What Vast-Left Said

The audacity of Plouffe.

Another Shameless Sexist Article in HuffPo

Yecch.

"The Original Power Couple Emerges Again With Hillary on Top . . ."


Why not come right out and call her a nappy-headed ho' and get it over with, Bronstein, you um "dickhead"?


And now for something completely different: Arthur Silber, a guy who gets it.

Rape: Another "Pre-Existing Condition"

Collecting all these stories of "health?" insurance company denial abuse is rilly, rilly getting fun!

Here's one about a rape survivor getting in wicked trouble because she took a drug after being raped so she might not get AIDS! W00t!

Let me highlight another juicy bit:

. . . patients and therapists wrote in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.

Yes, boys and girls, it takes a "health?" insurance denial abuse panel to take power and control over your mental health care, denying care because it is actually needed. Wow! Double bind much?

Yo, Whoopi: That's What "Rape" Rape IS

Has this country run entirely out of adults?

Here's a link to story about Whoopi Goldberg, who, along with some others, seems to find the act of drugging, raping and sodomizing a child something other than utterly repellent and unacceptable. She thinks it was rape, but not "rape" rape.

[Whoopi-Polanski]

Splashed all over HuffPo you'll find Polanski apologists. It's remarkable. I see Polanski apologists everywhere.
They don't even know that they're dead wrong.

Polanski apologists could feast their eyes on Polanski's victim's testimony at The Smoking Gun, here. Where, you know, the child victim testified to being all alone with Polanski, given champagne, and more champagne, and then qaaludes. Then, having been all softened up, she testifies to being raped and sodomized by Polanski. It's all right there in black and white.

But, hey, there's a big pro-torture crowd, too, in the ol' U-S-A, so what's not so funny about peace, love and understanding child date-rape,-rape-rape,-and-sodomy?

If Your Spouse Beats the Crap Out of You = It's All Your Fault! Thus, It's a Pre-Existing Condition!!

So, really, haha, boyz and girlz.

Just suck it up. Whatever happens, suck it up!!

HuffPo Sexism Spree Rages On: Today's Derision Target -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

I am sure HuffPo will be running a poll on John Roberts' silly old eccentric wardrobe any day now. Clarence Thomas' too.

Sec'y Clinton Tells It Like It Is Re: Bush v. Gore' Puts Pundits' Panties in Big Fat Twist

Yes, it's a funny funny thing about our Secretary of State: when she tells the truth, or sets limits with questioners, some blowhards find it really upsetting.

And when the other Clinton tells the truth, some so-called libruls get their panties in a twist. Why is that? Is it Bush = Gore all over again?

Lindsey Graham Complains That Sotomayor Asks "Tough Questions"

I never said that playing the shrew card, calling a female temperamental, argumentative, and tough was sexist.

I never said that Lindsey Graham was a pussy, either.

Fake Feminist Posts at HuffPo

Periodically, it's time for a cat fight. Everyone knows how easy it is for me to get my panties in a twist.

Found this on HuffPo:

Yeah, that would be the same HuffPo that, on its front page, has yet another article ridiculing the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House about their clothes.

"Letterman Quietly Ushers In the New Wave of Feminism," by Amy Siskind, claims that the Palin/Letterman feud shows there is a new wave of feminism a-risin'!

Wow.

"Not-feminism," apparently.

Because -- eee-ew -- feminism is just so icky?

Quoth Siskind:

It's not your mother's feminism. In fact, it's so revolutionary that the word "feminism" is being updated. The next wave is here. The players are different. The words are different. The asks are different. The weapons and tactics are different. Even the feel is different.

We knew it was coming. We just didn't know when or what it would look like. Quietly, cloaked in the unfortunate choice of David Letterman's words, the next wave has washed ashore, sight unseen by our national media. This explains why the media's constant query of "where are the feminists" is not being answered. The "feminists" are still there, yes. But the media is peeking under the wrong rocks as this next wave sweeps calmly over them and reaches our country's shore.

Gone is the "women's movement." This wave is not focused solely on women. This wave is primarily about the next generation -- our daughters and granddaughters. We see the sexualization of the next generation. We see the disturbing parade of misogyny and sexism. Mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers are sick and tired of the constant assault against women and girls.

Gone is "equal rights." This wave is not focused solely on above-ground demands for legislative change. This wave is about reaching down beneath the surface to eradicate the roots of sexism that lie deeply buried in darkness, ignorance and bias. The next generation deserves to be safe and be given a fair shake, yes; but we realize our daughters can only get there by changing our culture.

Gone is "domestic violence."

Wow. Just like that. DV -- gone?

Wowee.

Well, I know feminists, and you, madam, are no feminist.

Feminists don't make ageist frames: "not your mother's feminism"? Pfft.

"It's not about women, it's about the"next generation""? Did you really say that? Why?

Feminists don't throw domestic violence/domestic abuse under the bus.

Feminists don't ridicule the history of the women's movement, putting "protest rallies" in quotes, disparaging feminism, and suggesting the notion of "equal rights" is trivial. Cripes. Where you been?


You so need a big cuppa consciousness-raising, sweetie.

Fetal Sentimentalist & ProlifeKiller Warns of More ProlifeKiller Death to Come

Yes, that's what he said.

Huffington Post Posts Sexist Post Because None Dare Call It Sexist?

Don't get your panties in a twist, ladies.

Or gentlemen.

As the case may be.

Just want to assure you that it's SO not sexist to write articles where readers get to rate the clothing of the Secretary of State of the United States.

Along the prettiness/non-prettiness continuum.

Because -- why not? It's a free country!

We used to do it for Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Colin Powell!!

All-the-time.

Really. Don't you remember? Sure you do.


"COLOR HIM BAD . . . AND GOOD. VOTE FOR AL HAIG'S PRETTIEST AND NOT-SO-PRETTY PANTSUITS"

Sexism and Judge Sotomayor

Really, you've gotta love this.

Hat-tip to Tennessee Guerilla Women.

The evolution of headlines at the New York Times.

Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issues of Temperament 5.28

Sotormayor's Blunt Style Raises Issues of Temperament 5.28

And then there's this one, not available online, but available as an actual newspaper arrived at our doorstep yesterday. Love that sub-head.


Assertive Style Raises Questions on Demeanor
Colleagues Call Sotomayor A Potent Force


Oh my.

The Pussy Frame: Just Like the Nigger Frame Except It's Acceptable

It's all about insult.

You want to insult a guy, you call him a girl.

If you're the governor of california, you call a guy a "girlie-man." If you're a politician, you call a yappy little dog you don't want a "girlie-dog" or you call a woman "sweetie." And you can get away with it.

If you're casting aspersions on candidates, you imbue them with female characteristics: you tar them with stereotypical female qualities/weaknesses: vanity, superficiality, etc. -- complaining about their haircuts, clothes, their color choices: Edwards as "Breck girl," Gore's "earth tones," Clinton's $400 haircuts, Kerry windsurfing like a sissy. You're about to fake-waterboard some loudmouth Con radio host, you tell him he's gonna "moan like a little girl." You want to justify torture, you frame your opponents as wimps and wussies.

You want to insult the [female] Speaker of the House of Representatives to further your rightwing political agenda, you call her a pussy.

And -- you can get away with it.

Saudis, Si! Cuba, No!

It's obvious that it's OK to trade with the Saudis, who treat their women like dirt, and it's OK to sell off our country to the genocidal Red Chinese, but Cuba?

Pfft.

Why would we trade with them? Why would we visit them? They've got a health care system that actually works! Can't expose our population to that, can we?

In the meantime, we're still dependent on and trading with a country that thinks marrying off 8-year-old girls is swell. Saudi Arabia. Marrying off an 8-year old girl to her Daddy's 47-year-old male "close friend."

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks last January quoted in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

Saudi, si! Porque no?

Love Hurts

I'm not making this up.

Why it is ok that vaginal sex hurts. Ok, well, he's making it up.

Demo using tomato. No, its an apple. Dutch guy explains it all. Really. Well, or not really. Yes, not really.

And arguably the worst part is -- that one really cannot tell bushistfascist unseen-inherently-satirical-reality from regular reality-type satire anymore. Oh my. The thin thin thin thin thinnest line. (Refers readers to stories on adopting snowflake "babies" frozen feti and christian domestic discipline and talibangelical christian daddies' inappropriate balls, and and and . . .)

Well, If You Can Ban a Peacemaker from a Conference on Peace, Why Not Bring A Rape-Victim-Blamer to Rape Victim Fundraiser?

I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will be happy to tell them it's all their fault. They should just have been wearing burqas the little sluts.

Of course, if the group has no funds, isn't it their own damn fault?

From NewsHounds:

Bill O’Reilly, however, has shown his total disregard for rape victims in the following statement made on his radio show: “Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway . . .

Walking by herself? In a mini-skirt? Without an escort? Without a burqa?

What would the Saudis think?

[hat tip to Jesus' General.]

Technorati Tags: c

Step-Dad Who Incested 9-year-old Girl NOT Excommunicated by Catholic Church

Well, why would raping and knocking up one's 9-year-old stepkid be some big deal, anyhow?

Failing to force one's 9-year-old raped child to give birth?

That'll throw ya outa the church.


------
Prior coverage here.

Our Friends the Saudis Punish 75-year-old Lady With Forty Lashes for "Mingling"

"Mingling"? Yeah, I hate it when them broads mingle. So uppity. So annoying.

Ok, so it's a day after the UN Day of Women. Enough already. Don't get your panties in a twist. Sure, we're gonna keep on trading with the Saudis. Look how much all this trade has helped their human rights situation so far! Wowee! Note the abaya in picture, left. Ring a bell, does it?

It's not like it's Cuba. Heck, we sure don't wanna trade with them Cubans. Saudi? Si! Cuba? No!

It's not like its apartheid or something, is it?

Trading for profit with a vile oppressor of the basic rights of half the Saudi population? I mean, why not? We trade with China, don't we?




Saudi Arabia sexism theocracy women's rights Islamist wahabi torture

Catholic Church Wants Forced Maternity for 9 -Year-Old Rape Victim

Isn't that so very compassionate?

Suffer the little children to -- oh, you know, suffer!

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped.

Not to mention protecting a rapist's right to breed.

Oh, and on that happy note, happy International Women's Day. Which, although I belong to multiple US liberal groups, somehow had escaped my notice. Checking Kos, I don't see it in the top 10. And as of this writing 3:50, I don't see any article about it -- at all. I don't see anything at Americablog -- though I do see mention of what clothes John thinks the First Lady OUGHT to be wearing. And not wearing.


rape government-forced maternity Roman Catholic Church

Department of Continuing Sexist Stupidity From the New York Times

Gee, girlie. What's your problem? What's so sexist about this New York Times article that it gets one's panties in a twist?

"Michele Obama Goes Sleeveless -- AGAIN!!"

(Replies gratefully received below.)







3.08.09 Update from Americablog:

"NOTE FROM JOHN: Let me first say, David Brooks is an idiot. Not always. But certainly today. Having said that, I have to admit, I too saw the First Lady on TV that night and thought "woah, a sleeveless dress?" The issue isn't her biceps (her biceps?) The issue is sensuality. That was a sexy dress, and she looked gorgeous in it. I'm just not sure Americans want their First Lady looking too sexy. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm talking about my perceptions of what the public wants. I think being President and First Lady is a bit like running a big company. While the employees, and the public, want you to look your best, want you to look classy, want you to look put-together all the time, they don't want to see you looking sexy, unless it's understated. As I said, I'm sure some of our readers will go ballistic over this analysis, but as I always try to point out, it's not always relevant what "you" think - what's relevant is what the American people think. Obama needs the support of the public, and every little thing counts, whether you or I like it or not. The dress, while stunning, gave me pause. Brooks, in his heavy-handed (and somewhat sexist) Republican way, took an interesting observation and perverted it to his own political purposes." Female = sex object, much, John?