Video: Feminist scare tactics

The Feminists are "scared":



More rage from other Feminists (warning: adult language).

Both websites strongly support Obama - surprised?

More ignorance than I care to point out

How the consensus arose that people who hold pro-life views are ignorant, biggoted and nasty - I'll never know. Certainly posts like "The Zygote Vote: You're doing it wrong" seems to fit the bill for all three of these. But here's the thing - it's by a pro-choice feminist named Jessica.

She writes for a blog that promotes websites that scare women into thinking they'll all be thrown into jail if abortion were to be made illegal, for starts.

Jessica asks "Can I just say how totally sick I am of anti-choice orgs putting out weird [crap] that implies zygotes and fetuses can do things like vote and carry election signs?"

She's referring to this picture over on the left, which hardly - to any rational mind - would make one think the people who drew the picture honestly believed fetuses can actually hold signs and vote.

I mean, ever seen a cartoon of a penguin holding a "stop global warming" sign? It doesn't mean the cartoonist thinks penguins actually carry signs.

Jessica is more distressed that some people seem to think unborn infants can "sport war gear." Hello Jessica, that website/product is actually an anti-Christian website. You just made fun of ... your own kind, so to speak. Or at least people who join you in rideculing those who regard unborn human life as deserving protection.

She then claims the pro-life organization behind the t-shirt has its fingers in its ears (as if they are the ones ignoring realitY), and follows that up by just getting plain nasty:

"Those pesky things that carry fetuses around? They're called women, and unlike fertilized eggs, fetuses, or any other part of said women's bodies, they can actually vote. You may want to remember that next time you make a t-shirt."

The ironic thing is that most the people in the pro-life organization are probably women trying to safeguard unborn life. And does Jessica seriously think an unborn child is just a part of women's bodies? Pregnant women can have two blood types, two heart beats, different sleep patters, etc, etc.

Ignorant? Check. Bigoted? Check. Nasty? Double-check.

Google settles out of court, will allow pro-life ads

LifeSiteNews:

Internet giant Google has settled out of court with The Christian Institute and will now allow religious groups to place factual and campaigning ads on the subject of abortion.

The Christian Institute, a pro-life and pro-family Christian lobbying and education organization, took legal action against Google after it rejected an ad in March with its search-related advertising system, AdWords, which read: "UK abortion law: Key views and news on abortion law from The Christian Institute.

Google rejected the ad because its former policy disallowed the advertising of sites that mixed "abortion and religion-related content."

The Christian Institute took Google to court in April, saying the refusal constituted discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, a violation of Britain's anti-discrimination laws, the Equality Act 2006.

The feminists are angry (big surprise), because they mind these pro-life groups "lying about the procedure and spreading misinformation."

Really, is there any need to make things up when it comes to alerting people to the horrors of abortion?

"Call me biased..."

So begins a Feministe blogger's post about pro-life positions and organizations. She continues:

"…but I just can’t wrap my mind around anti-choice rhetoric. I am fairly skilled at seeing both sides of most complex social issues and I even try to give credit to those that oppose my view if their reasoning is sound, but anti-choice stuff…it is just totally illogical to me."

Oh goodness, what an inexplicable dilemma! Whatever could be the cause of her predicament?

Let's look at the beginning of the second paragraph:

"As most of you know, I work in public affairs at a Planned Parenthood affiliate."

Oh, suddenly this begin to make sense.

She goes on to maligne the "favorite anti-choice groups [which] makes your blood boil the most."

And if her blog's title and content wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy itself, the commentors proceed to misunderstand (with some notable individual exceptions) every truth the pro-life community attempts to reveal and defend.

A perfect case of what I'm talking about? The blogger denies Margaret Sanger was a racist.

"Call me biased..."

No, "bias" doesn't begin to describe it.

"What makes for a good abortion?"

Not to upset our Saturday, but there are actually people who pose and answer this question, mostly on a blog called "Abortion Clinic Days", "a blog of abortion providers telling their stories."

And as the feminist blogger adds, "I'd just like to say thanks to all of the abortion providers out there who literally risk their lives to bring compassionate reproductive health care to women - you are amazing."

Yes, plenty of work to do, and prayers to say.

Video: PRI exposes feminists ignoring sex-selective abortions worldwide

A needed message, well told:

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), says that America has a hidden problem of sex discrimination, but a form of discrimination that feminists refuse to address.

In PRI’s latest YouTube video, Mosher decries the practice, common in East and South Asian countries, of sex-selective abortion. According to the United Nations, this practice has already claimed the lives of over 100 million girls worldwide. The video goes on to cite a recent study published by the National Academy of Sciences, saying that many American groups, particularly those of Asian descent, have the same skewed birthrates as found in their country of origin. Many of the sexist customs and practices that have led to these skewed birthrates are being imported into the United States.

The Video...

More information at their website.

Authentic feminism started in ... 13th century Belgium

To counter yesterday's depressing revelation, a burst of light from Belgium:

Here’s another reason to travel to Belgium, if the world’s best beer and chocolate weren’t enough to draw you there already: its beautiful, well-preserved beguinages.

If feminism means a desire for independence from patriarchal authority, the beguines — a Roman Catholic laic order that began in the 13th century and branched across northwest Europe — represented, perhaps, the world’s oldest women’s movement.

I can only speculate that these women of simplicity likely experienced more fulfillment than participants in the more infamous woman’s movement centuries later. (Mary Rose Rybak)

And upon this occasion, please keep a friend of mine in your prayers. She's leaving several important professional positions in Washington DC to pursue a vocation with the Nashville Dominicans.

The ugly side of Feminist blogging

Regular readers know that I occasionally read some of the more popular "feminist" blogs, to see what the other side is saying. Sometimes they make good points or valid observations.

Other times, however, you realize what a gulf separates you. For instance, when a regular contributor starts offering her personal "feminist porn" picks, and begins her post with the following disclaimer:

Warning: May not be safe for work…unless you are like me and work at Planned Parenthood. :)

Doesn't that just speak volumes?

Needless to say, I knew there was nothing to be gleaned from the rest of that post. I had learned my lesson.

On ignoring the "f" word in questions of early puberty

Liberal Feminist blog Feministing.com, in their "weekly feminist reader" notes this article in Colorlines ("the national newsmagazine on race and politics"), which claims that plastic is the reason why black girls enter puberty earlier than white girls:

"A 1997 study, conducted at pediatricians’ offices nationwide, found that girls were showing the first signs of puberty about a year earlier than was considered normal. Most striking was that Black girls were beginning puberty about a year earlier than white girls."

What I found most striking is the entire article never once mentions the many many studies which claim that early puberty normally occurs in situations where there is no biological father present during the girls' upbringing (it's a pheromone thing). African American homes in the United States, sadly, often do not have the original biological father present through the entirety of childhood.

In other words, lack of a father, not the presence of plastics, can begin to account for some of the disparity in the statistics along ethnic lines.

But if there's anything I've learned from reading these radical feminist blogs, it's to never accept a sound sociological/biological explanation when a hypothetical ecological/lifestyle solution can be offered instead.

NYT columnist quotes priest for marriage advice, offends feminist

Sometimes when it's a slow news day or when I'd like to see the world through the eyes of someone coming from a completely different perspective I visit feministing.com. Today was a classic:

Getting marriage advice from a priest.

"Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life." - Samhita

Get this: a priest should evidently be the last person in the world to give relationship advice. Marriage is only accidentally a "religious" thing but in general religious considerations should play no part in it. Finally, she thinks the priest presents impossible ideals about what women should look for in a potential spouse.

Now the nice thing: the first two commenters on this post at feministing.com completely disagree with "Samhita's" critique, and provide good reasons for their agreement with the advice given.

Now judge for yourself: "An Ideal Husband" by Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times. Was the priest telling women to look for "man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life" or instead for virtuous men who can love and care deeply for their spouses?

It's frustrating to once again see a self-proclaimed feminist disregarding the kind of advice that might improve her perspective on the male gender because of her own a priori reservations and ideology.

Hopefully she can see that on some level.

Your daily dose of radical feminist scare tactics

In response to the Virgina Senate cutting state funding to Planned Parenthood (bold in original):

"The irony is, Planned Parenthood probably prevents more abortions than any other organization in the country," [an opposed Senator] said. But of course, anti-choicers aren't concerned about preventing abortion - if they were, they'd be touting birth control - their real concern is limiting women's choices and rolling back our rights. - Feministing

Meanwhile, the enlightened sensitivas at Feministe try to work out the logic of early human life (warning: offensive images and content). Not surprisingly, they fail miserably.

I've said it often: if you were ever tempted to hold a different position on these issues, just spend an afternoon reading where it leads and you'll never be tempted again. Simply incredible.

But also, very sad.

update: Jessica at Feministing provides more grist, this time in reaction to the news that Planned Parenthood in Idaho willing takes money from racists to abort African American babies:

"What so awful about this .... is that this plays directly into anti-choice talking points about abortion and race. "

Or, just maybe, the "talking points" actually reveal a reality that PP tries to hide whenever it can.

Planned Parenthood's response? "We're an equal-opportunity, non-discriminatory purveyor of death."

Okay, that phrase was mine.

Commentary: SSPX HS refuses to allow female ref boy basketball

Emailed to me by a reader:

Kansas activities officials are investigating a religious school's refusal to let a female referee call a boys' high school basketball game.

The Kansas State High School Activities Association said referees reported that Michelle Campbell was preparing to officiate at St. Mary's Academy near Topeka on Feb. 2 when a school official insisted that Campbell could not call the game.

The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

Campbell then walked off the court along with Darin Putthoff, the referee who was to work the game with her. - Associated Press

A more detailed report by local Topeka Capital-Journal. CNA also has posted coverage.

The St. Mary's Website, unsurprisingly for an SSPX oufit, features a banner with an image of the excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre instead of, say, Pope Benedict. Quite simply, the SSPX are not in communion with Rome, so the feminists can hold it on the Catholic-bashing. They've been quick to pull up quotes from the SSPX FAQ which they consider misogynistic.

There is, however, like there typically is in these cases, another side to this story.

Consider, for instance, the testimony of this person who has direct contact with the situation:

To all of those who think this is a load of backward Kansas garbage, it is...at least the way it is represented. But I happen to know many of the parents and their children at this academy, and I can tell you, they are extremely upset.

Apparently, it was reported that she couldn't ref the game because she would have authority over them. THAT IS NOT WHY. It is because the school has a policy of not playing sports with women (a ref on the basketball court is almost as involved as the players) They believe that because women are naturally weaker than men, they should be protected and treated better than men. They believe that sports diminishes the respect (due to women by virtue of their femenine nature) in the eyes of the boys. It is not about control or subjection or anything like that. In fact they have many females at the school - teachers, secretaries, nuns, administration, monitors,etc...and support women whole-heartedly.

Just to clarify, the ref was completely cool with it. When the AD explained quite simply that they prefer males to ref/coach the boys and females to ref/coach the girls she understood the situation completely. It was her fellow ref that made the big stink and misquoted or misrepresented the whole situation. - "ilduce42"

The same individual links to this article (which I'm guessing she wrote), which explains why St. Mary's chose to forfeit a football game rather than have its boys play against a girl on the opposing team.

Granted, the issue of women playing contact sports with men is not what is in question here. And extending a prohibition against male-female contact sports to prohibiting female refs is both silly and offensive.

I don't think, however, you can read misogyny into the school's actions. More likely it is represents a misguided attempt to respect the diginity of women. And that intention is a good one. It would be nice if the SSPX folks would post a note somewhere explaining their decision.

Or it will come out anyway when they get sued.

Thoughts?

update: the SSPX has released the following short press release:

ST. MARY'S ACADEMY (in St. Mary’s, KS) policy is to have only men in their sports program for boys.

Sports for boys are seen as training for the battlefield of life where the boys will need to fight at times through great difficulties. As such, it is more appropriate that it be men who train and direct the boys in these sports programs for only men can teach the boys to be men, just as only women can truly teach girls to be women.

It is not a question of women having no authority over boys as the quote in the paper (if it was accurate) seem to indicate. It is a question in athletics of men training boys to be men.

This press release supports the "other side" of this story that I presented in my original post above. Nor do I think this statements represents an after-the-fact retelling of history. Instead, the more likely conclusion is that the initial reports of this situation issued by the MSM were innacurate. As to who exactly is to blame for this misrepresentation, I wouldn't know where to start. Slow news day?

And before folks decide to get excited in the combox again - no, I don't support what St. Mary's did. My simple point is that the reporting of this topic is warping the facts. And there's no reason to get up in arms about something that did not actually happen. The actual discussion, if it is to be fruitful, should focus on what seems like the more plausible explanation of their motivations. There's plenty to discuss right there.

That's just a suggestion. The combox is free, as long as people stay within the bounds of charity.