The Secret To What Pro-Choicers REALLY Mean About Choice.

Apparently, I’ve been going about this abortion thing all wrong. By insisting that women be allowed to make decisions for themselves, I’ve actually been taking away their choices.

“Pro-aborts like choice about as much as a fetus enjoys abortion. They don’t want women to have choices. They want them to have only one choice, and that’s abortion. If any woman, anywhere, has an unplanned pregnancy, the pro-aborts want her to do nothing but abort the baby. They will try to silence anyone who could present alternatives, demonize crisis pregnancy centers, keep options like adoption quiet, and fight against any kind of informed consent laws. These are radical pro-abortion extremists. And it just sounds so much better to say that they’re fighting for “choice” than fighting to keep women killing their babies.” ~ Cassy Fiano

All this time it turns out that I’ve been supporting mass genocide of my own species. Who knew!?! By insisting that women have options and not be lied to, shamed, and bullied into keeping an unwanted pregnancy I’ve been ‘silencing’ the opposition. You know, the ‘real heroes’. The ones who want abortion outlawed…to give women more choices by eliminating their choices. Those wonderful defenders of life who bomb clinics and murder health care workers to show how important human life is. Or something… I’m still attempting to do the mental aerobics necessary to wrap my brain around this, uh, ‘logic’. What can I say, I must be slow.

It all makes sense, really. I’ve often heard from completely reliable MRA sources (who are totally not just whiny-pants assholes hating on women) that feminists are trying to destroy the world. If they write it, it must be true! Because, lord knows, the MRA certainly doesn’t have an anti-woman agenda. What better way to destroy the world than to eradicate the species? It’s even more effective at destroying the world than feminism’s other strategies of insisting on equal opportunities and demanding to be allowed to vote and own property and work and stuff.

And it gets worse! So much worse!

“Lose abortion, and suddenly, the abortion advocates have lost not just their cash cow, but their ticket to political power and influence. So just remember, on Blog for Choice Day… it’s not choice they’re fighting for, and it’s not women they care about.”

This whole time I’ve been supporting the pro-choice movement out of a sense of fairness and wanting to do what’s right, when I could have been making money at it! When do my abortion cheques come in, damn it!

This marvelous gem of stupidity is brought to you by the Live Action News blog.

There’s so much dishonesty and projection going on in that blog post that I think I may have lost IQ points reading it. They must have a very low opinion of the mental capacity of women. Live Action News Blog; Where truth and rational thinking are optional.

Advertisements

Mythic Mondays – Legitimate Rape

You know, this is one post I never thought I’d have to write. The level of stupid involved in rape culture and the forced-birth movement is pretty bad, but this comment takes the cake.

Todd Akin, a United states congressman AND a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, stated this weekend that rape rarely causes pregnancy because:

“It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare, if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, But let’s assume maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist.”

Apparently, according to Akin, a woman’s uterus knows the difference between rape and consensual sex, somehow, and magically destroys sperm that doesn’t have its paperwork in order. I want to meet the incompetent doctors that he said gave him this information.

Was it Galen of Pergamon? He taught that a woman could only conceive if she’d had an orgasm. He taught this is 150 CE, mind you. While he was ahead of his time in cutting edge anatomy…this was also almost 2,000 years ago. He also was a staunch supporter of blood letting, and of fixing ‘bad humours’, which has been thoroughly discredited by modern medicine. As has the idea that a woman needs to orgasm/consent in order to get pregnant.

Todd Akin, a man who has the power to legislate laws that limit a woman’s reproductive choice, while following advice from a 2,000 year old medical book. Not to mention the fact that this man is on the House Science and Technology Committee. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. I’m not even going to debunk this one, because if you believe that a woman’s uterus knows about consent and can decide whether it should get pregnant or not, then you are an idiot. Todd is an idiot.

The really scary thing? Todd is not an isolated case. There’s plenty of documented occurrences of Republican politicians stating this very thing. These are university educated men in positions of power. Jezebel has a recent timeline of some these incidences. Not to mention that this is one of the core beliefs of the anti-choice movement.

‘Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, on Sunday called Akin’s remarks “flat-out astonishing.”

“That kind of rhetoric re-traumatizes sexual assault victims …That kind of talk, I believe, is intended to shame women,” she told AP Radio.’
The Toronto Star

There’s also the not-so-subtle undercurrent of what he’s saying: Real rapes don’t get women pregnant. Most rapes are just made up by loose women who can’t keep their legs closed and regret it after the fact. So the estimated 32,000 women a year who get pregnant each year from rape? Lying sluts who are just trying to put an innocent man in prison. Stay classy, Todd.

There’s a petition to get Todd taken off the House Science and Technology Committee. ‘Someone who believes nonsense like this has no part overseeing science policy.’ Says the poster of the petition. Seeing as the man is still living in the dark ages, it might not be a bad idea.

Here’s some good posts on the subject of Legitimate Rape, Todd, and Rape apologists:

The myth that women can’t get pregnant from rape stems from basic assumptions anti-choicers make about women.

The Offical Guide to Legitimate Rape.

Akin’s eager apologists

What Todd Akin Said

Just Because It’s a Rodeo Does Not Mean There Has To Be a Shootout At The Corral.

An off duty cop named Walt Wawra from Kalamazoo (No, I didn’t make that name up) and his wife from Michigan are vacationing in Calgary. They’re walking through a park in Calgary in the daytime and are approached by two young men who ask if they’re going to the centennial celebration of the biggest event in the city. You know, the Calgary Stampede.

Wary Walt apparently panics, assumes they’re vile thugs and tells them rudely to go away. He then laments that he didn’t have a gun on him. You know, to defend himself from these obviously aggressive lunatics who DARED to menace he and his wife. (I’m not making this up, I swear!) He wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald, complaining about it:

I recently visited Calgary from Michigan. As a police officer for 20 years, it feels strange not to carry my off-duty hand-gun. Many would say I have no need to carry one in Canada.

Yet the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be al-lowed to protect himself if the need arises. The need arose in a theatre in Aurora, Colo., as well as a college campus in Canada.

Recently, while out for a walk in Nose Hill Park, in broad daylight on a paved trail, two young men approached my wife and me. The men stepped in front of us, then said in a very aggressive tone: “Been to the Stampede yet?”

Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz: Officer’s comments reflect cultural divide between Canada, U.S.

We ignored them. The two moved closer, repeating: “Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?”

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, “Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.” They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.

I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor? Wait, I know – it’s because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns.

Walt Wawra, Kalamazoo, Mich.

The original letter is here, at the Calgary Herald.

It sounds like a hoax, right? The Calgary Herald assures us it is not.

My first impression is : ‘Dafuq?!?’ followed by ‘Bloody lucky thing Wistful Walt didn’t have a gun, or two young men might have needlessly died.’ Keep in mind this man is apparently a cop. If he’d been at home, instead of being a tourist, he’d have been packing. This is a man who makes snap judgements about people all the time. One who’s allowed to carry a gun. Yikes.

And here’s the kicker: The two aggressive men who accosted Whinging Walt and his wife were handing out free passes to the Stampede. No wonder they looked ‘bewildered’ at Worrying Walt’s strange reaction and general rudeness. I’m sure they had no way of knowing that if Wonderful Walt had had it his way, they’ve have been threatened with a handgun for their presumption to offer tourists free stuff! Honestly, the nerve of those guys.

I’m not the only one who thinks Wacky Walt from Kalamazoo is a nutter. There’s a hashtag on Twitter that’s devoted to his keen perceptive skills and excellent judgement called #NoseHillGentlemen.

As for Officer Wawra, it seems he’s wisely chosen to go into hiding and wait for the media storm to blow over. Good choice. A better choice would have been to do so BEFORE becoming a laughing stock.

As far as I’m concerned, this is the best argument for gun control that I’ve seen yet. We’re quite happy knowing only cops and crooks have guns in our country, Officer Wawra, if it means over-reacting gun happy folks like yourself do not. I feel safer already.

What Free Speech Does Not Mean

One of the most common arguments you’ll see from the ignorant on any number of a variety of topics is the ‘It’s free speech’ argument. Lately I’ve seen this with the Daniel Tosh Rape joke scenario, the We-Need-Moar-Guns-To-Stop-People-From-Shooting-Theatres debate, the Chik-Fil-A We-don’t-hate-gays-but-donate-to-anti-gay-groups debacle. And numerous other ridiculous situations that I have a hard time imagining anyone would want to defend.

Usually, the ‘It’s Free Speech’ argument is said completely without irony and without an understanding of what it actually means. It’s like people think it’s a ‘get out of argument free card’.

What free speech means:

That you are free to voice your opinion without government interference.

That’s it. Full stop. That’s all it means. Here’s what it does not mean:

That you are free to say something remarkably stupid without receiving criticism.

As I’ve said on a previous post : ‘No one is above critique. See that’s the flip side of the ‘Free Speech’ argument that so many seem to draw like a gun. Yes, you can say stupid things…and then I can verbally tear you a new asshole for it.’ If you try to tell me I’m not allowed to criticize something you’ve said…you’ve just committed the ultimate hypocrisy in asserting that your Free Speech somehow outweighs mine.

That I have to listen to what you have to say.

MRAs (Male Rights Activists) may rant and rave and froth and foam to their heart’s content. And they do quite frequently. I’m not interested and I’m not listening. My brain can only handle so much unreasoning hate and pure stupid. In no way have I taken away their rights by focusing my attention away from their fecal flinging. I won’t pull you off your soapbox…but I have the right to walk by without stopping.

That I have to provide you an opportunity to voice your opinion.

I believe this is part of the FreeThoughtBlogs vs Thunderf00t comedy. He was given a blog space by them…they realized he was only there to shit disturb…they promptly removed him. No Free Speech was taken. As a presenter or organizer, I don’t have to allow you the stage. As a webmaster I don’t have to give you a blog. As a blogger, I don’t have to let you write a guest post and I certainly don’t have to allow your opinions in the comment section of my personal blog. I’m not the government and I’m not censoring you. I’m just not giving up my space for your opinions. Get your own damned blog. I hear there’s this place called WordPress that gives them away for free!

That I must continue to support the person who is exercising their free speech.

For example, if I choose to boycott a business because they are vocal in their bigotry, this is not infringing on their free speech. They chose to voice their opinion. I chose not to support it. If, as another business, I choose to sever our relationship, this too is not taking away the rights of the first business. They chose to voice an opinion that may not be well received by the masses. There are consequences in that.

That the listeners must agree with the speaker.

Have your say. Try to swing me to your perspective. Don’t throw a temper tantrum and accuse people of stealing your free speech when they don’t instantly bow down to your demands or agree with you. Be an adult, for chrissakes. Or by all means, flop down in the mud and throw your temper tantrum. It gives us fledgling bloggers something interesting to blog about. And by ‘blog about’ I do mean ‘mock relentlessly’.

The Olympics Is No Place For Equality

The comment section at the Globe & Mail really is a cesspool of woman hating trolls today.

There’s an article in the commentary section of the Globe & Mail today in regards to the difference in the way male and female athletes are being treated. It’s called : ‘For female Olympians, it’s 1960 all over again

Case in point, the entire Q&A period for the British Beach Volleyball teams focused on whether the women were going to promise to wear bikinis in the rain. While the men’s team wasn’t asked any questions. Women’s sports aren’t about athleticism, afterall, it’s all about titillation. Training regimes and strategy? Not important. The important thing is whether or not we’re gonna see cleavage and the possibility of wardrobe malfunctions.

There’s also the example of male athletes getting first class tickets on airline flights while the female athletes have to ride in coach. How do you even defend that one?

The story of several media sources body snarking about a multi-medal Olympic Swimmer. Seriously, who calls an Olympic athlete fat?!? Well apparently, this is a thing now. Fucking fat lazy uber-athletes. How dare they pack on muscle and not be a size 0? /snark

Those are just a few examples from the article.
The commentariat of the plebes was about what you’d expect:

– Who’d even watch women’s sports if there were no bouncing boobies?

– There’s no such thing as sexism now STFU and get back in the kitchen.

– Bitches don’t know anything about sports.

– You’re just lucky men LET you compete at all.

You know, ‘well reasoned’ commentary from people who totally aren’t misogynist scumbags. And by ‘well-reasoned’, of course I mean: The stupid! It burns!

And you still deny religion rots the brain?

Recently there has been a string of sexual assaults at York University in Toronto. One Muslim cleric’s response is, of course, to take away the rights of women and force harsh penalties on those who ‘dress provocatively’. Whatever that means.

The entire letter to The Toronto Sun is so full of stupid that it burns. Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, the street cleric in question, is not what you’d call…a thinker. But I’m a glutton for punishment, so let’s go through it anyway!

I wanted to mention that the reason why these sex attacks are continuously happening is because the Canadian laws, which gives too much freedom to women, are the cause of these sex attacks.

You hear that? Women having freedom is causing men to rape them. If only we punished women more, rapists wouldn’t have to intercede on behalf of Canadian Law and do it for us. The rapists are doing a public service. Damn you, Canadian Legal System, for not caring about women enough to persecute them relentlessly! Never mind the logical acrobatics one needs to make in order for this line of reasoning to make sense. Not oppressing one group sufficiently is apparently going to lead to that group being attacked.

Also, the grammar nazi in me would like to point out that the attacks are not continuous. That would imply a never ending string of events with no break whatsoever. Like, not even bathroom breaks.

The reason why a woman gets raped is because of the way she dress. Women dress so provocatively so much that they receive too much attention for themselves and that attention at times leads to death.

It’s not because she was attacked by a criminal. No. It’s because she received too much attention that might result in death. The fact that there no evidence to suggest that a woman’s choice of dress figures in to rape statistics and that rape is about power rather than animal lust (as this cleric and others like him seem to suggest) mean nothing.

It’s sickening how little respect these idiots seem to have for men as a whole. In their world view men cannot control themselves sufficiently not to attack or kill just because they saw a little cleavage. That would make them extremely weak minded and pathetic. And even after acknowledging that they believe men are rutting pigs without the ability to reason or control themselves they still somehow believe that men are better equipped to be in positions of power. Baffling. There’s that logic fail again. Anyhoo, let’s take in some more wisdom from cleric dumbshit, er Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana…

If the law enforcements and the Canadian politicians were very serious about solving this problem, they would introduce laws that would make it illegal for women to dress provocatively in the streets.

Define Provocative. Are we talking boobies(Being topless in public is legal in Ontario)? Or two inches of calf? Depending on where you are either or neither of these are provocative. But yes, what this comes down to is again: Canada, if you loved your women, you’d spend more time oppressing them.

However by arresting sexual predators is not going to solve the problem because as long women continue to dress like this there will always be perverts and rapist who will continue to remain on the loose.

No need to punish the criminals. Boys will be boys, afterall. Men can’t be expected to control themselves when confronted with the sight of a woman’s calf. And that’s her fault. The important thing is that we blame the victims and use violence against them as an excuse to heap more ridiculous rules and restrictions on them.

Why is it that Rapists and sexual predators only target women that dress so provocatively?

Citation please. You’re not going to get stats on that, of course, since Shariah Law doesn’t acknowledge that rape happens. It’s simply called adultery and she gets stoned to death for it. Unless she has four male witnesses to the crime…and then she just gets killed by her family. You know, so they don’t lose honour. Or it’s called marriage. Even when a woman is kidnapped and married by a mullah against her will and then raped…well, that’s not considered rape either.

And as a bonus, here’s a list of rape myths from the University of Minnesota.

As an aside, is a street cleric the same thing as those religious doomsayers who hold up signs that the ‘End is Near’ when they’ve gone off their medications for too long? That might explain some of his ‘advice’.