What in freakin hell is this cow woman whining about?

Doesn’t she know?

Read the rest of this entry »

Drug stores are slowly standing up for the rights of pharmacists and others who are pro life…who object to filling prescriptions for drugs that terminate pregnancies, and even birth control. This is surely going to be controversial.

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

Can we hear the Women’s Rights’ groups screaming already? Using the false idea of such pharmacies denying women their right…to…health…care….

That’s because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John’s and a Kmart, will be a “pro-life pharmacy” — meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients’ rights against those of health-care workers who assert a “right of conscience” to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

Medical people have rights. Pharmacists are no exception. We don’t hear women demanding their primary care doctors perform abortions, right? So why should we demand our pharmacist provide drugs that they object to?

But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods.

“I’m very, very troubled by this,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. “Contraception is essential for women’s health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women’s health.”

Choice my dear. Women have choices. There’s always another drug store in the region, often right up the road, that will sell the drugs wanted. SO get off your bullshit claims here, that women’s health is at risk.

The free markets allow this to happen. Businesses should not be forced to sell products they do not wish to be associated with. Drug stores, pharmacies, are businesses, that sell drugs and many other items. It is all about choice. I don’t agree with these drug stores- I think birth control is a good thing. I have choices as to where I can purchase my medications though. There is no danger to women’s health.

Hmm.

Expect more of these images to pop up.

And BWAHAHA read the comments at HillaryClinton.com Looks like McCain just got a huge increase in his fan club membership!

I am reminded of the scene from the second Austin Powers were, ironicly enough, Tim Robbins plays the president, and Robbins has just got the ultimatum from Dr. Evil. Dr. Evil has his base on the moon and is threatening to blow up Washington D.C. unless he gets 1 Trillion dollars!

The President: C’mon, let me nuke that bastard.
Commander Gilmour: Are you suggesting that we blow up the moon?
The President: Would you miss it?
[looks around the table]
The President: Would you miss it?

Well, after reading these two news stories ’bout the People’s Democratic Republic of California …
Read the rest of this entry »

Fiction:

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987…

And now the facts:

So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the students shouted. “We can manage our own lives. If we want to have members of the opposite sex in our rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.

College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, OLet’s get as drunk as we can,˜ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.

We can thank feminism for all this. And if you want your daughter to not become a victim of her own choosing in these matters, teach her to respect herself. It’s also important to teach our sons how to respect girls and women…and not take advantage of them when they do stupid things. There are very few campuses where these behaviors don’t occur- public, private, religious- it doesn’t matter. The drunken hookup scene is the popular scene these days. Self respect. It will go a long way.

Two young women are probably going to die…they’re going to tied up, placed in an open field, covered with burkas, and have rocks thrown at them until they die.

Two sisters – identified only as Zohreh and Azar – have been convicted of adultery in Iran.

They have now been sentenced to be stoned to death.

Adultery is a crime punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in accordance with the canons of Islamic Sharia law. The Iranian Supreme Court has upheld the stoning sentence.

Zohreh and Azar have already received 99 lashes for “illegal relations.” Yet they were tried again for the same crime, and convicted of adultery on the evidence of videotape that showed them in the presence of other men while their husbands were absent. The video does not show either of them engaging in any sexual activity at all.

Their crime is non-existent, their trials a miscarriage of justice, and their sentencing a barbarity.

WHY THE SILENCE???
Is it about the culture? is it about the religion they practice?

We call upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to drop all prosecution of Zohreh and Azar, and to end punishment by stoning.

We call upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to end the Sharia-inspired and institutionalized discrimination against women that results in their being treated as chattels of men.

We call upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to affirm the equality of dignity of women with men and the equality of rights of all people, women with men, non-Muslims with Muslims, and to implement these principles in their laws.

We call upon the United Nations and human rights organizations to redouble their pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran until it ends its war on the rights of women and human rights in general.

We call upon feminists, including the signers of the statement drafted by The Nation’s Katha Pollitt, to join us in protesting this outrage. We continue to be stunned but not surprised by the silence of these feminists who have questioned the authenticity of our concern for Muslim women oppressed by the laws of Islam.

See, the feminists are too busy working to guarantee abortion rights, free and open sexual exploitation, equal rights and pay and gay marriage. They don’t care about women being killed though. They could care less if it’s men who order and perform the barbaric act…men of the religion of peace. Feminists have an agenda and it does not include speaking up for truly oppressed and abused women.

I think I’m gonna be sick over this too. The silence is deafening.

Meanwhile, Always On Watch has another article about how Islam is indeed invading western culture. It saddens me that NO ONE is speaking out against this…rather, people are allowing themselves to surrender to it.

Whoa…a letter to American feminists.

We are encouraged by the fact that these American feminists feel the need to respond to our challenge over their silence as a movement on violence against Muslim women and to assert their opposition to these barbaric practices. We challenge them now to put actions behind their words.

Go read all of this to get context. I have been unable to find words to describe my feelings on THIS article that the NYT published the other day.
This article at FPM describes some of how I feel.

BWAHAHAH!!

Big Dog goes down on takes down Erica Jong:

If you want to really get down to it Erica, it was a woman who caused our removal from the Garden of Eden and gave us sin. So the reality is that there are problems that involve all sexes and all colors of people. Now Little Erica might be tired of pink men exclusively but that is because she is a bitter, aging, hippie, feminist who never had love made to her by a real man. When your favorite lover is Mr. «D» cell then you have problems. Couple her penis envy with the years of drug induced euphoria and you have a vicious, man hating, bitch who couldn’t pour water out of a bucket if the directions were written on the bottom.

I’ve known of Ms. Jong for some time now…she is the ultimate MAN HATER. Go over and read her mindless rant at the HuffPost and see for yourself. Women like her ALWAYS have something to bitch about, let’s face it. They’re never content, they always have an “issue” they’re “tired” of.

Erica, we’re TIRED of you. Now go ditch the DCells and look for a real pink man to take care of you…you won’t have any complaints anymore.

I have noticed lately, SHEMAN Shillary is using tried and true campaign tactics to gain approval from women. She’s showing her (gasp) feminine side.

On a recent Thursday night in Washington, as Hillary Rodham Clinton stood on stage, Geraldine Ferraro sat beside Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi. It was a tribute to the victories of feminism — the first woman to be speaker of the House shared jumbo shrimp and wine with the first female secretary of state. The only woman to be a serious contender for the presidency introduced the first female vice presidential nominee.

I don’t know about others, but I can smell the femail version of testosterone in this room. And it stinks to high hell.

There is a decidedly post-feminist appeal occurring within the Clinton campaign. And it features a very different Clinton than the young feminist at Wellesley who campaigned to end curfews or the Clinton who commented during her husband’s 1992 campaign that she was “not the kind of woman who stays at home baking cookies.”

She’s no Mom. Not under my definition thats for sure. A Mom is a woman who births and raises her children- AND who knows them and places her children in top priority. Over the careers; over her marriage; above all else. A Mom makes MANY sacrifices. Hillary has made very few.

Today, Clinton titles a section of her website’s biography “mother and advocate.” Notably, she places motherhood at the fore. The head of Clinton’s women’s outreach, Ann Lewis, explains that Clinton appeals to women because she has “advocated for children and families for 35 years.” Lewis adds that Clinton’s platform calls for “universal pre-K” education, to exemplify her appeal to women, not merely mothers.

When it’s news that a woman places motherhood above other “accomplishments”- it’s a red flag. A warning. Hillary could care less about families, children and women. Whoopdeedoo…she wants universal pre-K? She also wants women to always have the right to murder their unborn children: How motherly is that?

“If you ask who I am, I’ll mention that I’m a mom. Women do that,” says Ellen Moran, the executive director of EMILY’s List. Moran’s group, which advocates for female candidates who support abortion rights, has endorsed Clinton. “These candidates are talking about who they are,” Moran emphasizes.

Uugh. Just uugh. Enough of this bullshit. The abortion-supporting lobby has no right to speak as Moms.

There is NO shame to admit to being a…Mom. It baffles me beyond baffle why these women say it like they do…”If you ask me…” Does this mean that if I don’t ask you won’t tell? Is being a Mom that BAD??

Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway argues that Clinton is attempting “to repair the relationship she damaged with America’s stay-at-home moms and grandmas,” many of whom felt she disapproved of their life choices. “It’s a shrewd political maneuver,” she adds, “in that it allows her to expand her reach in pockets of women who have never really liked her, at the same time not alienating her base of feminists.”

Shillary is among an entire generation of women who not only bashed women who chose to have children and who chose to bring them up themselves, they also bashed women who chose marriage. They rejected any woman who defended a man; they rejected any woman who enjoyed the company of men vs. other women. They made many of us feel like second rate citizens.

“Women are the most credible method to other women,” Lewis says. “In a time when we are bombarded with commercials and advertising, people are even more interested to hear from people they know.”

…and women also KNOW other women better than anyone else. This should worry Shillary a lot. I know a con when I see one and she is the ultimate CON.

The Clinton campaign views its strongest base of support as African-American women and single women. The majority of women now live without a spouse in the United States. Should Clinton win the nomination, her campaign intends to focus on white working married women as its key swing vote.

Single African-American women…that about sums it up nicely huh? It’s awesome to know they have labeled their base this way; I hope this base realizes they are where they are because of the work of these feminist leaders. White working women are Shillary’s target. Hmm…we’re gonna see some interesting bullshit coming from her mouth in the months ahead as she tries to attract this voting bloc.

“I think you are going to find a lot of women, even Republican conservative women, who are going to tell their husbands one thing and go into the booths and vote another way,” Ferraro said in an interview. Ferraro has pledged, along with other progressive women, to advocate on Clinton’s behalf.

Now this is just over the top. Ms. Ferraro needs to go into retirement, the old haggathus herself. What a stupid and cowardly thing to say. This statement implies that conservative women pander to their husbands. How untrue. If anything, these women are emotionally stronger and more mature than their Lemoncrat counters, and they are better educated. Because of this they make choices that tend to offer a better outcome for themselves, their children and families. The mere fact that a woman chooses to be married and raise children does not make them less respectable and valuable. And Shillary won’t be able to find a balance here. She cannot be one woman and claim to be another. Shillary is anti family, anti children, anti marriage. She has no morals and her values clash with so many. She’s better off trying to fondle the votes from gay men than she is from women who respect themselves AND who value family.

Now this is JUST wrong.

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania — A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appellate court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind in the U.S.

A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to establish how much Carl L. Frampton Jr. would have to pay to the birth mother of the 8-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl.

WTF.
Mr. Frampton has died.

Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union license in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton — a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob’s — Jacob also adopted her brother’s two older children, now 12 and 13.

But the women’s relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.

TOUGH DAMN SHIT LADY! You played in a different way. Don’t come back crying foul now.

Lesson for men: Don’t donate to them sperm banks. You might end up paying for kids you didn’t know you had.

OK married (or about to be) guys this one’s for you.

Table of Contents??
Leave suggestions in comments. Heh.

A woman explains why it’s a moral duty to have an abortion:

My belief in the ultimate sociological, emotional and practical necessity for abortion did, as I have mentioned before, become even stronger after I had my two children. It is only after you have had a nine-month pregnancy, laboured to get the child out, fed it, cared for it, sat with it until 3am, risen with it at 6am, swooned with love for it and been reduced to furious tears by it that you really understand just how important it is for a child to be wanted. And, possibly even more importantly, to be wanted by a reasonably sane, stable mother.

Notice she refers to the baby as an “IT”…

Last year I had an abortion, and I can honestly say it was one of the least difficult decisions of my life. I’m not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being. I knew I would see my existing two daughters less, my husband less, my career would be hamstrung and, most importantly of all, I was just too tired to do it all again.

Uh huh…selfish bitch. It’s not supposed to always be about YOU. THIS is the problem with modern women, and the justifications they make for abortion. ME. ME. ME—> is what really matters.

THEY will claim something else though.

However, what I do believe to be sacred — and, indeed, more useful to the earth as a whole — is trying to ensure that there are as few unbalanced, destructive people as possible. By whatever rationale you use, ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world. Or a child that, through no fault of its own, would be the destructor of a marriage, a family, a parent. It’s fairly inarguable to say that unhappy children, who then grew into very angry adults, have caused the great majority of mankind’s miseries. If psychoanalysis has, somewhat brutally, laid the responsibility for mental disorders at parents’ doors, the least we can do is to tip our hats to women aware enough not to create those troubled people in the first place.

Did you’re method of birth control fail you? And have you ever heard of adoption? Did you know there are millions of women who cannot have children, and who would DO anything and pay any price to adopt a baby…who would indeed make a far better parent that you could ever hope to be.

In short, while I am now packing something just short of the contraceptive equivalent of Trident, if I ever did have to have an abortion again, I would like to think that it would be something unlikely to provoke a moral dilemma in anyone, least of all me. I would like to see a time when abortion is considered an intelligent, logical, humble, compassionate thing to do. I would like abortion to be considered as, perversely, one of the ultimate acts of good mothering.

It’s sickening. Only a very selfish woman would feel this way…and I know there are FAR more selfish women than not. Children are HARD work; they are inconvenient; they are apt to derail the high strung careers and income potential. But children are also the most precious, the most innocent and the most loving gift women will ever receive. Does it matter? Women bitch and moan about the high strung careers, the lack of time they have, the lack of this, that and anything and everything.

What has happened to the nurturing woman? Where did she go?

To claim, killing a child before it’s given a chance to live, is compassionate, shows a lack of understanding of the value of ANY life. Women don’t like to admit it…but we’re HERE to have children. It’s what Mother Nature put us on this earth for. Someday this denial will come back to haunt so many. As time goes on, more children have been murdered, by the direction of their own MOTHER, than any other mass murder/war/Holocaust the world has ever seen. There is NO higher crime than to kill your own child. And it’s NOT the ultimate motherly act.

DURHAM, N.H. (AP) _ Displays of bloody fetuses next to pictures of the collapsing World Trade Center, a black lynching victim hanging from a tree and corpses at a concentration camp were among the disturbing billboards at the University of New Hampshire put up by a national anti-abortion group.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform brings its billboards _ part of what it calls the Genocide Awareness Project _ to campuses across the country. Monday’s display at UNH was the first venture into New England.

The billboards and about a dozen proponents in front of Thompson Hall were surrounded by a temporary metal fence. Throughout the demonstration, people sometimes shouted, questions such as ”When does life begin?” and ”What is genocide?”

Being a woman costs more. Everyone KNOWS this. But some are crying this to be UNFAIR when it comes to taking personal responsibility for health care costs.

ATLANTA — High-deductible health insurance plans favored by many employers often wind up being an unfair burden to women, a study says, largely because women need many routine medical exams that quickly add up.

The median expense for men younger than 45 in these plans was less than $500, but for women it was more than $1,200, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers.

They also found that only a third of insured men in that age group spent more than $1,050 in annual medical costs, while 55 percent of women did.

Perhaps…in the short run. Men may appear to get off without paying as much as women. Later though men DO end up paying. Men in general don’t go to the doctor because they don’t WANT to. Even when they are sick, they won’t go unless they’re on a death bed. Men tend to wait things out…and often at a cost in health later in their lives. Women on the other hand DO tend to go to their doctors more for routine and non-routine care. Diseases and illness are caught early and treated; women live longer than men. For reasons we won’t get into here, men often wait until it’s too late for preventative care…they end up with much higher percentages of diabetes, heart conditions, cancers and other life altering health issues. The costs ADD up then and it’s always much higher.

“High-deductible plans punish women for having breasts and uteruses and having babies,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, the study’s lead author.

“When an employer switches all his employees into a consumer-driven health plan, it’s the same as giving all the women a $1,000 pay cut, on average, because women on average have $1,000 more in health costs than men,” she said.

Punish women??? Give me a damned break. It’s not a punishment to want to keep our breasts, uteruses and babies HEALTHY. Does it cost money? Of course! But we’re not being punished. This is one of the most sexist phrases I have seen in a LONG time. Do they want MEN to cough up more money to make things…equal…here? You know, under traditional insurance plans the MAN often carries the policy for his wife and family. While he might make one visit to the doctor over the course of a year, his wife and kids will go MANY times. The insurance costs are deducted from HIS income; he loses a good portion of HIS income to provide for HIS family. No one ever complains when it’s like this though…Is it fair? Hardly.

Women’s costs are higher because women need mammograms, cervical cancer vaccine, Pap tests, birth control and pregnancy-related services that men do not, said Woolhandler, who also is a cofounder of a physicians’ group that advocates for a single-payer national health insurance system.

So, what’s the point? Having breasts doesn’t cost more. It may appear that way initially, but in the long run mammograms SAVE not just breasts but lives— the costs of breast cancer (and uterine cancer) are extremely HIGH…in terms of cash and LIFE value.

Charging everyone the same for health care is not the answer. if people, all people, took better care of themselves and visited their doctors on a regular basis, and practiced healthy and preventative habits, the costs would go down for everyone. Men and women use their health care resources at different times in their lives. It’s not sexist to think this way. It’s realistic.

Speaking of breasts and the power of the feminist WOMAN of the DAY, check out Teach’s post on Nancy Pelosi’s recent fumbled effort in diplomacy…at the Pirate Cove’s Friday Track Back party…

I have heard about the John Edwards/Amanda Marcotte saga…which is gathering more steam everyday. I have read posts written by the grand Ms. Amanda and she is vile, more so than I could ever be. She is a man hater. A baby hater. But I hadn’t seen this and all I can say is…WTF…Edwards better be prepared for some political heat on this. (And I’m not even religious).

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’

WTF is an understatement. This woman, HAS ISSUES. I have no problem with her writing about how she feels. Using colorful language doesn’t bother me…John Edwards needs to take a good second look at his choice for his campaign blogger. She could cause him a lot of embarrassment, which he doesn’t need now. Ms. Amanda should resign this post and move on.

The NYT caught in YET another LIE.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

Hmm…does the writer of this article have an agenda? I think so.

Someone double checked the numbers used in the NYT article:

The entire story (based on the work of one ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful, blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it.

First, the truth—a truth that is easily accessible from the United States Census Bureau.

According to the most recent available figures (from 2005), a clear majority (56%) of all women over the age of 20 are currently married.

56%??? NO.

Moreover, nearly all women in this country will get married at one time or another. Among those above the age of 50 (a group that includes the celebrated Baby Boomers of the famously revolutionary ‘60’s generation), an astonishing 94% have been married at one time or another and some 79% are either currently married or widowed.

Even including the younger, supposedly “post-marriage” generation, and considering all women above the age of 30, some 61% are currently married and another 12% are widowed. In other words, nearly three-fourths (73%, a crushing majority) of all women who have reached the tender age of 30 now occupy a traditional female role as either current wives or widows – avoiding the supposedly trendy status of divorced, separated, co-habiting or single.

How, then, could America’s “Journal of Record,” the New York Times, possibly peddle the ridiculously distorted story that most females now count as unattached?

O.M.G. The Lesbian/Gay Rights groupies must be having a perfect storm-a-thon over this! The diversity crowd is as well, I bet.

So how could reporter Roberts read the same Census figures that any American can view (“according to a New York Times analysis”) and come up with such bizarre conclusions?

It’s all based on a fundamentally dishonest decision that Roberts never acknowledges in the entire course of his lengthy article. It turns out that in his analysis he chose to count some 10,154,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 as “women.” It should come as no surprise that this vast group of teenagers (yes, teenagers, most of whom live at home) are officially classified as “single.” In fact, 97% of the 15 to 19 year olds identify themselves as “never married.” The Census Bureau, by the way, doesn’t call these youngsters “women” – it labels them “females” (a far more appropriate designation).

So it is…the truth comes out.

The endlessly repeated lies – that married people are now a minority, that most women don’t have husbands, that half of all first marriages end in divorce – exert a real world influence on young people trying to make decisions about their own intimate arrangements. The relentless media portrayal of matrimony as a wounded, collapsing, outmoded, dysfunctional institution discourages prospective husbands and wives from making the lifelong commitments on which societal health and effective childrearing depend.

And remember: The Feminist-Nazi-Freaks are probably behind much of this bullshit reporting as well…their matra: Women DON’T need men.For anything. And here’s proof…more women are single than married.

Lies. All Lies.
It’s sad that so many people will read the Kool Aid reports and take them at face value. The media is a powerful entity. I just wish it could be honest.

I don’t know how this article came to my attention…it just did. I read it many times and thought a lot about it. It irked me to no end. I am far from being a feminist woman; I like men, I think I am very straightforward with that. I believe men have been on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit from society and from women in particular. However, this guy has a few things wrong.

Do Men Still Matter?
I just finished reading Donald Miller’s book, To Own A Dragon. It’s about men who grow up without fathers, and how that can affect a boy as he develops into a man. It’s a fantastic book.

It starts out good enough. Then the writer almost loses me (and many others) as he wanders on and on about Christian bloggers and other books and other non sense….it’s very difficult to read this post because it goes back and forth so much, is confusing and there is much blabbering.

It’s no wonder so many men are depressed and confused about their role. It’s no wonder divorce rates are high. It’s no wonder men cheat on their wives or become addicted to a fantasy world of pornography (a world where images of women who are gorgeous and adoring are easy to find).

This is a cop out of epic proportions. Today’s women are far more “advanced”, sexually, than any woman of the past. If anything, today’s woman is much better prepared to take on every sexual fantasy any man could ever dream of…and this threatens men.

Should a man desire to be head of his household and a woman decide to be a domestic supporter, it is viewed as absurd and pathetic. I’m generalizing, I know, but you get the point. And while some may say that I am making too big of a deal of sitcoms (and I may be), I say that this is a reflection of a much larger problem.

Mistake number one: A wife is a partner…she is the other half of what should be a lifelong relationship full of love, admiration, respect and honor. A wife is not a domestic supporter. If she is viewed as such, the marriage is doomed. I hate to tell it like it is: The 50’s are gone. It may be due to feminism, it may not be. Women are stronger now, better educated and are able to fend for themselves. THIS IS WHAT TICKS MEN OFF. It’s the price society pays, for allowing men who think like this idiOt - to rule the nest without regard or respect to the gifts women bring into the relationship. In other words, I think men took advantage of the woman who chose to stay at home and raise the kids. Women got fed up with it and wanted change.

In the now famous book His Needs, Her Needs, Willam Harley wrote of the following emotional needs of women:
-Affection
-Conversation
-Honesty and Openness
-Financial Support
-Family Commitment

And the following emotional needs for men:
-Sexual Fulfillment
-Recreational Companionship
-Physical Attractiveness
-Domestic Support
-Admiration

I don’t agree with this list at all, for women. What’s missing from these lists?? LOVE. Without it, a relationship will never last.

In my world, women need:
Love and affection
Sexual fulfillment
Loyalty/Fidelity
and the bag of other important things:
An honest, articulate, smart, intelligent, attractive, fun loving, hard working, hard playing and MATURE MAN.

Many women DO place more value on man’s earning power; on the baggage he comes with. Women, when seeking a future husband, do look at the income, the job and career prospects, the reputation, the looks and feel of a man. Most have a list of acceptable and unacceptable traits. Every man must pass a litmus test before a woman would consider him a serious contender.
It isn’t right yet this is what women were conditioned to do way back in the day. Men wanted sex, food and a clean home in exchange for a lifelong commitment. Feminism did change this.

Even Christian women have been given this feminist chip on their shoulders, and in many cases it’s a crippling chip. I think it’s safe to say that many women will look at a list like this and say things like:

“Sexual fulfillment? I’m not an object!”
“Recreational companionship? I’m my own person!”
“Physical attractiveness? That shouldn’t matter! How bigoted!”
“Domestic support? What do you want, for me to be barefoot and pregnant?”
“Admiration? I am empowered without a man!”

I never thought of it like this, but I am living my life the way I chose to, because of feminism…

My answers to this:
Sexual fullfillment?
I am an object and so are you. And you better be prepared to be good at it because I need that. If you don’t produce it, I’ll get it elsewhere.

Recreational companionship?
This is important and it goes both ways. Men have their hobbies and so do women. We compliment one another; we give and take from one another. It’s never going to be equal and I think most people know that.
No man in my life will become a boring, stay at home shut in who prefers to lay on the couch and exercise his fingers with the remote. NO FUCKING WAY. NEVER AGAIN. You better be prepared to go out hiking, climbing, roller blading, partying; you better be prepared for having a lot of friends and all the events friends tend to do together. You better be prepared to be involved with your children who need you so much. Damn straight.

Physical Attractiveness?
I keep myself in better shape than most men. I did it (and still do it) for ME, not for HIM. I want to be healthy and live a long life. I want to see my Grandkids and hopefully Great grandchildren. This has nothing to do with men. Yep…being in shape means I get looks and all that…but that’s not important to me- I don’t do it for any man. AND, a man in my life better be in decent shape too. I don’t care about looks, but I don’t want a fat slobby smelly pig either.

Domestic support?
Oh go to hell. I worked all my adult life AND kept the home fires burning. I cooked, cleaned, raised three kids, managed the money, did the laundry, the shopping, the oil changes…and never complained ONCE. All I asked for in return was on my list above.

Admiration?
As long as you’re intelligent, smart, articulate, hard working, hard playing and attractive you will get my admiration. End of discussion.

Do my stances on the above statements threaten men? TOUGH SHIT.

But when I say such things I am lying to myself. The simple fact is I REALLY DO want these things of my wife, each and every one of them. Truth be told, I love, absolutely love the fact that when I come home at the end of a long day of work my wife has cleaned the house and is making dinner for me. I love it that my wife finds it necessary to workout and maintain her physical attraction. I love the fact that my wife admires me, seeing me as intelligent and handsome. I don’t just love these things–I need and crave them.

Stop whining and get with the times. We all want the same things: Everyone wants to taken care of. This hasn’t changed over time. And it’s nothing to be ashamed of…but it is a problem when you insist upon living in times that are no longer compatible with the modern world. And remember this: Most women are totally turned off by men who whine, who complain. Like you.

It seems to me that modern feminism has had it’s impact, and it’s been an impact that has been decidedly anti-family. The correlation is clear, from the beginning of radical feminism in the early 1960’s to present, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Many have simply given up on the institution of marriage altogether.

So why bother? Why bother getting married when she won’t respect him and, as a result of this lack of respect, he won’t respect her? It’s more hassle, baggage and setup for disaster than it’s worth.

Why bother is right. If I could do it all over again, I would never have gotten married. But I would have children, because nothing is a fulfilling and important as raising them. I believe this is what women are here for, above all else, including submitting to a man.

I think most men want a partner, a wife, girlfriend- whatever- who is attractive, sexually honest and willing and able; who is warm, loving, compassionate; who is smart, articulate, fun loving, hard working and hard playing…they want a woman who can stand up for herself but who also needs the safety and protection only a man can give. Most men want a woman who will take care of them with respect and admiration…and most men are more than willing to give all this back and then some.

The scene from a hot steamy night club?

Not bopping, actually, but doing elaborately choreographed re-creations of music videos, in tiny skirts or tight shorts, with bare bellies, rouged cheeks and glittery eyes.

They writhe and strut, shake their bottoms, splay their legs, thrust their chests out and in and out again. Some straddle empty chairs, like lap dancers without laps. They don’t smile much. Their faces are locked from grim exertion, from all that leaping up and lying down without poles to hold onto. “Don’t stop don’t stop,” sings Janet Jackson, all whispery. “Jerk it like you’re making it choke. …Ohh. I’m so stimulated. Feel so X-rated.”

Sounds sexy huh?

The girls are ten year olds. That’s 10…4th, 5th graders.

It is news to no one, not even me, that eroticism in popular culture is a 24-hour, all-you-can-eat buffet, and that many children in their early teens are filling up. The latest debate centers on whether simulated intercourse is an appropriate dance style for the high school gym.

It’s not appropriate. Girls and boys this age are not emotionally ready to deal with the very grown up aspects of the acts they dance to. I used to be forced to do these things for men in their 40’s and 50’s- and I was 13 and 14 at the time. I understand times change- but not that much. These acts lead girls to be incapable of feeling anything but resentment towards almost everyone. They do a good job at hiding these feelings, the girls. But sooner or later it comes out in many ways.

What surprised me, though, was how completely parents of even younger girls seem to have gotten in step with society’s march toward eroticized adolescence — either willingly or through abject surrender. And if parents give up, what can a school do? A teacher at the middle school later told me she had stopped chaperoning dances because she was put off by the boy-girl pelvic thrusting and had no way to stop it — the children wouldn’t listen to her and she had no authority to send anyone home. She guessed that if the school had tried to ban the sexy talent-show routines, parents would have been the first to complain, having shelled out for costumes and private dance lessons for their Little Miss Sunshines.

Schools and parents can and should do better. No wonder society is over sexed and full of people who have no capacity to understand love, commitment and honor. The Paris and Britney syndrome has infected our very young ladies- who will grow up to be anything but.

I’m sure that many parents see these routines as healthy fun, an exercise in self-esteem harmlessly heightened by glitter makeup and teeny skirts. Our girls are bratz, not slutz, they would argue, comfortable in the existence of a distinction.

No. They are sluts. And proud of it.

Suburban parents dote on and hover over their children, micromanaging their appointments and shielding them in helmets, kneepads and thick layers of S.U.V. steel. But they allow the culture of boy-toy sexuality to bore unchecked into their little ones’ ears and eyeballs, displacing their nimble and growing brains and impoverishing the sense of wider possibilities in life.

Good job- these parents have done. Raising their daughters to be the toys for boys is a reflection on who these parents are. The Mothers of these girls have no self respect for themselves and they pass this on to their kids. I can imagine they call themselves feminist Moms too. Where are the Fathers in all this???

There is no reason adulthood should be a low plateau we all clamber onto around age 10. And it’s a cramped vision of girlhood that enshrines sexual allure as the best or only form of power and esteem. It’s as if there were now Three Ages of Woman: first Mary-Kate, then Britney, then Courtney. Boys don’t seem to have such constricted horizons. They wouldn’t stand for it — much less waggle their butts and roll around for applause on the floor of a school auditorium.

But boys grow up into men, who often take advantage of the slutz girls. It’s all ok and in fun, right? Who cares about self esteem and confidence and respect? The very things every parent should be teaching their daughters and sons.