“[The Violence Against Women Act] is a truly bad bill. This is helping the liberals, this is horrible. Unbelievable. What really bothers — it’s called a women’s act, but then they have men dressed up as women, they count that. Change-gender, or whatever. How is that — how is that a woman?”
–Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)
They ran it multiple times, and apologized for it. Sincerely, no doubt.
…the Xristian Xrazies are legislating women’s nipples, having already explored the limits that they can go on woo-wahs:
The state House Judiciary Committee C approved House Bill 34, which makes it a Class H felony to purposefully expose “private parts” for the “purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.”
The bill expands the state’s definition of “private parts” to include a woman’s “nipple, or any portion of the areola.”
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the big deal here?
Republican state Rep. Rayne Brown told lawmakers that she was co-sponsoring the bill because activists had held a topless women’s rights rally in Asheville last summer, where as many as a dozen women bared their breasts
And I have it on good authority that on any given day in Asheville a dozen men are baring their breasts. So what are you going to do about it?
Democratic state Rep. Annie Mobley said she worried that women wearing “questionable fashions” could be prosecuted under the new rules.
But Committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Steven (R) suggested that women could use pasties or nipple coverings just to be safe.
“They’d be good to go” with nipple coverings, Stevens said.
“You know what they say, duct tape fixes everything,” Republican state Rep. Tim Moore agreed.
OK, so we found the Bro’s of North Carolina. Boys, I suggest you put some duct tape over your little Bro’s and then rip that sucker off. Better yet, ask your wives and/or girlfriends to rip off the duct tape.
You know, duct tape does fix everything…
The Violence Against Women Act just passed the Senate, 78-22. All the no votes? Republican men.
The best part? Marco Rubio–the Savior of the Republican Party–voted against it. Have fun with that rebuttal tonight, Marco.
(Think Progress has the whole list.)
This afternoon, author Jessica Valenti hilariously pointed out that a Fox News column about traditional gender roles in marriage is accidentally accompanied by a photograph of two lesbian newly-weds exchanging a kiss.
The FoxNews.com column in question was written by Suzanne Venker, the niece of social conservative hero Phyllis Schlafly, and previous author of the roundly-panned column on how it’s all women’s fault that there is a “battle of the sexes.”
Looks like ancient hate goblin Phyllis Schlafly is going to have to explain the birds and the birds to her neice, Suzanne Venker author of How to Choose a Husband, a you-don’t-go-girl manual.
(Sorry for the absence yesterday: travel day… TG)
Ah, how’s that outreach to women workin’ out for ya, Republicans?
“I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So [Todd Akin] was partially right wasn’t he?”
“But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”
–Rep. Phil Gingrey, an ob-gyn and chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus
Mixed metaphors aside (horses and barns? Sweet Jeebus, Mr. Ed is getting a little frisky), these guys just cannot stop pontificating on lady plumbing, legislating lady’s vaginas, and deciding that life begins with a glass of jug wine before Tab A is introduced to Slot B.
Charlotte Allen, the low-rent Phyllis Schlafly at the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway), says that the lack of men at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was really the problem. Damn feminists, it’s their fault:
“There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable [sic] number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school) [K–4 -- TG], all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor [not true --TG] to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees.”
Aside from throwing a bucket at the knees of a gunman armed with high-powered guns with enormous bullet clips, what else have ya got for us, Charlotte?
“Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.”
Dawn Hochsprung seemed to have performed bravely? Most men I know would not have had the presence of mind, let alone the (lady) balls of Hochsprung. Rushing the kids into locations like closets and bathrooms seems to have helped all but 20 of the kids, which in itself is as close to a miracle as we seem to get most days.
“Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.”
Protecting the weak. Jeebus, are you really saying that ladies should be ladies and let a man do the protecting? Also/too: aside from there not being any husky 12-year old boys (K–4, remember), don’t boys count as children to be protected, too? Isn’t this some sort of Megan McCardle twattle?
But then, our pal Charlotte moves onto her next topic in her thesis: the coddling of men. I guess it is not enough to want menfolk to protect the wimmins, but you need to keep those boys rugged or something. Anyway, take it away Charlotte:
“Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza.“
But they aren’t, Charlotte, but they aren’t. I’m not sure what Charlotte means that they were troubled for genetic reasons; is that a dog whistle for something else? I can interpret that as schizophrenia, being gay, being mixed race? What does it mean, Charlotte, what does it mean?
“You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.”
Oh, so what she’s saying is, tough love, and now you are society’s problem? “You genetically troubled kid, out of the house with you! I’m done! And keep away from my Uzi, too.”
Unfortunately, the idea of being an “adult” and a “man” once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.
OK, so in short, from Charlotte’s confused mind: Women are weak (except for unarmed Dawn Hochsprung, who sprang like a coiled tiger on the armed gunman), men are coddled, but women need them anyway to take down killers. Everyone know your gender-role behavior now? Good.
It doesn’t surprise me that some wingnut wrote this, what does surprise me is that anyone would publish it, but then again, it is on the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway).
…just won their first scalp since losing the elections: they ensured that we will not have another black woman as Secretary of State, as Susan Rice withdraws her nomination.
Nice work, boys. That big tent must be getting stiffling with all those white men inside.
…Weepy McDrunky finally appointed one woman to chair a committee:
After days of pressure from Republicans and Democrats alike, House Republican leaders finally put a woman in charge of a committee Friday afternoon. But if Speaker John Boehner and the rest of the House leadership thought choosing Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) to lead the House administration committee — making her the sole female committee chair in the House — would put the issue to bed, they appear to have been mistaken.
So, who is Candice Miller who gets to be the GOP’s Smurfette?
As the nation’s war with Iraq unfolds, freshman U.S. Rep. Candice Miller may be a visible and familiar source of information.
Miller, R-Mt. Clemens, is one of a group of lawmakers participating in a “war room” that will provide information from the Bush administration to other Republican members, the news media and constituents. Miller and the others are on “a short list to call” to go on radio, talk shows and talk with reporters, said Melissa Mazzella, Miller’s press secretary.
National defense is a top issue for Miller. She is the sole freshman in the war room and Michigan’s only member on the House Armed Services Committee. She’s also one of two freshmen on a House GOP tax dividend working group. The group is working to push for President Bush’s proposal to make corporate dividends tax-exempt.
You might also remember Miller from the Tom Delay ethics investigation: she was one of his minions that would take commands from The Bug Man when he needed to strongarm his caucus members to vote as he dictated, by using threats or bribes. She was admonished by the GOP-lead ethics panel, which must take some doing.
Hey guys, remember that book The Bell Curve that argued that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, and the author Charles Murray was pretty much reviled everywhere he went outside of Wingnuttia, and then more recently he wrote another racist theory book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010? Me Neither! Well, anyway, he is now a “scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute (wingnut welfare emporium) and he is turning his critical and academic eye towards the wimmin-folk!
Now before you get worried, no, he is not claiming (yet) that wimmins are inferior to menses. But he read a synopsis of a study and from that he wrote a piece in which he claims that “benevolent sexism” might be “healthy.”
I want to repeat this: a paid academic at the AEI read an executive summary of a study (and not the study itself) and concluded that “benevolent sexism” might be “healthy.”
Take it away, Think Progress:
“Had he read the paper in question, and not just the abstract, he would have understood why: there’s a mountain of evidence cited by Connelly and Heesacker that “benevolent sexism” is extraordinarily harmful to women. As Connelly told ThinkProgress, “it’s pretty well documented that benevolent sexism is associated with negative outcomes for women.”
“There’s also evidence that “merely exposing women to benevolent sexism increased self-objectification” and that “women who read benevolently sexist comments performed worse on a cognitive task and reported increased feelings of incompetence and self-doubt.” So to answer Murray’s question: the authors conclude “benevolent sexism” is bad despite some positive side-effects because that’s what the evidence says. If he wants to challenge that consensus, he’s free to do it — but it would help if he actually weighed the evidence rather than speculating wildly about human nature.”
So, next time that Wingnuttia tells us that there is no War on Women, remember this: they just want to be gentlemanly to the delicate blossoms and keep them in their place. Just like blacks.
“The only difference between the Klan and Planned Parenthood is that Planned Parenthood’s a lot slicker, a lot more polished. They’ve got a very Madison Avenue-type approach to their eugenics, but the goal is the same. The Ku Klux Klan could never have dreamed of having the success that Planned Parenthood’s having, and on top of that getting a million dollars a day in federal tax dollars.”
–Mark Crutcher, white dude of Xristian Xrazie organization Life Dynamics
The GOP cannot stop thinking and talking about rape:
“I lived something similar to that with my own family,” [Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith] said. He then described his daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy — from consensual sex.
“She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me … she chose the way I thought. Now don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t rape.”
Smith affirmed that he believed his daughter’s pregnancy from consensual sex was similar to a rape. “Put yourself in a father’s position, yes, I mean it is similar.”
Being a father is like being raped, when your daughter makes her own decisions, got it?
Dude, I know you believe It Is All About You, but your kid decided to screw someone; you decided to screw everyone when you ran for office.
Hat tip: Scissorhead Fran
Nothing like calling your female opponent a bitch to win over the wimmin folks vote.
Jeebus, what an assrocket.
Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.’
–WI Rep. Roger Rivard, retelling advice from his father.
OK, so it’s not exactly a salvo in the War on Women, but could the GOP have been more condescending to women than in this ad? Maybe! At least they didn’t say that she was having her period, or show her binging on ice cream later while crying on the phone to all her friends, and making dates to go shoe shopping.
Maybe that’s in the ad’s sequel?
And they wonder why they have a gender gap.