Seriously, what? Oh, it looks like the girl version addresses zombies too, kind of. Whew, what a relief.
Birth control is basically the Crest toothpaste of moral issues. It’s got an approval rating about 8 times higher than the US Congress! Birth control for President!
The critique of the flawed methodology seems sound. But is the ultimate result of this kind of mistake good or bad for Obama? There are arguments both ways.
The Obama team created the “Julia” character specifically to illustrate the ways the federal government can benefit a typical woman throughout her life… and Rich Lowry freaks out because this character’s “central relationship is to the state.” and this TOTALLY MEANS SOMETHING. Something dire and… communistical.
So, am I the only one who thinks the modern Republican party increasingly resembles that guy in Doctor Strangelove who kept ranting about fluoride in ice cream?
But in these past few months, even he may be taking it to the extreme.
No issue is proving too tiny for Obama and his team as they seek an edge with female voters. They’ve denounced male-only membership of the Augusta National Golf Club, cut a video message of support for Planned Parenthood, universally disavowed a supporter’s slipup on Ann Romney and issued a 65-page report that recasts the administration’s entire record through the lens of how it affects women.
Tucked inside that lengthy report are nuggets like these: women can now serve on submarines, expect private spaces at most workplaces to express breast milk, and take comfort knowing that the definition of rape was updated for the first time in more than 80 years, a change that means more federal funding to combat domestic violence.
Got that? Women’s issues are tiny and extreme and it’s wrong of Obama to be using them to point out the difference between his platform and the Republican platform. Tell me again why, as a woman, I’m supposed to buy this rubbish?
when it comes to the status of women in the Middle East, it’s not better than you think. It’s much, much worse.
Dear American right wingers: if you really want to distance yourself from Arabic Muslims and Sharia law and all that, you should enthusiastically support and protect women’s rights.
Hilary Rosen, the full quote — making it clear that she’s talking primarily about Ann Romney’s wealth and not dissing stay-at-home moms.
I would find right wing outrage on this topic more convincing if they didn’t turn around and in the next breath diss “welfare mothers” for not having a paying job. WHICH IS IT, RIGHT WINGERS?
Unintentional hilarity machine Phyllis Schlafly issued a dire warning to cadets at the Citadel yesterday, explaining to students that they should never, ever, under any circumstances, even in case of emergency or possible decapitation, date a feminist.
I’ve loathed this woman since I was eight years old and still have no reason to change my mind.
A great explanation of the philosophies behind religious-minded anti-feminist philosophies. Some choice quote:
“Who,” Genig asked, “is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have ‘control’ of their own bodies?”
Or as homeschooling leader Mary Pride wrote in another foundational Quiverfull book, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, “My body is not my own.” The resonance of this counterintuitive battle cry with the feminist health text Our Bodies, Ourselves is intentional—this argument is over women’s bodies. Contraception, in this formulation, is a seizure of divine power, as well as a slipperly slope that leads to other feminist gains: abortion, women’s careers, divorce, homosexuality, and more.
These people are very dangerous, not so much because they have wacky beliefs, but because they believe the rest of us should follow their wacky beliefs. They are not like the Amish. They are not content to set themselves apart. They are like if the Amish got into politics and started trying to legislate against electricity and automobiles.
It’s hard not to wonder if the entire Republican crusade against contraception (along with its other more familiar objections to women’s rights) stems from anxiety about the status of men.
let’s consider an analogy: pregnancy. Only women become pregnant, as yet (obviously). So any policy that discriminates against pregnant people would affect women—most women, eventually—and not men. If you allow discrimination against pregnant people, then men can have all the biological children they want to, and only women will be penalized for it.At some point, my outrage meter is just going to break down under the strain.
And yet, not once, but twice in the mid-1970s, the Court held that policies that discriminate against pregnancy don’t discriminate against women because not all women are pregnant all the time. The idea was that women who aren’t pregnant would be treated just like men, so there was no discrimination.