Women are clearly very weak creatures who need the extra protection of government regulation when dealing with men in any situation.
Seriously? Did I grow up in this age/time only to be told that I don’t have enough power in me to say ‘bugger off’ to a man whistling to me on the street?
Apparently in the Netherlands:
The Labour party (PvdA) has launched draft legislation which would make it a criminal offence to sexually harass women on the street.
Read more at DutchNews.nl: Labour seeks to make sexual harassment on the streets a crime http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/02/labour-seeks-to-make-sexual-harassment-on-the-streets-as-crime/
ht Return of Kings who sees the future writing on the wall.
Somehow defunding Planned Parenthood is going to INCREASE the number of abortions because PP would have to spend more of their own money on abortion and less on birth control.
Per Dana Milbank [bold is mine]:
The federal funds Senate Republicans propose taking away from Planned Parenthood are used largely to provide women with birth control. And because there simply isn’t a network of health care providers capable of taking over this job if Planned Parenthood were denied funding, this would mean hundreds of thousands of women, if not millions, would over time lose access to birth control.
Take away women’s contraceptives, and a greater number of unintended pregnancies — and abortions — would inevitably result.
Um – doesn’t Obamacare cover contraceptives? [yes, yes it does] And aren’t we all required to carry such coverage? So doesn’t that mean there is no “Take away of women’s contraceptives”?
Ace knocks another one out of the park. This time concerning Joss Whedon (pbuh). It rings all true.
Sort of a variant of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect — you know reporters are useless when you read an article making an embarrassing hash of everything in your field of expertise, but then you turn the page to read them writing about other fields, and you assume, “These guys probably know what they’re talking about here.”
And so Joss Whedon, who so gleefully embraces Social Justice Warrior attacks on others, has now himself, perhaps, been purged by the Social Justice Warriors.
And it will make no difference.
I’ll admit it took me years and years to finally accept that the “news” is mostly false. I have save myself hours of time by no longer reading/watching the news except the local rag and whatever catches my eye on Drudge.
Between those and whatever blogs continue to keep me interested I still pass all the citizenship tests or the ‘are you up on the news’ tests that are out there.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but based on this review from the WAPO, I suspect the increase in womanliness of Black Widow is probably a good thing.
These always crack me up…..Draw conclusions FIRST and then do a study.
Study Proves High Heels do have Power over Men
WOW!!! With all the women wearing high heels you’d think we’d be running the world with a headline like that…..
Let’s dig a little deeper (don’t worry we never go too far)
The study found if a woman drops a glove on the street while wearing heels, she’s almost 50 percent more likely to have a man fetch it for her than if she’s wearing flats.
“Power” over men? OR….is it that men are gentlemen who realize that a woman in heels will have a harder time bending over to fetch that glove?
Another finding: A woman wearing heels is twice as likely to persuade men to stop and answer survey questions on the street.
“Power” over men? OR…..is it that men are more likely to speak with a woman in heels vs flats because there’s a good chance the woman in flats’ surgery will be all about what a woman hating pig the man is?
And a high-heeled woman in a bar waits half the time to get picked up by a man, compared to when her heel is nearer to the ground.
“Power” over men? OR…..lets rate your chances of getting laid…is the woman in heels more or less likely to be easier than the woman in flats?
Not a lot of news to comment on today, so I’ll comment on the big shirt storm situation where feminists had a cow about this shirt
but not this no shirt photograph.
Example one is a brilliant man with a funny tshirt and feminists are upset because they think this photograph will make little girls opt out of the sciences.
Example two is of a mother and person famous for being famous being shown in a fake photograph that clearly states to the world that women with small waists with big rears are the most worthy of magazine coverage and going to “break the internet”.
Kim is a beautiful woman who can stand on her own for being famous because she’s famous yet they went and removed half her body from this famous photo. Feminists have little to nothing to say about what THAT image and what it will do to little girls who usually at little girl age want to grow up and be mommies. (to the right is a photo taken a few weeks ago)
Women are insane and ought to look into the mirror for their next stupid ride into insult land. Because I tell you what, as a little girl, the LAST thing I’d want to do right now is grow up to be a bitchy feminist who wants to control everyone around me.
This article cracked me up:
A new Arizona State study is generating a lot of talk on the subject of why some (most in the study) women gain weight after starting an exercise regimen.
This after noting the women’s eating habits were normal and didn’t change during the study.
Conclusion…..If after a month you’ve gained weight, exercise more. !
“So the takeaway is, if you want to use exercise to lose weight, get on the bathroom scales after a month, and if you’re not losing weight, look at the rest of your life — make sure you’re not eating more [or] sitting too much and you might actually succeed in losing weight,” she says.
The Anchoress asks us to pray for Emily Letts, the woman who aborted her baby on youtube. No matter what Emily’s words say, her face says more.
Click on through and add this woman to your prayer chain.
Back in the early 80s I had an abortion that I too, thought would be a “nothing” affair. Well, maybe a little bit more than nothing, but certainly it was what “had” to be done.
The exact moment that he/she was suctioned out, I was empty.
It took awhile to crawl back from that. I suspect others were praying for me, like I’ll do for Emily.
What is a sissy?
Is a sissy, by definition a girl? hell no.
Is a sissy, by definition a boy who acts like a girl? not quite
A sissy is fearful of things. Afraid to try anything new. Squeamish.
Are more girls sissies, than boys? Perhaps, which is why boys who are effeminate may be called sissies, but the sissy part of the problem isn’t in emotions. It’s in fear and internal weakness.
So is the saying “Sea Level is for Sissies” a dis on emotions, or emotional girls? Good Lord, no.
Out Boulder, an LGBTQ advocacy group, has launched an online petition seeking to pressure organizers of the Bolder Boulder to drop their slogan “Sea Level is for Sissies” because they say the word “sissies” is derogatory.
But race organizers say they have no plans to retire the slogan.
The Change.org petition was posted Wednesday by Out Boulder’s executive director, Mardi Moore, and by the evening it had 25 signatures.
“The word is used to (demean) traits that are problematically and stereotypically associated with women,” the petition reads. “Traits that all genders have but are not valued because they are associated with women. … All genders express emotions and they should be embraced when they do.
“they say the word “sissies” is derogatory.” Um. yes. That’s the point. A mild insult to those at sea level all told in good teasing fun. (those of you at sea level get to deal with the ocean, a very scary place indeed.)
So – a few things to note. Good for the Bolder Boulder organizers for not allowing this insult to be abolished in the name of PC.
Good for the petition only having 25 signatures. HAHAHAHA
A pox on whoever decided to just change the definition of the word sissy to suit their own sensitive nature.
I’m not making this up. ht Glenn Reynolds
In this study from Harvard Business review on executives and family life and trying to create a balance we get this out of Jessica Grose at Slate: [bold is mine]
The most disheartening thing about the survey results is that executives—both male and female—continue to see the tension between work and family as a women’s problem. Male executives admit they don’t prioritize their families enough, and they don’t seem too bothered by it. They praise their spouses for taking over the homefront entirely, while female executives praise their spouses for not interfering with their careers.
As Rebecca Traister recently pointed out in the New Republic, when we’re trying to solve the problem of not enough women in the upper echelons of business, tech, and politics, we always direct these conversations at women themselves. Lean in, we tell them! Marry a man who will stay at home! But the problem here isn’t women’s lack of ambition or, necessarily, their lack of support at home. The issue is that we need to get men to acknowledge work-life conflicts as an everyone issue, not a women’s issue or a mom issue.
I feel guilty for leaving the kids with the nanny, but boy, I’d feel a LOT better if my husband felt guilty too! How can we, as a society, make that happen.
There is a lot going on in the world, but James Taranto