You thought you were so smart, America, didn’t you? Between the Republican presidential nominee who flip-flops on reproductive rights to various Republican politicians who declared pregnancy resulting from rape is God’s special blessing, you thought you had that “war on women” thing in the bag.
Well, you’re wrong and Fox News is here to tell you all about it. “War on women”? Poppycock. The real war raging in America is a war on men. This is according to Fox News columnist Suzanne Venker, the niece of 86-year-old anti-feminist Phyllis Schafly, who took her poison pen to Fox this weekend in an effort to blame “angry,” “defensive” women for the supposed lack of “marriageable” men.
After the jump, let’s delve a little deeper into the fracas that has me dashing off to the nearest sports bar after work to salve the wounds of these poor, beleageured men: Keep reading »
Who’d've thunk?! Suggesting that pregnancy from rape is “God’s will,” that some rape is “legitimate” while other rape is not, and saying a woman’s body has “a way of shutting the whole thing down” so pregnancy does not occur from rape DOES NOT MAKE WOMEN WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU. Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin may have found two women — including one who was raped and had an abortion — to appear in a campaign ad proclaiming him the second coming of Gloria Steinem, but the rest of us ladies were not buying it. Keep reading »
“Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that.”
— Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan in Florida yesterday handily dismissed the so-called “war on women” (as a left-handed Irishmen would say) as bollocks. So I guess this means tomorrow every left-handed guy across Ireland will earn 77 cents on the dollar and be expected to procreate like a barnyard animal. And just wait until these fellas learn all about “legitimate rape.”
You want to make me angry, Paul Ryan? You take away my reproductive rights and pretend like you’re not doing it. You want to make me REALLY angry? You declare war on my precious Chris O’Dowd. [Raw Story]
Hey guys? As a woman, and a feminist and a working person, I can honestly say I’ve never asked if I was going to “have it all.” But Anne Marie Slaughter’s Atlantic cover article about women’s continuing fight to win both the brass ring of family and work seems to have opened up this old chestnut of a debate, with women around the web asking how and when and if we can “have it all.” My response? Let’s shut this crappy concept down all together. The “can women have it all” question is reductive and frustrating — and it only serves to promote the idea that women are constantly going to be failing if they don’t somehow fulfill the work/family mandate.
After all, the construct of “having it all” perpetuates the myth that there is one ideal way to live, rather than understanding and allowing for multiple ideas of happiness. And in this “having it all” myth, a woman’s main responsibilities can be boiled down to feeding the capitalist mechanism (through working) and submitting to her essentialist role as a child-bearing female (having a family). Keep reading »