know – but I guess I’m just an old-fashioned gal.

S.E. Cupp
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.