Category: Abortion

Today’s Ray Of Hope: Baal Going On Enforced Diet, Film At 11

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


From Operation Rescue (h/t Jeff Quinton on Facebook):

Operation Rescue has concluded an exhaustive survey of abortion clinics in the U.S. and is pleased to announce that it has documented a record number of abortion clinic closures in 2013, during which time 87 surgical abortion clinics halted abortions.


From the Grauniad (h/t The Pagan Temple in the comments to today’s Live At Five):

Spain’s conservative government has approved an abortion law that rolls back current legislation permitting the procedure without restrictions until the 14th week.

The law needs to pass the Cortes, but since the Popular Party has a majority there, it’s pretty much a done deal. Of particular interest is that the law will once again require 16 and 17-year-old girls to get their parents’ permission.


It’s easy to grow despondent when looking at the culture war and seeing how many things are now considered normal that were regarded as unspeakably obscene and even insane just forty years ago. As Jerry Pournelle reminds us, though, despair is a sin. The bad guys don’t always win and the good guys don’t always lose. If the Spaniards can roll back the Culture of Death, so can we – one shuttered abortion clinic at a time.


Shop Amazon – Free One-Day Shipping on Last Minute Gift Ideas

Family Values as a Math Problem

Posted on Comments

While reading Professor William Jacobson’s take on the Utah polygamy decision, I noticed that in the comments, someone had linked a Census Bureau report that included this odd sentence:

The proportion of one-person households increased by 10 percentage points between 1970 and 2012, from 17 percent to 27 percent.

Uh, no: The proper way to express this is to say the proportion of one-person households increased 59% between 1970 and 2012. The question is how large was the increase relative to the original percentage: 27 minus 17 equals 10, and 10 divided by 17 equals .588.

To say that the increase was “10 percentage points” is misleading, when the increase was actually 59 percent. Only if you’re used to analyzing such data would you notice the deceptive phrasing, and the sad fact is that most journalists aren’t too good at math. Also, most journalists (like most Census Bureau employees) are liberals who don’t really want people to understand the extent to which the American family has declined in the past half-century. The media have generally sought to “hide the decline” (to borrow a phrase from the global warming movement) and have deliberately misinformed the public about demographic issues.

One document that really woke me up to this problem was Maggie Gallagher’s 1999 report “The Age of Unwed Mothers.”

Casting aside the warped worldview promoted by population-control fanatics (e.g., Paul Ehrlich and Planned Parenthood), Gallagher explained that the “teen pregnancy crisis” was phony:

Why have three decades of intensive national effort to reduce teen pregnancy not been more successful? Largely because for three decades, we have framed the problem falsely. What we have called our “teen pregnancy” crisis is not really about teenagers. Nor is it really about pregnancy. It is about the decline of marriage. . . .
Demographically, our “teen pregnancy” problem is inseparable from the disconnect between marriage and childbearing that increasingly characterizes the procreative behavior of adults in their 20s. Culturally, the “teen pregnancy” crisis stems from a widespread ambivalence about marriage , and especially about the importance of marriage when it comes to raising children . . .
The majority of unwed births in the United States today are to adult women in their 20s. These are not “children having children,” nor are they “Murphy Browns.” Almost three-fifths of all births to unwed teenagers in the U.S. are to young women who are either 18 or 19 years old.

Stop there for a minute and think: The “teen pregnancy crisis” rhetoric has a way of conveying the impression that it’s a social catastrophe for these young adult women, ages 18-19, to become mothers. These young adult mothers are lumped in, categorically, with minors 17 and younger simply because this produces a larger number with which to scare people into donating money to Planned Parenthood and other such groups that claim to be fighting the “teen pregnancy crisis” — a crisis which, in fact, does not exist.

Since the early 1970s, the proportion of all teenage mothers who conceived their children out of wedlock, but got married before the birth, has dropped from 47 percent to 18 percent. In choosing unwed motherhood over marriage, these young women are not so much rebelling against, as responding to, reigning cultural values which strongly discourage early marriage.

Bingo! It is the anti-marriage messages in our culture that are the real problem. The decline of the “shotgun wedding” reflects this cultural shift away from marriage. And the idea of a “teen pregnancy crisis” did not arise accidentally from nowhere:

As far back as 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute [the research arm of Planned Parenthood] published a widely distributed booklet, “11 Million Teenagers,” proclaiming a teen pregnancy “epidemic.” Two years later, Congress passed a bill doubling family planning funds that the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare [now HHS] described as “the centerpiece of President Carter’s strategy” to combat “the urgent problem” of teen preganancy. . . .
[T]he unwed teen pregnancy rate continued to climb, from 23.9 births per 1,000 single female teenagers in 1975 to 31.4 in 1985, and to an all-time high of 46.4 in 1994.

Notice that Gallagher refers here to the unwed teen pregnancy rate. This is a more important distinction than may seem obvious:

Why is it a problem if a teenager decides to have a child? . . .
One way that this question is almost never explicitly answered in expert discourse is: Because she is not married. . . . The teen birth rate is, and has been for many years, much lower today than it was in the 1950s and early 1960s, when many teens married and began their families young. It is the unwed teen birth rate that has grown rapidly enough to earn the label “epidemic.”

Whoa! Teen birth rates were actually higher in 1950s, the Golden Age of Tradional Family Values, but this wasn’t viewed as a “crisis” because the teenagers were married — what a concept!

In fact, the birth rate for females ages 15-19 decreased 62 percent between 1960 and 2010. During the same time, however, the median age at first marriage increased significantly. Look at the data:

Birth Rates (per 1,000 women) 
Age  ………… 1960 … 2010 … Decline
15-19 …………. 89.1 ….. 34.2 …. -62%
20-24 ………. 258.1 …. 90.0 …. -65%
25-29 ………. 197.4 … 108.3 …. -45%
30-34 ………. 112.7 ….. 96.5 …. -14%
35-39 ………… 56.2 …. 45.9 ….. -11%
40-44 ………… 15.5 …. 10.2 ….. -34%
Total 15-44 … 118.0 … 64.1 ….. -46%
TFR* ………….  3.65 … 1.93 …. -47%
* Total fertility rate: Average number of lifetime births per woman, if annual birth rate remained constant.

Median Age at First Marriage
Sex  ……….. 1960 …. 2010 … Increase
Female ………. 20.3 …… 26.1 ….. 5.8 years
Male …………. 22.8 ……. 28.2 ….. 5.4 years

There has been a 46% decline in the birth rate, and birth rates for teens actually decreased even more than the overall birth rate. What proportion of births typically occurred in each age group?

Age  ….. 1960 … 2010
15-19 …. 12.2% …. 8.8%
20-29 …. 62.5% … 51.5%
30-39 … 23.2% … 37.0%
40-44 …. 2.1% …… 2.6%

What you see is that in 1960, nearly 75 percent of babies were born to women under 30, a proportion that declined to about 60 percent in 2010. Suppose we broke it down another way:

Age  …… 1960 …. 2010
15-24 ….. 47.6% …. 32.3%
25-44 ….. 52.4% …. 67.7%

So in 1960, when the typical woman had 3.65 children in her lifetime (TFR), nearly half of births were to women under 25, whereas in 2010, when the typical woman had 1.93 children in her lifetime, more than two-thirds of births were to women age 25 or older. Yet the shift toward later childbearing was outpaced by the increase of the age at first marriage. Most out-of-wedlock births (71.2% in 1960 and 56.8% in 2010) are to mothers under age 25. Births to unmarried women, which were 5.3% of total births in 1960, increased to 40.8% by 2010.

The decline of traditional family values, then, is largely correlated to this trend toward later marriage. We could greatly ameliorate the  problem of unwed mothers by two fairly simple measures:

  1. Encouraging young people to get married — And I mean actively, vocally encouraging them. As soon as the lovebirds pair up, start asking them, “When’s the wedding?” Some kids nowadays seem to have the crazy idea that it’s wrong — irresponsible, immoral, perhaps even illegal — to get married before they graduate college. Others are apparently under the impression that getting married requires a big, expensive ceremony. But you can go to the courthouse and get married by the judge, and the only cost is the license fee. Eloping used to be considered romantic. It sure was cheaper than these elaborate weddings with all the receptions and what-not.
  2. Married couples having more babies — This is something that people don’t understand. One reason the percentage of unwed births is so high is that the number of births to married couples has declined. If married people had more babies, a larger percentage of children would have two parents. Q.E.D. Not saying you have to go the full Duggar family trip, but if married couples would start thinking in terms of having three or four children instead of just one or two, it could produce a profound shift.

These ideas probably sound strange, because they are counter-cultural. Our media and education establishments have been dominated for so long by liberals devoted to the population-control Planned Parenthood mentality, people have trouble thinking outside the cultural box. Thinking of family life in terms of data — statistics, numbers, math — is one way to escape that box.

 

Shocking Video: ‘Coven’ of Pro-Abortion Women Attack Church in Argentina

Posted on Comments

You may have seen this video earlier — Ed Morrissey featured it at Hot Air — but I didn’t see it until it was tweeted to me by Covenant College student Keifer Wynn and, because it was in Spanish, at first I wasn’t quite sure what I was looking at.

“Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan,” is the headline, and the description: “Estas son las hordas de lesbianas y abortistas del Encuentro Nacional de Mujeres.”

So, translation via Google: “Abortionists attack  Catholics defending the Cathedral of San Juan. These are the hordes of lesbians and abortionists of the National Conference of Women.” Keep in mind that when I watched this, I hadn’t even translated the titles yet:

OK, so what the heck is going on there?

Every year in Argentina, the National Conference of Women — sponsored by various non-profit NGOs — gathers in some city and, in recent years, the event has featured a protest against the Catholic Church. So when the radical feminists marched on the cathedral in San Juan de Cuyo on November 24, they were met by 1,500 Catholics who locked arms to form a human shield around the cathedral:

The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like mustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” . . .
While the site of the protest was the front of the cathedral . . . “the whole city awoke to graffiti in favor of abortion.”
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop . . .
After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted . . .
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.”

Remember, I originally saw this in Spanish, posted by the blogger at Pagina Catolica, who said (Google translation):

Our readers know that the Spanish and American folk tradition, the Coven or Salamanca (in Argentina), is a meeting of witches, in which to realize the devil is present not only acts of sorcery, but also aberrant sexual practices.

Indeed, the raving frenzy of these radical feminists bespeaks an infernal origin. Susan Brinkmann at Women of Grace writes:

According to a report appearing on the Catholicism Pure and Simple blog, some of the youth who defended the cathedral said they had the impression that “it was a ‘satanic attack’ with ‘demonic figures’ being seen as part of an ‘anti-Christian world revolution.’  In one place the extremists lit a big fire and burned an effigy of Pope Francis as they danced around the fire.”

An “anti-Christian world revolution“?

Putas sucios comunistas! (That’s “dirty communist whores” in Spanish, at least according to the Google translation.)

UPDATE: Amazing the things you can learn on Twitter:

 

The #TexasWomenForever Baby-Killer Democrat Online Fund-Raising Flop

Posted on Comments

Last night, I noticed Amy Kremer of Tea Party Express having this discussion with someone on the #TexasWomenForever hashtag:

At the time, I didn’t realize what was happening: Sarah Silverman and Lizz Winstead were headlining a show in New York that was promoted (at the Web site LadyPartsJustice.com) as an online fundraiser for “The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Texas Equal Access Fund, Whole Woman’s Health, and Fund Texas Women.”

Alison Turkos, one of the chairs for the New York Abortion Access Fund’s board of directors, explained to ThinkProgress that there’s much more work to be done to ensure that women of all income levels can access the abortion care they need. Federal and state laws restricting taxpayer funding for abortion currently prevent millions of women from using their own insurance coverage to pay for these procedures.
“In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need abortion funds because everyone would have health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Unfortunately, we don’t yet live in that world,” Turkos noted. “Abortion funds are critical resources — the right to abortion is meaningless if it is impossible to afford the actual procedure.”
The telethon, which will be hosted in front of a live audience in New York City, will be streamed on Lady Parts Justice between 7:00 and 10:00 pm EST. The four organizations that will be benefiting from the donations — The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Texas Equal Access Fund, Whole Woman’s Health, and Fund Texas Women — will also be hosting the video feed on their own sites.

Translation: “Give money to kill Texas babies!”

Twitchy was all over this Skanky Liberal Baby-Killer Show:

Liberal comics, giant vulva
raise money for abortions in Texas

Sarah Silverman auctions off #VagNapkin

No, they are not making this up:

What’s going on here is simple: Texas passed pro-life legislation this summer limiting late-term abortion and Democrats (who are fanatically devoted to killing Texas babies) decided to make the most prominent pro-abortion Democrat in the state, Wendy Davis, the poster girl for their 2014 mid-term election campaign.

Seeking to replicate the “War on Women” theme of Obama’s 2012 campaign, and likely previewing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign message, Democrats nationwide are pumping money into Texas and hyping the rhetoric of “women’s health” — a theme coordinated with the “community organizing” groups getting millions of federal tax dollars as “Navigators” to sign up people for ObamaCare. That may seem crazy to you or me, but I remember a few months ago it seemed crazy that Terry McAuliffe could beat Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia this way.

As fun as it is to laugh at left-wing kooks, it’s not funny at all when the kooks win elections. Texas Republicans — and especially pro-life Texas Republican women — need to get active, get loud, get organized, and make sure they beat these baby-killing Democrats next fall.

 

Never Doubt @AmandaMarcotte’s Commitment to Baby-Killing

Posted on Comments

For some reason, the world’s most fanatical feminist decided to follow her own logic to the absolute nadir of absurdity:

Catching cold is the “consequence” of being around
other people. I assume you refuse antibiotics, correct?

Taking antibiotics terminates more life than an abortion.
One organism < the billions you kill with antibiotics.

So, babies are bacteria and abortion is like antibiotics. This nonsense conclusion is where the syllogism leads, which tells you there must be at least one flawed premise to the pro-choice argument.

BTW, bacteria don’t cause colds and antibiotics don’t cure colds.

Amanda Marcotte hates babies and wants to kill them.

 


Feminists Fear the Republican Uterus

Posted on Comments

“Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1971

“The political economy of socialist feminism establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and oppression.”
— Allison Jaggar, 1988

“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1989

Professional athletes can spawn with multiple baby mamas, and feminists have no word of complaint. Gay men hiring surrogates to breed children for them? Lesbians raising adopted child sex-change experiments? No problem, say the Womyn’s Studies majors. In response to the general plague of divorce and fatherlessness, the poverty-inducing epidemic of illegitimacy that replicates underclass misery, the collective reaction of the Official Women’s Movement is . . . crickets chirping.

However, let a normal couple of married Christians give birth to more than the standard 1.7 children, and they become the targets of seething rage and resentment from the feminist Left. You saw this attitude exemplified in the hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin who, by giving birth to five children, was made the object of fathomless hatred. “For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics,” as James Taranto observed.

It is this same feminist fanaticism that explains the hateful campaign against the Duggar family and their TV show, “19 Kids and Counting.” Dana Pico at First Street Journal remarks:

The Duggars are the “stars” of the TLC network reality series, 19 Kids and Counting. Predictably, our friends on the left hate them: see Jezebel and Jenna Karvunidis and Bitch Magazine (check out the comments!) and, of course! Amanda Marcotte. It’s pretty simple: if your choices aren’t their choices, then your choices are wrong, illegitimate, and societally harmful. It’s not like they are actually killing anyone, and the Duggars are self-supporting, taxpaying Americans; they aren’t on welfare.
RH Reality Check thinks that it’s horrible, horrible! that Mr Duggar referenced the Holocaust, and you know, I agree: Holocaust references by pro-life groups are inappropriate. After all, the Holocaust killed only six million people, and is nowhere in our abortuaries’ league when it comes to dealing out death.

It is shocking how fanatically devoted some people are to the “right” of abortion. Doug Hagin at Daley Gator explains:

I used to try to talk sense to pro-abortion people on message boards. . . . I found out they too believe it is a baby, and they revel in the “right” to destroy it. To them, a woman is not whole unless she can have her baby executed in the womb. How depraved are they? Well, consider many of the regularly compared unborn babies to parasites, and cancerous tumors, yes really.

Such unspeakable hatred toward human life is rooted in a radical ideology that views the culture and institutions of traditional morality and family life as part of an oppressive bourgeois capitalist system which they — the feminists — must destroy.

It is not just marriage and motherhood, but also religion, patriotism and all notions of virtue, honor and decency associated with those concepts which are the targets of cultural destruction by feminists and the larger radical movement to which feminists belong. You might think there is some reasonable limit to what feminists would endorse in pursuit of this agenda, but hate is irrational and radicalism knows no limit. So when a Canadian provincial government publishes “Children’s Sexual Behaviours: A Parent’s Guide,” which tells parents that it is “natural and healthy” for young children to “touch the ‘private parts’ of familiar adults” and to look at “nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines,” we get the expected reaction from feminists: Crickets chirping.

Why the silence? Because the Left is willing to “normalize pedophilia” as part of its “ongoing effort to rid the world of Judeo/Christian influences,” as Matt Ross says. The failure to understand the Left’s revolutionary ambitions leads to a sonambulant indifference to the Left’s declarations of its beliefs, its methods and its purposes.

“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”
— Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981

While advocating the perverse, abnormal and deviant as “rights,” the Left simultaneously attacks the wholesome and decent, so a married Christian couple like the Duggars must be stigmatized as part of the Left’s larger project, which one of their leaders described as “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Every day brings new headlines heralding the Left’s success at destroying the moral foundation of our nation’s culture.

Why Did a Public University Pay
Dan Savage to Talk About Sex?

That’s a good question: Why would the University of Oregon bring a notorious anti-Christian speaker like Dan Savage to campus?

Why not bring the Duggar family to campus instead?

MSNBC Guest: Abortionists Are
“Doing Wonderful, Important Work”

MSNBC would never say the Duggars are “doing wonderful, important work,” because the Duggars are Christians and MSNBC hates Jesus.

 

Pro-Abortion Group: ‘Get the Duggars Off TV, Because Auschwitz or Something’

Posted on Comments

This is crazy. In the comments on an earlier post, somebody linked an article at RH Realty Check, a site that is pro-abortion with the monomaniacal zeal of a Chinese Communist Party “family planning” commissar. I mean, Amanda Marcotte is moderate by comparison.

“RH” stands for “Reproductive Health,” which is progressive code for KILL YOUR BABY NOW and this is from their “About Us” page:

We enjoyed the support of the UN Foundation and the editorial independence entrusted to us for six years, from 2006-2012. In January 2012 we officially became our own independent 501c3 non-for-profit organization.

OK, now I understand: The UN Foundation was something zero-population-growth zealot Ted Turner donated a bunch of money to, back when Ted was banging Jane Fonda and before the Time/Warner/AOL merger devastated his fortune. So that makes sense.

Anyway, somebody linked an RH Reality Check article in the comments and, while the article itself wasn’t particularly interesting, I noticed that on the sidebar they had this link:

TLC: It’s time to cancel the Duggars’ show,
“19 Kids and Counting,” and stop rewarding
misuse of the history of the Holocaust.

WTF? They’re campaigning against a reality TV show because of the Holocaust? I mean, Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo is a crime against humanity as far as I’m concerned, but why would anyone invoke the Holocaust to argue for the cancellation of the Duggars?

Turns out that, during last month’s Value Voters Summit, Jim Bob Duggar referenced the Holocaust in explaining the importance of civic involvement, and various lefties complained.

Period. End of sentence.

Look, if the Left mounted an online petition every time a pro-lifer compared abortion to the Holocaust, the entire Internet would be full of nothing else but those petitions. Whether or not the analogy is fair or offensive is entirely irrelevant to the fact that such comparisons are routine in pro-life rhetoric, and therefore the question is, “Why this belated umbrage by RH Reality Check?”

Did I mention that they are a 501(c)3 tax-exempt non-profit? And did you happen to notice that we’re about seven weeks from the end of the year? Long story short: It’s a fund-raising gimmick.

With the end of the calendar year approaching, RH Reality Check wants to attract tax-deductible contributions creating the impression that “We’re Doing Something,” and taking on an “issue” with celebrity-name-value is one way to get some free publicity. An excerpt from a recent RH Reality Check article:

Jill Stanek whipped out a dictionary to argue about whether or not Holocaust references are appropriate when talking about abortion, after anti-choice celebrities Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar did just that.
Consider this phrase again from Jim Bob’s speech at this year’s Values Voter Summit that Stanek is defending, as he relayed an anecdote about a visit to a concentration camp: “That’s where we’re at in our nation.” . . .
While it’s only implied in their passive-voice arguments that hesitate to name a perpetrator, you can’t have a calculated mass murder without the calculating mass murderers. So who are the people engineering what anti-choice thought leaders describe as a Nazi-style mass murder happening now in the United States?
In sum, I think Jill Stanek just called me a Nazi. And she called you one, too, if you believe a pregnant person has the right to decide the outcome of her pregnancy, or if you are among the roughly one in three women who has exercised her constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. If she means what she says, we’re all deserving of a Nuremberg trial.

What’s important about that article is not the quote from Jim Bob Duggar or the mention of pro-life blogger Jill Stanek. What’s really important is the byline on the article:

by Natasha Chart,
Director of Campaigns and Fundraising,
RH Reality Check

Oh, fundraising. In other words, RH Reality Check is hustling a buck by trying to get the Duggars off TV. Not what I’d call a philanthropic or charitable endeavor, but then again, I don’t consider killing babies a “constitutionally protected right,” either.

 

Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina

Posted on Comments

“If you’ve ever watched Girls or have been aware of the things Lena Dunham says, you’d see a portrait of narcissism and entitlement. …
“It is the idea that the women on the show are entitled to men wanting them. Despite any flaw — whether it be physical, emotional, or a lack of accomplishments — they are owed a relationship with a man. Based on this premise, any poor behavior or lack of interest in their appearance cannot be the cause of why he didn’t call back.”
— Amy Otto, Nov. 12

“Why is it that every single issue of Cosmo has a ‘how to masturbate’ article or a ‘how to have better orgasms’ article or some variation thereof? And why are these magazines in racks at the supermarket checkout line, so that the minute your kids learn to read, they’re confronted with cover-blurb headlines like ‘Super Sex Secrets to Drive Him Wild’? …
“If you’re not happy with your sex life, you’re not going to find the answer in Cosmo.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, June 28

More than a century ago, Karl Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels first used the term “false consciousness,” a concept that was developed by later Marxist-Leninist thinkers to explain why the proletariat failed to respond to communist calls for violent revolution. Workers who did not share the Marxist sense of class struggle — who did not share the radical agenda of overthrowing the bourgeois state, abolishing religion and the market economy — were said to be in the throes of false consciousness. Opponents of Marxist revolution, it was said, were deficient in knowledge of the historical processes of material development, and therefore influenced by “myths,” including the belief that they might improve their condition under the existing industrial capitalist system.

What does this have to do with Lena Dunham’s vagina? Everything.

Dunham’s show is a sort of propaganda for postmodern feminism, and Amy Otto critically examines the tenets of this ideology:

So since the central conceit of feminism (that one is owed a man’s attention) cannot be questioned — yet results in women being quite incapable of sustaining a relationship — we must pretend that obtaining said relationship is no longer important. We wouldn’t want to dispute the tenets of feminism:

  • He should love you and put up with any behavior you throw at him.  Its “quirky” and not deranged that you question him about everything he feels at every moment.
  • You don’t have to be particularly accomplished or worthy of his time. Being a woman is enough. You go, girl!
  • You are as beautiful as a supermodel no matter who you are — and men who dare to seek out a woman of similar or slightly higher attractiveness are craven idiots. You deserve a man as handsome as you would like him to be.
  • If it’s something that females experience, everyone else should pay for it too.
  • Corporations purposely pursue “sexist” strategies to exclude 50% of the market. Society is so inherently sexist that profit comes after the deliberate exclusion of women.

I say all these things as someone who was fed this nonsense by our culture and who partially bought into it for years — years of being single I might add.

You should read the whole thing, because her point is that beliefs about sex and relationships — beliefs influenced by popular culture, including Cosmo magazine and TV shows like Lena Dunham’s Girls — have a meaningful impact on politics. This is why free-market advocates are mistaken if they think they can win the War of Ideas strictly by making libertarian arguments for economic freedom, while ignoring the so-called “social issues” that are involved in the Culture War.

Yes, there are pro-choice lesbians who embrace economic liberty, but when you start examining electoral demographics and opinion polling, you find a strong correlation between the bourgeois lifestyle (marriage, religion, property) and the bourgeois belief system. Anyone who has examined exit polls understands that the “gender gap” could more accurately be called the “marriage gap” or the “religion gap”; disadvantages for Republicans among women voters are mainly a function of whether women are married and attend church regularly.

In 2012, 53% of married women voted for Romney, whereas 67% of unmarried women voted for Obama. While the published exit poll data did not correlate gender and church attendance, we do know that those who attend religious services weekly (whether male or female) voted 59% for Romney, whereas those who never attend church voted 62% for Obama. Those who believe that abortion should always be legal voted 76% for Obama; those who believe abortion should always be illegal vote 79% for Romney.

‘Giddy, Sex-Starved and Desperate’

There are some who look at data like that and draw the incorrect inference: “Social issues are hurting Republicans! The party is too beholden to the Religious Right!” But ask yourself this: Do the irreligious, the unmarried and the pro-abortion voters otherwise support the Republican agenda? Or, as I believe could be demonstrated — if sufficiently detailed data were available — is it the case that support for economic freedom is strongly associated with the bourgeois values represented by poll data on marriage and church attendance?

And don’t you think Democrats know this?

Annica Benning says this controversial ad for ObamaCare “portray[s] women as giddy, sex-starved and desperate”:

Amy Runyon-Harms, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, defended them, saying: “People get upset when you portray women as independent.”
That is interesting — independence can now be defined based on sexual promiscuity?
In fact, the underlying message is not independence, as government-funded birth control doesn’t convey any form of personal independence, certainly not financially.

But that’s just it, see? Democrats want women to be “independent” from men — i.e., unmarried — so that they will then be dependent on government. And if these allegedly “independent” women are “giddy, sex-starved and desperate,” they’ll eventually need a scapegoat to blame for their miserable loneliness: Blame the oppressive patriarchy! Blame “corporate America”! Blame Republicans!

Defining “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity” not only undermines marriage, but it also (a) results in women being infected with diseases, for which they require medical treatment, (b) creates demand for legalized abortion, and (c) fosters unwed motherhood, with more children growing up in poverty. The propaganda of Lena Dunham thereby helps grow the Democrat Party coalition.

And what about basic Judeo-Christian bourgeois morality, which Engels derided as “false consciousness”? It’s not just about sex, you know. The strongest possible condemnation of the liberal Welfare State can be summarized in four words: Thou shalt not steal.

It is fundamentally wrong to demand that government give you “free stuff” you have not earned, paid for by the taxes of people who work hard for their money. Amy Otto notices the “narcissism and entitlement” in Girls, which we might also call simple selfishness.

An irresponsible, self-centered attitude — Veruca Salt demanding, “I want it now” — is really what contemporary feminism is all about. Disassemble the ideological infrastructure, get past all the elaborate pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and feminism is about the avoidance of responsibility: “Bad things happen to me because . . . sexism!”

It’s like the lazy young hippie punk with no skills who nevertheless refuses to take a “dead end job” at a fast-food restaurant because he’s not about cooperating with The Capitalist System, man.

‘A Culture of Complete Anarchy’

The same bourgeois morality that discourages sexual promiscuity also encourages hard work, thrift and honesty. Values matter, and the values upon which the American republic was founded were not the values celebrated by Lena Dunham’s Girls.

If America is to endure, to find the strength of will necessary to recover from the disastrous policies of the Obama administration, it will need a faith powerful enough to inspire courage. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has a few words:

Rather than moral absolutes governing what’s right or wrong, Driscoll said that there’s a general view that people should be true to themselves — that they should essentially stand by their feelings and desires.
“We’ve shifted from a worldview where there is a God who makes laws, and they apply to you, to whether or not there is a God it does not matter — ‘I don’t recognize any laws external to me. The only thing that guides me is my own internal convictions,’” he said. “Authority has shifted from external to internal, from God to me. And what you end up with is not a discussion of morality but a defense of personality. And that’s the world we live in.”
Driscoll believes that there is “a culture of complete anarchy in the name of tolerance and diversity.”
“One in four women sexual assaulted, one in six men, people that are sexually addicted, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, rampant debt, broken families, suicidal,” he told TheBlaze. “The number one category of prescription medication is antidepressants. Somebody’s gotta stand up and say, ‘This ain’t working — we gotta try something else.’”

If we are heading toward “a culture of complete anarchy,” why? Because we have rejected “a God who makes law,” so that the law is whatever we want it to be, including a law that compels insurance companies to let you stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26, including a law that compels pro-life Christians to pay taxes used to fund abortion and contraception for irresponsible women who don’t want to pay for the consequences of their degenerate lifestyle.

The Politics of Vagina — the “narcissism and entitlement” celebrated in Lena Dunham’s Girls — is defended by feminists for the same reason ProgressNow Colorado promotes “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity.” Democrats know who votes for them and why, and they know that “a culture of complete anarchy,” without morality or religion, will yield more votes for Democrats.

Of course, this culture will also destroy America as we know it, but destroying America as we know it is what Democrats are all about.




 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!