Category: Abortion

Commies for Abortion

Posted on Comments

PHOTO: Aaron Reiss, Houston Press

“Stop Patriarchy” (@StopPatriarchy) is a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a Maoist cult led by Bob Avakian, a septuagenarian leftover of 1960s Berkeley radicalism. (For background on these deranged freaks, read the entries “Robert Avakian” and “Revolutionary Communist Party” at Discover the Networks.) So when RCP activist Sunsara Taylor organized “the movement to End Pornography and Patriarchy: The Enslavement and Degradation of Women,” you think maybe somebody would have noticed that these feminists are, by their own declaration, revolutionary communists.

The commies held a protest Thursday in Houston, Texas:

If the War Against Women is a national battle, Texas is ground zero.
That’s according to Sunsara Taylor, a leader of Stop Patriarchy, a movement that is attempting end to the enslavement and degradation of women — notably when it comes to the right to an abortion and the production of pornography.
“Roe v. Wade began in Texas, and the (pro-life constituency) plan(s) on ending it in Texas,” Taylor said. “We came here to stand up against that.”
Thursday, Stop Patriarchy held the first protest of its 2014 abortion rights freedom ride, outside the Harris County Republican Party Offices. Protesters chanted, “fetuses are not babies,” “abortion is not murder” and “women are not incubators.” They also held up faux-bloodied coat hangers and held photos of women who died from illegal abortions, an homage to the commonality of the practice during the early 20th century.
Taylor said that, under the guidance of Texas’s Republican Party, women could be forced back to the practices of those dangerous days to deal with unwanted pregnancies. On Sept. 1, as part of legislation under Texas House Bill 2, there are projected to be six abortion clinics in the state.
Stop Patriarchy will make other stops in Austin, San Antonio and Rio Grande Valley as part of its crowdfunded trip until Aug. 21.

Not a word — not a single fucking word — about the fact that these people are Maoist revolutionaries, members of a radical cult that in 1984 advocated the assassination of Ronald Reagan. Neither was the connection between the RCP and Stop Patriarchy mentioned in a New York magazine article that included these quotes from Sunsara Taylor:

“[W]omen have not achieved equality. That’s a myth in this country. . . . They’re reducing women to objects, either sexually or as breeders. . . .
“Abortion is perfectly moral. Fetuses are not babies, and women are not incubators.”

You might think that a self-described revolutionary communist like Taylor, if interviewed by the mainstream media, would at least use that as an opportunity to mention, y’know, communism and revolution. But no, there seems to be some kind of tacit agreement that these subjects won’t be mentioned in the mainstream press.

Texas Right for Life does mention the RCP, pointing out that some pro-abortion activists in Texas are angry because Stop Patriarchy managed to raise more than $30,000 for their Texas tour:

By the way, those bloody coat hangers? A lie.

“The wire hanger is indeed a powerful symbol — the
symbol of a lie engineered with malice aforethought. . . .
“The wire hanger . . . is not an accurate symbol of a bloody and regrettable past, but is rather . . . a fund-raising tool.
“[I]t is a grotesque fund-raising tool, but then abortion is a grotesque business. The wire hanger is a way to change the subject from the reality of abortion in these United States, which is that it exists mainly as a tool for enabling
sexual convenience at the cost of a human life.”

You know who is really good at lying? Commies, that’s who.

 

Planned Perversion

Posted on Comments

“Planned Parenthood’s Sex Ed Pushes BDSM, ‘Asphyxiation’ On Teens” is the headline at Breitbart.com, highlighting a new video from Live Action that demonstrates how America’s leading abortion provider is teaching kids about kinky sex.

Planned Parenthood’s advocacy of perversion and promiscuity — under the aegis of “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” — isn’t really anything new. They’ve been promoting this deviancy for decades, and it makes sense if you understand the economics of the abortion industry: Encouraging young girls to screw around recklessly guarantees that a certain percentage of of those girls are going to get knocked up and then pay for an abortion. So the people on the “supply” end of this supply-and-demand equation will do everything possible to increase demand for their services. Q.E.D.

Of course, the push for “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” is based on a myth that kids’ problems with sex are the result of a shortage of sexual knowledge. In fact, kids have never in history had as much access to information about sex as they do now. Whatever it is, if you can spell it, you can Google it — C-H-L-A-M-Y-D-I-A — and if schools would just teach kids basic reading and writing, they could figure out this sex stuff for themselves. Believe it or not, some of us managed to figure it out even before there was an Internet. Or cable TV, for that matter.

Kids are overloaded with sexual information. What seems to be in short supply, however, is sexual virtue. We could fix this problem pretty easily, if America’s schools weren’t run by liberals.

Suppose that a Republican wins the White House in 2016 and is crazy enough to put me in charge of the nation’s sex education agenda. Within a matter of weeks, our nation’s school counselors would receive bundles of helpful pamphlets and posters.

KEEP YOUR BRITCHES ON, MISSY!
DON’T YOU KNOW BOYS HAVE COOTIES?

Just basic common-sense stuff like that. There would also be a pamphlet called, YOU’RE PROBABLY NOT A HOMO, in which young fellows would be reminded that the odds are at least 20-to-1 against them being gay, so if they’re worried about it, they should probably stop worrying. Unless they’re getting boners thinking about Justin Bieber or something, in which case, yeah.

KATE UPTON NUDE

If you feel an overwhelming urge to click that link, you’re not a homo, unless you’re a chick, but even chicks might be curious to see Kate Upton nude without being totally lezbo, so we’ll need to ask some additional questions for the chicks:

This is the kind of basic common-sense curriculum kids really need. Simple messages like, “Stop Wanking to Porn, You Horny Freaks” and “There Were More Than 1.4 Million Cases of Chlamydia Last Year. Don’t Be the Next Case. Keep Your Britches On, Missy.” We must implement the Four Basic Principles of Sex Education:

  1. Fear.
  2. Guilt.
  3. Shame.
  4. And more Fear.

For example, there was a 20% increase in unprotected anal sex among gay men. So we need pamphlets and posters: “Your Mother Would Be So Disappointed If You Got Chlamydia in Your Butt” and “Eewww! That’s Gross! Stop Doing That, You Weirdo!”

Most sex problems could be solved by this basic common-sense approach. The World Health Organization, however, is run by liberals, not people with common sense, so they want to spend $13,000 a year for every gay man in the world to provide them with HIV prevention drugs. This is crazy. All you need is some pamphlets and posters: “Why Do You Keep Doing It In Your Butt? Stop That Right This Minute, Young Man, or I’m Going to Tell Your Mother!”

Meanwhile, for those of you kids who aren’t homos or lezzies, you’re probably wondering, “How can I get somebody to have sex with me without catching a nasty case of chlamydia?”

Simple answer: Do you have a wedding ring on your finger? OK.

Just don’t do it in the butt. That’s gross.

 

The #HobbyLobby Hysteria

Posted on Comments

Years ago, while reporting on federally funded research — the infamous “porn arousal” studies at Northwestern University — I developed what I like to think of as the Existential Theory of Liberalism: To a liberal, nothing exists unless it is mandated, subsidized and/or regulated by the federal government.

If you think it is a waste of taxpayer money to give a creepy psychology professor a federal grant to measure women’s sexual arousal to pornography, you will be condemned as “anti-sex.” If you want to reduce deficit spending by limiting tax money for the National Endowment of the Arts, you’re “anti-art.” Don’t agree with proposed EPA environmental regulations? You’re “anti-science.”

The reaction to today’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case — where a business objected, as a matter of religious liberty, to ObamaCare’s mandated insurance coverage for contraceptives — is a case in point: Liberals want us to believe that, unless businesses are compelled by federal law to provide contraception to their employees, contraception will cease to exist.

Their arguments are absurd, but if liberals were capable of understanding facts and logic, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?

 

‘The Child Within Me Is Truly Gone … I Hate You, But I Loved You’

Posted on Comments

Dance teacher Nichol Marie Phelps molested 15-year-old girl.

Readers may remember the case of Nichol Marie Phelps, the married 30-year-old dance teacher in Florida who said she would leave her husband for the “hot” 15-year-old student she molested in 2012. Phelps was sentenced to prison last week:

Though she’s only 17, the young dancer testified Friday that her childhood ended long ago.
“The child within me is truly gone and has been for a really long time,” the teen told her former dance instructor, Nichol Phelps. “With your selfish games, you stole someone’s childhood, their innocence.”

(“Innocence”? Isn’t that an oppressive patriarchal concept?)

The testimony came during a four-hour hearing Friday at the Orange County Courthouse, during which Circuit Judge Mike Murphy sentenced Phelps, of Cape Coral, to 8 1/2 years in prison, followed by sex-offender probation. . . .

(Eight-and-a-half years? Homophobia!)

Friday’s hearing featured emotional testimony from both families. Phelps’ husband and mother described her as a devout Christian and loving mom of two, whose children rely on her presence and care.
“I am so sorry,” Phelps told Murphy. “Please, think of my family.”
Phelps and her defense portrayed the teen as the aggressor. Phelps testified that the girl made advances which “should have been handled in a mature manner, and they were not.” . . .

(Uh, the 15-year-old was “the aggressor” who “made advances”? How many sex offenders in Florida prisons tried that excuse?)

“I hate you, but I loved you,” the teen told Phelps in her testimony. “That’s what I struggle with the most…. You hurt me.”
She added: “You will not take from me who I am today, because today I love myself… I am no longer a victim, I am a survivor.”

Kaitlyn Hunt could not be reached for comment.

 

The Darwinian Dead End: Feminists Subtract Themselves From the Future

Posted on Comments

“To live for the moment is the prevailing passion — to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity. We are fast losing the sense of historical continuity, the sense of belonging to a succession of generations originating in the past and stretching into the future. . . .
“Narcissism emerges as the typical form of character structure in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
— Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (1979)

Earlier today, I mentioned Amanda Marcotte’s revulsion toward motherhood — “this homicidal impulse, this horrifying hatred of the mere thought of having babies” — as symptomatic of the mental illness that inspires much of feminism. Meanwhile, Melissa Langsam Braunstein calls our attention to still more symptoms:

Many adults can’t stand kids. The tragic thing is that some of them are already parents.
In honor of Mother’s Day, feminist website Jezebel scoured anonymous social media site Whisper for posts from parents who regret procreating. One parent shares, “I love my kids so much . . . but I regret having them every single day.” Some Whisper mothers miss their pre-kid social lives and others bemoan their post-birth bodies. There is also this incredibly jarring admission: “I hate my son. I didn’t want a boy. I wanted a girl.”
I can’t imagine ever saying anything like that. I’m thrilled I’m having a second girl, but having experienced a miscarriage last year, I’m over the moon to simply be carrying a healthy baby. . . .

Read the whole thing. Of course, no sane person can imagine saying such things about their children, but these are feminists, eh?

The swirling vortex of modern madness that makes some people envision a future of cannibalism manifests itself in other ways. Or maybe you didn’t hear the news about the Miley Cyrus tour.

“Every time you get in your car, you’re going to hear my fucking song on the fucking radio, you piece of shit. That’s right. And then I’m gonna take all my clothes off, I’m gonna sit on a big, giant dick . . . and then I’m gonna hold the record for the most-watched music video on Vevo . . . So then — you know, you can tell a lot about a person — I think you can tell how big their dick is by how much confidence they have usually, and if I was a dude I’d probably have a really big dick, ’cause I feel really good about myself now. So I’m gonna tell those motherfuckers that broke my heart — particularly one — to suck my fat dick and to enjoy hearing this song for the rest of your life.”
— Miley Cyrus, May 10

This obscene tirade — accompanied by Miley’s use of the, uh, interesting stage prop — was widely interpreted as a denunciation of her ex-fiancé, Liam Hemsworth. But let’s face it: Miley has been having a public nervous breakdown for the past year or so, and this was just her latest psychotic episode. Although she’s getting paid quite well to indulge her exhibitionistic perversion, one must wonder if her acts of self-degradation are somehow a cry for help.

Psychologically healthy people don’t do such things, and the unraveling of Miley Cyrus’s broken mind — she apparently no longer has any sense of personal dignity — is painful to watch. But this is just popular entertainment “in a society that has lost interest in the future.”

Sex is naturally about the future.

Procreation is the biological purpose of sex, after all, and as the Contraceptive Culture encourages us to have unnatural sex — to thwart the natural purpose of sex — it also disconnects sex from love, marriage and parenthood, so that sex becomes a meaningless recreation of no more ultimate consequence than a video game.

Like the pornographic career of “Belle Knox,” the weirdly sexualized performances of Miley Cyrus in some sense express the inherent nihilism of what sex becomes when it is treated like a commercial commodity, a leisure amusement or — as with Miley’s “suck my fat dick” gesture — a competitive sport with winners and losers.

Feminism encourages and celebrates this meaningless kind of sex, telling women that motherhood is oppressive and that abortion is therefore a “right” essential to women’s “liberation.” At the pro-abortion feminist Web site RH Reality Check, Chanel Dubofsky commemorated Mother’s Day with a rant about the “childfree” lifestyle:

Mother’s Day is a great time to remind ourselves that language matters. We already know this; the difference between a “baby” and a “fetus,” between “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice,” among other terms, are vital to pro-choice politics and the movement. Corporate media outlets misfire with regard to language all the time, and this has created a deep sense of confusion between the terms “childless” and “childfree.”
Recently, in a piece for The Telegraph, writer Sarah Rainey featured actress Helen Mirren discussing her decision to not have children, and the implications of that decision for Mirren and for other women like her in a society obsessed with having children.
“Motherhood holds no interest for me,” said Mirren.
She is referred to in Rainey’s piece as “childless.”
Here’s the problem: While “childless” means the condition of being without children, it implies that everyone who does not have children would like to have them. However, being “childfree,” like Mirren — and like me — means that one does not want to have children at all. . . .
As a woman who’s childfree, I’m not experiencing reproductive challenges. I’m not waiting for the right partner, or enough money, or the perfect geographic location. I don’t feel like something is missing from my life because I don’t have children. I don’t want to have kids. . . .
The experience of not wanting children in a world where women are defined by their reproductive desire and potential — where women are expected to structure their lives around babies — is very different than being a woman who would like a baby or would like to be a parent some day. . . . A cisgender, straight woman who doesn’t want a baby is transgressive, subversive, pathological, a perpetual mystery to be solved.

Certainly, we should not encourage feminist lunatics to procreate. If Chanel Dubofsky wants to become a Darwinian dead end — to subtract herself from the future — far be it from me to attempt to dissuade her from embracing her own extinction. She thinks she’s being “transgressive” and “subversive”? Whatever. Her delusions of significance are of no consequence, but it’s important to recognize that this is just another symptom of feminism as a mental disorder.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

 

‘Population Bomb’ Author Predicts Cheerful Future of Cannibalism

Posted on Comments

Long ago utterly discredited by the falsehood of his “overpopulation” prophecies, Paul Ehrlich is still taken seriously by liberals. He went on HuffPo Live this week to warn that the depletion of natural resources means soon we’ll be forced to “eat the bodies of your dead,” et cetera:

In addition to being full of wild predictions, Ehrlich was prepared to lay extensive blame on Republicans and the media. He accused “every state legislature” of waging a “war on women” and a “war on the environment.” In addition, he blamed former President Ronald Reagan of “stealing from the poor” — all the pro-forma stuff you have to say to make sure of being invited back on HuffPo Live.
Ehrlich viciously attacked pro-life Americans, somehow accusing them of “trying to kill women by making abortion illegal.” Instead, he called for “backup abortions” for any woman who’s birth control failed, in an attempt to control “breeding,” as he put it.

(Via Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Donald Douglas at American Power observes that, even while the Left’s “scientific” experts are exposed as fools, the fanatic Amanda Marcotte accuses the Right of waging a war on science.

 

‘Trigger Warning’: How Feminism Promotes Harmful Stereotypes

Posted on Comments

Is there any stereotype of women more harmful than the idea that women are emotionally delicate creatures incapable of handling stress, prone to hysterical crying at the slightest provocation? And doesn’t the contemporary feminist trope of putting “trigger warnings” on potentially disturbing material tend to justify that stereotype?

But we are just too stupid to understand these things, which is why feminists like Soraya Chemaly must explain them to us:

In an article title “Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm,” the New York Times yesterday described ongoing debates on college and university campuses about whether or not trigger warnings should be used in advance of discussions that include, among other things, violent, racist and misogynistic content. This argument is a repeat of a long-standing one about the uses and efficacy of warnings regarding possibly disturbing and re-traumatizing content. Conversations about trigger warnings, however, seem more and more like superficial proxies for ones about deeper problems on campuses regarding diversity, equity, the corporatization of education, and, the dreaded word, privilege.
Triggers, images, sounds, smells and, yes, texts, that provoke specific emotional and physical responses in people, are not about “squirming.” They are complex, unpredictable and highly individual reactions to material that evokes pain and fear. The idea of trigger warnings started in feminist spaces because experiences with, for example, sexual and domestic violence, are so common that it made sense, out of compassion, to warn participants before revealing graphic descriptions of incest, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm and suicide.

Let us ask: Is it the case that “experiences with, for example, sexual and domestic violence are so common” universally among women or, rather, is this particularly true “in feminist spaces”? Because “the dreaded word, privilege” may reference, among other things, known correlations of socio-economic factors, e.g., the higher incomes of households headed by married couples, so that the offspring of traditional families are “privileged” in comparison to the children of unmarried or divorced parents. And it can be further demonstrated from social research that women and girls in non-traditional households are at greater risk of “sexual and domestic violence,” and to have “experiences with . . . incest, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm and suicide.”

What we may surmise — trigger warning for logic — is that “feminist spaces” are disproportionately populated with women who have suffered such traumatic experiences and who, rather than dealing with their psychological problems through therapy, have instead decided that “the personal is political,” so that their feminist politics are actually an attempt to rationalize their personal problems.

It is not at all uncommon for women who identify themselves as feminists to admit that they suffer from mental illness, without seeming to recognize the significance of these admissions.

Women’s Studies Professor Lisa Johnson wrote an entire book about her borderline personality disorder, an affliction the National Institutes for Mental Health (NIMH) describes as “a serious mental illness marked by unstable moods, behavior, and relationships.” And she is just one of many examples of this tendency: Over and over, when you read the autobiographical writings of feminists, you encounter admissions of psychiatric problems — clinical depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, et cetera — so frequently that you wonder if the entire feminist movement is on Prozac.

Crazy is an acceptable synonym for feminist, and “trigger warnings” are evidence that the lunatics are running the asylum.

 

Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot: Trigger warning for Amanda Marcotte.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . .
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 14

This kind of bloodthirsty fanaticism — “I hate babies! Kill all the little time-sucking monsters!” — is profoundly abnormal.

Parenthood is often difficult and, even under the most ideal circumstances, parents must deal with unpleasant tasks. (Yesterday, I babysat my infant grandson for several hours and had to change two poopy diapers.) Yet there are more than 6 billion people on the planet, a fact that suggests the vast majority of humans are capable of coping normally with the ordinary duties of parenthood.

So why does Amanda Marcotte have this homicidal impulse, this horrifying hatred of the mere thought of having babies? Even if we could dismiss Marcotte as an extreme example of feminist psychosis, why is it that the feminist movement has such a reverential attitude toward abortion as the ultimate expression of “women’s rights”?

Answers to such questions are possible, and we may speculate why a political movement of women would focus its energies so zealously on the destruction of life in the womb — i.e., despising motherhood as the natural consequence of women’s sexuality. Foregoing speculation about the psychiatric motives behind feminism’s Death Cult, however, we can say simply that women who have such a bizarre revulsion toward their own maternal capacity are emotionally disturbed.

And so . . . trigger warning: The mentally ill feminist writer must warn her mentally ill feminist readers that she is discussing topics that could cause these emotional trauma cases to go spiraling off into the vortex of craziness that swirls around them.

Trigger warning: “You are a victim, permanently damaged by whatever awful things you experienced in your wretched childhood, your unhappy adolescence and your dysfunctional adult relationships.”

Trigger warning: “Embrace victimhood as your identity, and blame all your problems on patriarchy, Christianity, capitalism and the Republican Party, which are all more or less the same thing.”

Trigger warning: “Take another Prozac and vote Democrat!”

So there they go, the Feminist Lunatic Parade, marching toward their delusional utopia of Equality, inviting other women to join them: Kill your babies, become a lesbian and you can be a feminist, too!

And they wonder why normal women won’t sign up for that trip.




 

RELATED:

 

 

Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Recycles ‘War on Women’ Theme

Posted on Comments

The DNC chairwoman issued a statement on Women’s Health Week in which she evidently presumes that (a) abortion is essential to “women’s health,” (b) opposition to abortion is an “extreme agenda,” and (c) all women think ObamaCare is awesome:

[A]t the state and national level, Republicans have repeatedly taken actions that restrict access to health care for women and families. Yes, they’ve voted more than 50 times to repeal or undermine Obamacare, but their disregard goes beyond even that. Just last week, the RNC passed a resolution that makes their restrictive and extreme women’s health agenda one of their focuses going into the midterm elections. . . .
When the RNC backs extreme policies like that, there are real-world consequences for women. In my home state, Florida Republicans including Gov. Rick Scott are taking constrictions on women’s health to a new level. The state legislature recently passed two new restrictions that will interfere with a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions with her doctor, and instead inserts the GOP’s extreme agenda into these very private discussions . . .
If Rick Scott signs these bills — and I’m sorry to say that I’m confident he will — my home state will be the next in a long line of states to roll back the clock on women’s rights. It is senseless and it is wrong. This National Women’s Health Week, I’m standing with Florida women.

(Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers.)