when the status quo frustrates.

A Picture Is Better Than A Thousand Words!

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Question: Are magazine advertisements going too far with extraordinarily excessive PhotoShopping of their already-for-the-average-person-unachievable-standards-of-anorexic-beauty models?

Answer:

(Via.)

Good God, who is this guy?

Monday, October 27th, 2008

If I wasn’t already with the man in the world best suited to me personally, I would definitely hunt him down.

Okay, I wouldn’t; that’s WAAAAY too stalker-ish! :) But I would wish strenuously that I did know him.

Saddest part of all: the reason I’m so wildly impressed with this guy is that he writes a page-long essay detailing how to treat women as if they were people (like men are!), instead of ambulatory vaginas that he might possibly get a chance to wriggle into if he waves the right combination of money and ‘tude at their tits.

(Hat tip: Redheaded Freak Magnet)

Happy Halloween! P.S. No Fatties.

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

It’s the Halloween season again, and I for one am thrilled. Corn mazes, haunted houses, Halloween parties and guys who think they’re funny giving me an easy intro back into blogging. That’s right, it’s the return of perennial Slut-O-Ween opinion pieces.

Over the past week or so, I’ve done a lot of Halloween shopping. Bob, you gigantic nerd, you’re thinking. What are you doing shopping for Halloween stuff in September? You truly are a titan of thunderous stupidity.

Yes, “titan of thunderous stupidity.” That’s where we start. Get ready for a heartbreaking work of staggeringly hilarious slut-shaming genius. Oh, and subtlety. I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bob’s impressive vocabulary and concern for his precocious step-daughter don’t do a great job of masking his real All-Saint’s-Day-Eve bitch. Can you guess what he’s really saying by the end of this post? Try it!

But we also noticed something else that we found a little annoying. Halloween costumes, it seems, have fallen into two general buckets. First, there are the costumes for men and boys. Second – and this is the far larger of the two buckets, from what I’ve seen – there are the costumes for hookers.

Don’t worry about it too much, Bob. For last year on my campus, boys were stripping down and slutting up for Halloween in record numbers. The end of October in Ohio isn’t great for slutty costumes, so it was a bit nipply in the streets for all genders, if you get my drift.

Shopping for Halloween costumes these days is a lot like hanging out at Dr. John’s, but with less personal lubricant. Everywhere you look, there’s a Naughty Nurse or a Slinky Vampire or a Just Trying To Pay For College Police Officer. It’s crazy.

Can I ask you something? What is the deal with Halloween costumes? /Seinfeld, -10 points for your shitty segues.

Still, though, we were surprised at the fact that this was even an issue we had to deal with at all. Since when did Halloween turn into Dracula-Meets-Caligula? Listen, don’t get me wrong. I’m a guy. As a guy, I’m a huge fan of 22-year-old girls showing up at Halloween parties dressed like they’re going to spend the evening giving lap dances. I’m a little bit upset that this trend arrived on college campuses well after I graduated, but you know, I just need to let that go.

Dracula-meets-Caligula? I’m going to assume that Dracula represents traditional Halloween and Caligula represents slutdom. There are several reasons why this is not a great analogy. First off, it’s well known to any vampire fan that the vampires represent forbidden lust, and that a proper vampire novel should be indistinguishable from erotica. Caligula is not a great example of wanton slutness, despite his sexual perversity, because he was better known for being a tyrant, and his sexual antics were way freakier than just showing too much leg once a year, you know, because he was insane. Also, Cali was a guy and we’re slut shaming women here. But, not all women. Just the fat ones.

The thing about this whole trend toward Hookerween is that, well, this isn’t a college town. There are plenty of women in this town who can pull off a I’m Sorry Did I Drop My Pencil Pirate costume and really rock it. God love ‘em; they make the world go round. But, I’ve been to the mall. I’ve been to Six Flags. I’ve eaten at Old Country Buffet. This town needs somewhat more modest Halloween costumes, and it needs lots of them. Heck, not just this town. Most towns.

Bwaa haa haa! Get it? Fat women in tight clothes make his penis limp! Oh, god, it’s hilarious. This guy is such a great writer, and it’s easy to see why his blurb at the end of the column namechecks both Amazon and Facebook.

The end of the column is only noteable for the shout-out about how attractive his wife is (“Don’t get mad, honey, when I said fat old women can’t hold a candle to hot ass 22 year olds, of course I make an exception for you”), and of course craven groveling to the spouse at the end of a lame column where you use her daughter as an excuse to tell women which ones you think should be skanking it up is the hallmark of a ballsy, excellent humor writer who will certainly be very successful someday.

Woman as Knight Errant: Escapism for Her vs. Escapism for Him

Saturday, September 13th, 2008

Photobucket

I already derailed the comment thread on Hugo’s first post of three about the book Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men by Michael Kimmel, and I flatly refuse to do it again to his second post, darn it! So I’m going to express myself here instead. (Amanda has another take on Hugo’s second post over at Pandagon as well.)

The title of Hugo’s second post, “Escape, Entitlement, and Empowerment: young men and the ‘Four Ps’” pretty much says it all (the “Four Ps” being Pot, Playstation, Porn and Poker). Focusing in on the “Playstation” P, he quotes a few paragraphs of Kimmel–as a “Playstation P” woman, I was fascinated to try and analyze where I coincided with the “guys” and where (if anywhere) I took off on my own, and what meaning that might have in terms of gendered arguments such as the one below. Let’s examine it!

Because, as it turns out, the fantasy world of media is both an escape from reality and an escape to reality — the reality that many of these guys would secretly like to inhabit. Video games, in particular, provide a way for guys to feel empowered. In their daily lives guys often feel that they don’t measure up to the standards of the Guy Code — always be in control, never show weakness, neediness, vulnerability — and so they create ideal versions of themselves in fantasy. The thinking is simple: if somebody messes with your avatar, you blow him away. It’s a fantasy world of Manichean good and evil, a world in which violence is restorative and actions have no consequences whatsoever.

This doesn’t resonate with me at all. It isn’t that I don’t feel I always have to be in control and never show weakness, neediness and vulnerability–quite the opposite! As a woman in a heavily male-dominated profession, I must show more control and far less weakness/neediness/vulnerability than even your average guy can get away with, if I want to be taken at all seriously. In my personal life, as a feminist single mother raising two sons, again, the pressure to provide such an invulnerable role model is constant and unrelenting. However, I have no urge to physical violence–I rarely ever have such an urge, except in situations where I am directly physically attacked by another person. Therefore, I find no psychological freedom or release in the knowledge that oh hey, I CAN kick that sumbitch’s ass here! Woot! As a matter of fact, the need to suppress weakness, neediness and vulnerability is no different in the virtual world of Warcraft than it is in the real world on Earth, not for me. I am a woman in a MMORPG (for all you noobs, that’s a “massively multiplayer online role-playing game”); I’d better not act like some kind of pussy if I’m in a group! The lack of consequences does not appeal to me either, again, as there are certainly game consequences for acting like a dumbass–the only “consequences” that could be said to be escaped are, if you choose to massacre other players or computer-generated characters, you won’t go to jail. Since I have no urge to do so, there is no relief of any suppressed feelings for me.

They’re getting a parallel education to the formal curriculum — complete with its own Three Rs: Relaxation from the weight of adult demands and of the rules of social decorum (also now known as political correctness); Revenge, against those who have usurped what you thought was yours; and, Restoration to your rightful entitled position in the world.

Oh now, Relaxation I understand! World of Warcraft is most definitely an escape from the real world, with its stupid obsession with minutae and social interaction–it’s puzzle-solving and ass-kicking fun, pure and simple and wholly engrossing. Revenge…again, that does not resonate. Revenge against whom? Those I might possibly want revenge against are still quite in power in the mythical World–there are kings, commanders, wealthy merchants, etc–the World is just as hierarchical and biased in favor of those with money and power as the real world. Now, WoW does offer you a far more straighforward path to success than the real world does–it is the most basic and pure distillation of the highest ideals of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic–as long as you are willing to buckle down and spend lots of time and effort at the earning, you will guaranteed rise to a position of great power and wealth, without the unfairnesses of pre-existing family and coinage and irrational prejudices that beset us in reality. I do quite appreciate that…but there really is no revenge factor there. It’s much more along the lines of the first R, relaxation–not having to navigate pitfalls to success that are a function of the real world and none of my personal making.

Restoration–oh yes, that DOES resonate with me, though after reading the next paragraph, I realize that I have finally hit upon the strange dichotomy that is the real gendered difference in the “Playstation” P.

They spend so much of their lives being bossed around by other people– teachers, parents, bosses–it’s really a relief to be the meanest, most violent, and vengeful SOB around. And they spend so much of their lives in a world that is, if not dominated by women, at least is characterized by women’s presumed equality, that it’s nice to turn back the clock and return to a time when men ruled — and no one questioned it.

This is almost funny.

Here is how it would look if it were rewritten for me.

She spends so much of her life being bossed around by men–bosses, politicians, religious leaders–it’s really a relief to be in a place where her gender is only a matter of aesthetic choice; it in no way affects her career, her autonomy or her physical abilities both real and perceived by others. No matter what others in the World say or think or even try to do, they cannot discriminate against her on the basis of her gender–she can be and do anything she wants, finally and incontrovertibly–the most anyone can do is spit a few obscenities, and that is easily remedied by simply placing them on Ignore.

Whereas the “guys” apparently want to be conscienceless reavers, motivated by and answering sheerly and only to their grossest whim at the moment and are therefore freed by that state, what I want to be, as it turns out, is a hero. Women aren’t heroes, you know. There is one form of “heroism” and one only that women are encouraged (we might even say “forced,” betimes) to pursue, and that is the “heroism” of complete self-immolation. Women are lauded for sacrificing every personal inclination to further the ambitions of their husbands and devoting themselves to raising children. The “heroic” woman is one who lives in a permanent and driven state of personal servitude to men and children. The ultimate sacrifice, of giving your life for your freedom, the freedom of others, an ideal–women are actively discouraged from any form of that heroism except that of dying in the name of pregnancy. A woman’s heroism is never exciting, never results in great power or prestige or personal gain or adulation–a woman’s heroism is by definition hidden behind those surrounding her, done in as much silence and humility as possible, and always in the channel of her reproductive and homemaking function.

In the World, I can be a hero in all the ways men are encouraged and lauded to be heroes–I can use my force of arms to defend the weak; I can choose any number of professions to further my defense of the weak; I can gain great fame and riches in pursuit of my heroism and my name will be known throughout the realms. (Seriously!) My reproductive function, in fact, does not exist at all.

So, interestingly enough, in an unregulated fantasy environment, I aspire to the ideal of heroic manhood–that is what I find so freeing and liberating–and guys aspire to the ideal of amoral piracy–that is what they find so freeing and liberating–apparently no one aspires to the ideal of self-sacrificing womanhood–er, surprise surprise..? Probably the most intriguing (and distressing) aspect of this is how said guys can perceive themselves as living in a society where women control them so strongly while I perceive myself living in a society where men control me so strongly…the SAME SOCIETY..? A puzzle. I expect I will give it a lot more thought and perhaps a follow-up post will be forthcoming–stay tuned!

Weekend Fluff

Sunday, August 10th, 2008

I came across this via Bitch Ph.D:

Using your browser URL history to estimate gender

Oh yeah, I thought–it’s not like I frequent a bunch of G-I-R-L-Y sites–

Apparently I am more gendered than I thought though.

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 68%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 32%

Site Male-Female Ratio

google.com
0.98
yahoo.com
0.9
youtube.com
1
mapquest.com
0.83
photobucket.com
0.85
cnn.com
1.35
weather.com
1.08
merriam-webster.com
0.89
gmail.com
0.9
psychologytoday.com
0.63

The significant other came in at:

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 17%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 83%

Site Male-Female Ratio
google.com
0.98
yahoo.com
0.9
myspace.com
0.74
youtube.com
1
wikipedia.org
1.08
cnn.com
1.35
dell.com
1.04
washingtonpost.com
1.15
altavista.com
1.5
pandora.com
0.9
baltimoresun.com
1.2
thottbot.com
1.35
bbc.com
1.99

Fun stuff! :)

Rita MacNeil, Communist menace

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

Mountie
How quaint! Too bad he’s spying on you.

I’m no fan of the RCMP, one of our glorious national symbols. They had a historical role in abducting indigenous children from their families so that they could be tortured, brainwashed, and frequently killed in residential schools. More recently, they’ve been responsible for an out-of-control taser epidemic that has included the violent sexual assault of a young girl.

Occasionally, though, their role has been laughable as well as simply evil. Yesterday, for example, it came out that they spied on the Canadian feminist movement in the 1970s, apparently on the lookout for commie infiltrators.

Instead, they found Canadian musical icon Rita MacNeil.

Rita MacNeil
Communist menace Rita MacNeil

This is particularly funny if your knowledge of MacNeil comes primarily from catching the odd Rita and Friends on CBC when you were a kid, but apparently she wrote a lot of “women’s lib songs” back in the day.

The article is a scream. Some choice quotes:

While the Mounties recognized the groups were out to “stop so-called exploitation of women,” as one officer put it, the force was much more concerned about the apparent infiltration of the movement by avowed Communist interests.

So-called.

The memo on the Winnipeg conference describes one session as “consisting of about 100 sweating, uncombed women standing around in the middle of the floor with their arms around each other crying sisterhood and dancing.”

I am really glad it wasn’t my tax dollars paying for Mounties to go see Rita MacNeil in concert.

The Mounties, used to keeping tabs on organizations run by men, didn’t know quite what to make of the long-haired women in scruffy blue jeans.

“They were at a loss to understand their strategies, their goals, their tactics,” said Sethna, who teaches at the University of Ottawa.

Blue jeans, as we know, are a feminist and lesbian uniform.

Anyway, my country is apparently laughing its collective ass off today, but I hope some people will pause in their well-earned giggles and see the reflection of this absurd “intelligence gathering” in the present day War on Terror.

The Journal of Happiness Studies?

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

It’s hard to take seriously, but I’m doing my best. I couldn’t stop myself from doing a Google search on it; one of the first hits was this blog quote:

Yes, there really is a Journal of Happiness Studies — which could either be wonderful news or yet another sign of our imminent demise.”

I’ll buy that.

So anyway, apparently they have just published a study that proves that just like we all knew it would, feminism has destroyed the future happiness of all womankind!!! Naturally, I am paraphrasing–the actual abstract goes like this–

Aspirations, along with attainments, play an important role in shaping well-being. Early in adult life women are more likely than men to fulfill their material goods and family life aspirations; their satisfaction in these domains is correspondingly higher; and so too is their overall happiness. Material goods aspirations refer here to desires for a number of big-ticket consumer goods, such as a home, car, travel abroad and vacation home. In later life these gender differences turn around. Men come closer than women to fulfilling their material goods and family life aspirations, are more satisfied with their financial situation and family life, and are the happier of the two genders. An important factor underlying the turnaround in fulfillment of aspirations for material goods and family life is probably the shift over the course of the life cycle in the relative proportion of women and men in marital and non-marital unions.

Delaying childbearing til the less-fertile years. No-fault divorce. The War Against Boys! Just like all those wise folks have predicted, oh, you may be having fun NOW slutting it up, affirmative-actioning great jobs right out from under the noses of more deserving men, and failing to stick out your marriage because you want to “find yourself,” but just wait til you get old!! Then all those fine young men you screwed over will be sailing their yachts and living in McMansions with their 25-year-old mail-order brides while you sit alone in your assisted living condo bitterly feeding your cats.

Now, I do only have access to the abstract, so perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears that the authors of this study seem to think that the only thing that changes as people age is the people; as in, the culture and society surrounding said people has been static and identical from the day they were born til the day they reached old age. If that were the case, then certainly you would have a leg to stand on if you attempted to explain all happiness imbalances in simplistic terms of who is married and who isn’t, for instance. However, I think it’s really safe to say that the world of my grandmother’s birth was excruciatingly different than the world that existed when she was a young woman in her twenties in terms of what was offered to women and men respectively, and also from the world that a young woman in her twenties today was born in, and also the world of today, this moment, when my grandmother would be in her seventies.

My grandmother was born in 1933. Actually, that was quite a year as far as world events went–Franklin Roosevelt took office, the first concentration camp was opened in Germany, and the original King Kong movie was released starring Fay Wray, among other things. However, I want to look at this from the perspective of how the world has changed for women, so:

When my grandmother was born, women had only been allowed to vote in the United States for thirteen years. There was no Planned Parenthood; birth control information was legally considered “obscenity.” Many states had laws mandating that if men were available, women couldn’t legally work, or if a woman’s husband worked, she couldn’t, which meant that she either lived at home, unemployed, or she married, period. If she did work, it was almost always at a very poorly paid job with little to no hope of advancement. Less than ten percent of women held college degrees and the vast majority of colleges, especially the most prestigious, forbade women to apply for admittance. My grandmother’s twenties were spent primarily in the 1950′s. The FDA still had not approved birth control pills for sale in the United States, to any woman, married or not. Many jobs were still restricted or outright banned for women to hold. Many colleges, especially Ivy League and other prestigious universities, still forbade women to apply for admittance.

A woman in her twenties, now, was likely born in the 1980′s. At the time of her birth, the Civil Rights Act forbidding discrimination based on sex in job hiring and pay was nearly twenty years old. Abortion had been legal and Title IX had been around for over ten years and there were no legal restrictions on birth control pills. By 1985 every state had adopted no-fault divorce. Marital rape had been legally acknowledged to exist and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been passed. And now, in the new millenium, when she is actually in her twenties–31% of women her age have at least a bachelor’s degree, more than the number of men with degrees. Over 60% of women are in the job force, only 13% less than the number of men. Nearly half of all women of childbearing years are childless, the majority by choice.

So–a woman near the end of her life, today, was given virtually no opportunities for higher education or a career, choice in how many children she had or when–marriage was clearly the best choice for her, rather than any particular man being presented as the best choice for her. A man her age, however, had many more options. The chances of him finding himself, at the end of his life, in the situation he wants to be in is going to be correspondingly higher; hers are going to be overwhelmingly much more a matter of chance.

But a woman in her twenties today–a woman who will have financial means and choices both now and near the end of her life, who if she married and stayed married, likely did so because of the man, not because of a lack of choice, who was able to choose how many or if any children she had–I suspect that there will be a strong shift upward in terms of the level of happiness these women display near the end of their lives. Hopefully the Journal will still be around and studying away, and maybe will have lost its rather unfortunately obvious agenda in terms of interpreting study results in the process.

Taking female bloggers seriously

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

monorailcat
It’s Caturday, after all, and I exercise my right to be a crazy cat lady on the internet.

I hadn’t heard of Rachel Lucas before today, and it’s probably just as well. (I object on principle to cutesy diminutives of the name Rachel—Rachie is bad enough, but Wachel is the worst I’ve heard. Also, people who dress their dogs in bonnets are to be shunned.) On a more substantive note, though, she’s a member of the Serena Joy school of women-bashing, the Malkins and Coulters and Dowds and Edens who believe that if they devote time to writing about how silly and subhuman women are, they’ll get a pass for their own sin of lacking a peen.

Gotta say that she’s refreshingly straightforward about it, though:

Speaking of pigs, The Other McCain dares to inflame the wound in his role as a patriarchal misogyny oppressor, and Vox Day goes further with a list of things to do if you want to be taken seriously:

1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.

2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.

3. Don’t post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.

4. Don’t threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.

5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.

Which led to me being dragged into this because as we all know, I routinely violate rules #2 and 3 and yet I’m one of Vox’s favorites, which was pointed out a few times in his comment thread, and thus was born the Lucas Exception by Vox Day, which states that “if a female blogger can be confirmed to be as amusingly bloody-minded as Rachel Lucas, she may post about her dogs or other non-feline pets, so long as such posts are not made more than thrice per week. Kids and cats are still right out.”

Don’t be jealous. Not everyone can have an Exception named after them. You see, Vox gets me.

Eh. You’re easy to “get.” There’s a certain class of women, who if they’re regular enough in differentiating themselves from both trivial, vacuous femininity (while still maintaining the trappings thereof, and being conventionally attractive, of course) and vocal and “unladylike” feminism, gain the temporary approval of professional misogynists. They get patted on the head and trotted out in blog wars for the menz to hide behind. It’s a survival strategy that would be pitiable were it not so damned irritating.

For what it’s worth, I do think there are substantive criticisms that can be made of BlogHer, which sounds far too corporate and fluffy to appeal to my politics. But I’m guessing that this isn’t what’s sending the concern trolls over to Feministe.

Anyway, ladies, let it never be said that I complain without providing constructive advice. Here’s what you really need to be do to be taken seriously by the misogynist blogosphere:

1. Be conventionally attractive. Post occasionally about the supposed ugliness of feminist bloggers in comparison to anti-feminist bloggers, using the same one or two pictures of yourself for comparison.

2. At the same time, mock teh femme. Complain about women who are too interested in stereotypically female concerns—menstruation, bras, motherhood, and so on. While it’s the duty of women to serve and defer to men, you get a pass to be as brash and outspoken as you want, as long as you direct your vitriol towards other women.

3. Link to and quote from well-known male conservative bloggers. Act as though you know them personally, even if you don’t.

4. Post about your guns. If you don’t currently own guns, get some.

5. Blogging about material acquisitions or pop culture that is interesting to men is Serious Blogging About Serious Issues. Blogging about material acquisitions or pop culture that is interesting to women is the reason no one takes you seriously.

6. Go farther in your far-right rhetoric than men. You must be twice as fascist to be considered half as good.

7. Dogs are better than cats, for some reason.

8. Bleep out your cuss words, because adding asterisks robs them of their power and shows that you’re a Good Girl. No one wants to marry a f**king pottymouth.

I hope this helps! *giggles and flutters eyelashes demurely*

In the Company of Men

Monday, July 28th, 2008

When I was eighteen…

…I was an MRA.

Okay, not really. Not totally! and definitely not consciously. But I had some interesting ideas about men and women.

(more…)

Michfest, and why you shouldn’t go

Saturday, July 26th, 2008

Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival is, strictly speaking, not really any of my business. It’s been a few years since any artist I particularly like performed there, and I have an allergy to alternative spellings of “women.” This said, as a feminist, I do feel it’s my right to criticize gender essentialism and transphobia and take issue with people who attempt to use feminist language to exclude already marginalized people.

As you know, Bob, MWMF has always called itself a women-only space. That’s cool; the world being what it is, there’s a place for women-only spaces, and POC-only spaces, and so on. But the organizer and many attendees get squicked when it comes to transgendered women. (Transgendered men, for some reason, are welcome to attend.) So they’ve set up a “NO TRANSWOMEN ALLOWED” fort and used the academically problematic term “womyn-born-womyn” to exclude certain undesirable sorts of women from the event. (I always wonder how they check these things, but anyway.)

Here’s a great post detailing why MWMF is problematic, and what you can do to fight transphobia there, and in your own life.

In the age of analyzing oppression and owning up to our own privilege, MWMF is an anomaly time-warped from the 70s. Defining a women’s space that excludes trans women in effect defines them as other than women. Denying their common experiences, challenges, struggles and triumphs as women serves to further limit their access to community, health, well-being and dignity. It creates a class of disposable women.

Go read the whole thing.

So far, while her current career choices include baby doctor and veterinarian — and Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, too — Barbie has not branched out into technology or engineering.

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Best line in the whole article.

Usually I don’t blog about these kinds of studies, as they irritate me no end–either they are driven by a need to prove women are “inferior,” or if the study doesn’t pan out in that desirable direction, they are full of inanities delivered in tones of hushed astonishment–“Girls have caught up on test scores, which researchers attribute to more taking higher math classes like calculus.” Wow! What a brilliant and insightful theory that is. Next they’ll be trying to tell me that if I start eating an extra meal every day, I’ll gain weight.

“Men” and “mankind” apparently not being defined to include “ambulatory wombs.”

Monday, July 21st, 2008

After having spent my adult life variously not being a mom, being a married mom, being a single mom, being a mom who stayed at home and being a mom who worked outside the home, I have come to the conclusion that if you are a fertile woman of childbearing years, no matter what you’re doing in terms of marriage and motherhood and career, you’re wrong. To wit:

1. You’re married, you get pregnant, choose to give birth, and decide to stay at home with the baby.

Lazy! Self-indulgent! and just GIVING away all the advances women have made in terms of career equality! Get a job!

2. You’re married, you get pregnant, choose to give birth, and decide to work outside the home without the baby.

Selfish! It isn’t all about YOU and YOUR fulfillment anymore, you have a child to think of now! you just don’t want to have to live within your means! You need to raise your OWN child!

3. You’re married, you get pregnant and choose to have an abortion.

Murderer! If you didn’t want to have kids you should have gotten your tubes tied! If you have a husband and a home, there is no excuse for not stepping up to the plate and carrying that life you created to term!

4. You’re married and you choose not to get pregnant.

Immature! Self-centered! Look at Europe–do you want to see our culture crash too? It isn’t all about you, you have a duty to society! It’s time to GROW UP and take on your responsibilities!

5. You’re not married, you get pregnant, choose to give birth, and decide to stay at home with the baby.

Leech! It isn’t society’s responsibility to care for your child conceived due to your irresponsible behavior! Get out there and get a job!

6. You’re not married, you get pregnant, choose to give birth, and decide to work outside the home without the baby.

Slut! Our culture is collapsing because of the explosion of all you single mothers! Why didn’t you give that baby to a real family that could raise it properly instead of shoving it off onto strangers!

7. You’re not married, you get pregnant and choose to have an abortion.

Slut! And now you think it’s okay to take another human life so you can just erase your careless, selfish behavior! You spread your legs, now you need to step up the the plate and take your medicine like an adult!

8. You’re not married and you choose not to get pregnant.

What’s wrong with you? Are you that ugly and unpleasant that no man wants to commit to you, or are you just a selfish whore?

(more…)