by Liz Thatcher
Jezebel may have outdone themselves this time. In a Feb. 6 blog titled “What’s the Best Age to Have an Abortion
” blogger Erin Gloria Ryan pontificates the pros and cons of getting an abortion at different ages. Her conclusion on the best age? “Taking into account access, ability to keep life plans intact, affordability, and likely relationship status, it's 25.”
Oh, well that’s great to know!
In the discussion of pros and cons of teenagers under 18 getting abortions, Ms. Ryan stated that it could be hard because “kids still living under their religious parents' roof may have some Bachmannian hang ups about when life begins and how totally damned they'd be if they ended their pregnancies.” Ironically enough, Salon.com, another liberal rag, published an article on the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade titled “So What if Abortion Ends Life?
” In this article, Mary Elizabeth Williams argued that feminists can’t continue to pretend that pregnancy isn’t a life if it was unplanned or you don’t desire a child. “Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”
Apparently Jezebel missed this [equally atrocious, yet honest] article.
Don’t worry, it gets worse.
The only con listed for the age range of 18-23 is simply the “cost, access, you can't use your parents' insurance because they'll know.” Never mind the fact that you are taking the life of a child … oh wait, silly me. Jezebel is full of feminists that deny the science of life at conception. But it's totes cool to lie or hide the fact that you got an abortion from your parents ... even though it is a risky
medical procedure. How irresponsible can these women get?
In the 27-30 age range, a pro of getting an abortion was “if you saved up a little, you could probably afford a designer abortion. A Marc Jacobs abortion, in teal.” Feminists always know how to keep it classy!
If you’ll recall, Jezebel was the site that had the freak out session
on the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade because they feared that states were shutting down women’s rights to have abortions whenever the heck they felt like it, and attacked Norma McCorvey, the infamous Jane Roe and plaintiff in their sacred court case.
With garbage like this, is it any wonder that pro-choicers are losing ground?
by Gabriella Hoffman
Haven’t you heard, ladies? Chivalry has its roots in sexism!
Thought that cute guy was holding the door open for you because he wanted to impress you? Wrong–he was exploiting you because he thinks you’re inferior and incapable of opening the door for yourself. Thought that guy friend you like bought you dinner because he cares about you? Wrong–he wants to keep you poor and discourage you from ever becoming financially independent. Do you feel oppressed whenever a guy does a nice thing for you? Well, you shouldn’t.
How can a gentleman's behavior be sexist? Why do these women—excuse me, “womyn”—denounce chivalry? What leads them to conclude this and disparage a custom that’s in great need of remedying?
Several days ago, one radical feminist on Twitter-@IsabelBeatty–responded to a tweet of mine by denouncing chivalry as “chauvinistic” and “oppressive.” I was deeply troubled by her thoughts. Below is the conversation I had with Beatty. (Unfortunately, she deleted her tweets so I’ve kindly provided screen shots of them for you to enjoy.)
She then continued on her anti-chivalry tirade:
I then responded to her:
Many other women share this negative view of chivalry.
In a recent New York Times column
, novelist Lynn Messina echoed Isabel’s sentiments that chivalry is sexist in nature:
“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys.
His explanation, along with the quiet solemnity with which he delivers it, is completely endearing and yet it makes my heart ache. This adorable little boy, who is only beginning to learn the ways of the world, just got his first lesson in sexism — and from a teacher who, I don’t doubt, believes she’s doing something wonderful for womankind.
It’s sad to see chivalry demonized by individuals like Beatty and Messina. Rather, chivalry should be met with praise and further encouraged in society. Young men should be held to a higher standard and taught to be respectful. The same should also be expected of young women.
Even in the case of platonic relationships or friendships, being chivalrous is a sign of upstanding moral character. Going out of your way to make someone smile, give them a helping hand, or being nice goes a long way. It shows you are compassionate and thoughtful. What’s wrong with that?
I don’t know about you but I don’t ever recall feeling belittled, discouraged, or oppressed by a man if he opened a door for me or complimented me. Truthfully, I feel humbled by these acts of kindness and will always be grateful for chivalry. Women shouldn’t be offended by chivalrous guys; they should be flattered by them!
Women have many rights and luxuries afforded to them in this country, yet they’re inclined to denounce chivalry as “oppressive” and “sexist”? Look at the Arab World as a model for oppression and sexism. Women have limited to nonexistent rights there, are stoned to death, or face genital mutilation, for example. Where’s the outrage from radical feminists? (Crickets…)
In an age dominated by rudeness, lack of self-respect, and relativism, members of our generation should value any semblance of chivalry that comes their way.
Stop trampling on chivalry; start encouraging it.
I recently came across an antagonistic article on Jezebel that made my skin crawl … but also reminded me why exactly I refuse to refer to myself as a “feminist.” The article, titled “There is No Such Thing as a Pro-Life Feminist”
did nothing but bash on conservative women like Sarah Palin and organizations like Feminists for Life
that provide a pro-life, feminist alternative to the far left feminism of today’s society.
While I found the entire article to be ironic, my favorite line was a rhetorical question, in which the author asked “Who the f*** are you to actively work at taking away other women's right to make their own personal decisions about their uteruses?”
Ahhh yes…the ridiculous, age-old question of “legislating morality.” But is that what the pro-life movement is actually doing?
Let’s just look at this from a “feministic” point of view. Who are you, liberal feminists, to push for the murdering unborn girls who will turn into women someday? Gendercide is an epidemic, and not just in third world countries that have dowry or China where a strict one-child policy is enforced. This happens in America, too, where people choose to abort their babies because they are girls. I’ve written about this before
Oh, the irony. As a commenter on this article so eloquently asked, “Isn't the entire idea of third-wave feminism based on the premise that a woman can be WHATEVER she wants, be it a business woman, a homemaker, a Democrat, a Republican, a construction worker, a sex worker -and someone who identifies as pro-choice OR pro-life? Who gets to define feminism?”
A great question indeed.
What feminists fail to realize is that through their emphasis on being pro-choice, anti-man, and pro-lesbian (which aren’t touched on in the Jezebel article, but are other common feminist themes) they are destroying their movement. Without reproduction, liberal feminism as it is being pushed today is self-defeating. It can’t perpetuate itself since feminists are killing and preventing the births of new ones. It demands the coercion of new feminists through the culture.
Instead of honoring our nation’s heroes on September 11th, Hanna Rosin, who has recently praised the hookup culture
as “an engine of female progress,” released her new book--The End of Men: And the Rise of Women
by her Atlantic
article “The End of Men,”
Mrs. Rosin wrote this new book to proudly proclaim how American women are being elevated in our society at the cost of devaluing men. Mrs. Rosin assumes that we women are finally winning our “struggle” for “gender equality.”
Coming from a background
where “women…either ruled over their husbands, or ran away from them,” Mrs. Rosin suggests
that American cultural changes and economic recessions explain why women easily dominate men nowadays. And better yet, she implies that we have to accept these gender role changes because they are inevitable
In the introduction
of her book, Mrs. Rosin uses the story of two people—Bethenny and Calvin—to support her argument that women have progressed past men and no longer need them to raise children and live happily. Bethenny, a single mom who has a child with Calvin, explains to Mrs. Rosin that she sees Calvin as a man who “would just mean one less granola bar for the two of us”—a burden to her life and a shackle on her freedom. With regards to Calvin, Mrs. Rosin makes little mention of him and especially emphasizes how he cannot operate a 7-11 microwave without her help. She uses her depiction of Calvin to convey how American men have “lost the old architecture of manliness, but…have not replaced it with any obvious new one.” In Mrs. Rosin’s view, Bethenny and Calvin represent “the end of two hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era”—one that propagates reversed sexism and makes men second-class citizens.
Mrs. Rosin acts as if she is just speaking factually about “gender role changes,” but a thinly-veiled gleeful tone underlies her rhetoric. The End of Men
is not only something to be ambivalent toward. It's regarded by Mrs. Rosin as a good thing.
Although Mrs. Rosin says that she is not a radical feminist in her excerpt, the title of her book says otherwise. Shockingly enough, her husband had some questioning remarks
about The End of Men
“As Hanna’s husband, I find this book – how to put this charitably? A mixed blessing? It’s very nice
for our checking account that she has been paid to write The End of Men. But really: What part of
our life together has prompted her to predict doom for me and my half the human race? Do I load
the dishwasher incorrectly? Have I botched the repair on the downstairs toilet one too many times?
Do I not talk about my feelings enough? And how is Hanna going to explain this book to our two sons, when they get old enough to read it?”
And like a typical third-wave feminist, Mrs. Rosin did not even bother to answer any of her husband’s questions that were included in this section of her website, because, as she said, “this is my bio, so I will get back to talking about myself.”
We, young women who look forward to starting our own families in the near future, do not look to Mrs. Rosin as the prime example of what it means to be a lady and a loving wife to our future husband. Real women do not denigrate men to advance themselves. Real women respect men for who they are and for being naturally different.
“Gender equalitarianism” is harming our nation and is contributing to the erosion of our society’s stability, because it creates confusion and defies what is naturally human. Together, we can put a stop to it through the power of our own voices. We need to let all of the Mrs. Rosins out there know that they do not speak for us and never will.