The New Workplace Sexism: Thinking Chicks Are Hot

Aug 14, 2010

Last week The American Prospect revealed an unsettling workplace trend. This discovery is completely unanticipated, so prepare to be shocked.
When female coworkers are out of earshot, men sometimes talk about them.  Just awful, right?  And guys aren’t just discussing the work habits of their female colleagues — occasionally they mention their looks!
This is the new “sexual harassment”: not the groping, fondling, and obscene comments of yesteryear, but “what’s said about [women] when their backs are turned.” According to the Prospect‘s Ann Friedman, “behind-their-back comments are also intimidation and bullying of a sexual nature.” And this indirect harassment is even worse than dealing with run-of-the-mill lewdness from male coworkers.

[G]iven that networking and reputation are keys to success in many professions, what people say about you is arguably more important than what they say to your face. If your professional contacts are talking about your legs rather than your résumé, you’re at a disadvantage. I know how to handle direct sexist comments. It’s much harder to think about how to shut down a conversation about me that I may not even be aware of.

Watch out, guys: if you’re hanging out at the bar after work, be sure to limit the leg talk to women who aren’t coworkers. Unless, of course, the owners of said legs are around to “handle” the comments.  Got it?
Friedman describes some of the other conversations that would be off limits in her Utopian vision of a world in which men no longer talk about attractive women:

Some of the guys you talk to about women are our friends — and they tell us what you’re saying. That’s how I found out that a female editor I know had garnered a totally unwarranted reputation as a flirt. How I know that a certain male editor likes to make side comments about the bodies of female interns. How I heard about an older male co-worker who wistfully expressed that he wishes he were 20 years younger so he could hit on the young women at the office.

So, let me get this straight. It’s intimidation and bullying for a man to pine for his youth when he would have had a better chance with young women at the office. It’s harassment for a guy to talk to his office buddies about the way interns look. And gossiping about the flirty personality of a coworker is completely out of bounds (when men do it).
Where exactly is the chauvinism here?
There’s nothing sexist about guys digging chicks and vice versa.  In fact, I’ll let Ann Friedman in on a little secret: it’s kind of how we keep the human species going.  Simply talking about who’s hot (or not) is a common and harmless pastime, even when it involves one’s colleagues.  And if Friedman was honest, she’d admit that talking about how coworkers look is something both sexes engage in. Equally.
But this isn’t about honesty, it’s about grievance mongering. Club Victimhood is open for business and Friedman is on hand to distribute all access passes.  Dreaming up new classes of oppression and new categories of victimhood is how the so-called feminists on the Left build support for their movement.  As with all flavors of Marxism, leftist feminism can’t exist without ginned up resentment among the “oppressed.”  The social revolution will never come if the Left allows people to be content with their lives and secure in their equality as human beings.
And so we have the latest complaint for the perpetually aggrieved to latch onto: indirect sexual harassment.  Have fun at work on Monday, fellas!

Feminazis Open Fire on Taylor Swift

Sept 3, 2010

There is no limit to the amount of control that feminazis want to have over our lives. If women do not adhere to the unbelievably strict rules set down for us by the fascist feminist Left, then they are labeled anti-feminist and anti-woman. The latest example of the femisogynist litmus test is Taylor Swift, denounced as unfeminist… for writing about true love and having a wholesome image. The nerve!

Taylor Swift isn’t even 21 yet, and she’s already a force to be reckoned with. She became a superstar in 2006 at the age of sixteen, and today she’s sold over 10 million albums and appeared in several major motion pictures. She’s written her own music and said that most of her songs are autobiographical. She not only sings, but she also plays guitar and has produced much of her own music. Does any of this matter? Nope! Her latest song, Mine, has the femisogynists up in arms.

This song is rife with freaky-deaky, weirdo language that frames Swift as someone perpetually under the ownership, or at least care, of a male authority. The lyrics describe her as not a woman, but as a “careless man’s careful daughter” that her new boyfriend has “made a rebel of.” This is problematic to me, in the sense that it implies a transfer of her ownership from one man to another. I think it’s weird in this song that she doesn’t seem to have any sense of her own identity away from the love interest, or her father. I do, however, give her props for the use of the line “we got bills to pay.” Though grammatically incorrect, it implies that Taylor will be helping to pay the bills though some means of gainful employment. Let’s go back in time 50 years so that I can congratulate her on being progressive!
The other thing I found noteworthy was how Taylor was dealing with the transition from teen star to general entertainer. As much as she infantilizes herself, Swift is distinctly more adult here as compared to her previous videos. She’s got bills to pay! She has children! Usually when you see “teen” stars (she’s 20) make the transition from adolescence, they do it via the sexy route, à la Britney, LiLo, and Miley. This video is unique in the sense that Taylor Swift appears to be trying to age herself into a more matronly, albeit still conventionally attractive, role. It’s not often that we are encouraged to make an association between young pop starlets and motherhood….

Aside from completely misconstruing the lyrics, why does it matter what Taylor Swift writes about? Here is a self-made woman, someone who has built a career for herself, and done it in a classy, age-appropriate manner. For most rational, normal people, Taylor Swift is considered a role model. But it’s not good enough for the feminazis. Heaven forbid someone writes songs about their own feelings without consulting the fascist feminists about whether or not it’s considered Feminist Approved.

Feministing also jumped on the anti-Taylor Swift bandwagon, because Taylor Swift — a woman — is somehow “sexist.” And the reason that she is sexist is because a few femisogynists decided that the message of her music is somehow bad. Traditional love and romance is considered the most sexist thing ever when it comes to these enlightened beings. (After all, why should a woman be in a traditional, loving, respectful relationship?) When you consider that, as stated before, most of Swift’s songs are autobiographical, as in, based on her own experiences in relationships, it’s even more ridiculous. The feminazis claim that the issue is that music should speak to people, but obviously her music does speak to people, or she wouldn’t be selling millions and millions of albums. The issue here isn’t that women and girls don’t empathize with Taylor Swift’s lyrics, it’s that the feminazis want to decide what kind of relationships are sexist and not sexist.
The issue here is not about Taylor Swift. It’s about the monster that these feminazis have turned feminism into. Equality has gone completely out the window. It’s just like how pro-abortion advocates call themselves “pro-choice”. It isn’t about women deciding what choices to make for themselves. Taylor Swift, for example, is a successful, independent, wealthy woman who has accomplished so much at an incredibly young age. But because certain women who have hijacked the term feminist don’t like what she sings about, she’s automatically labeled as sexist and anti-feminist. Wouldn’t equality mean that a woman could choose to write whatever kind of music she wanted to write about… and that women could choose to listen to whatever kind of music they like? Feminism is not about a litmus test for how a woman lives her life, and it isn’t a list of rules. Feminism is about equality… something that the women who claim to be fighting for women’s right threw out the window a long time ago.

Female Empowerment, Leftist Style, Is a Dead-End Road

Sept 9, 2010

This month marks the 1st annual WIE Symposium, or women’s conference, in New York. WIE stands for Women: Inspiration & Enterprise.
In a full-page Wall Street Journal ad, the WIE conference is billed as “dynamic” and calls “all women who want to make a difference.” Young women can meet their “role models, connect with peers, and network with noted exceptional women leaders.”  The conference boasts an impressive list of recognizable names — mostly from the fashion industry and mainstream media, since those are the names young women know most about. If I were easily impressed (and younger), I might be tempted to pick up the phone and make a plane reservation. (Fortunately, I’ll be attending another conference — one that’s focused on how to take back America from the WIE women.)

What’s glaring about this women’s conference is that it isn’t billed as a liberal conference. In fact, there are no political words at all — implying that powerful women are, for the most part, left-wing. There are no conservative women on the list, with the exception of Dana Perino — who’s probably the token conservative so the leaders of WIE can say, “See? We’re diverse!” (Reminds me of the new book Secrets of Powerful Women, which tells the stories of roughly 20 women in politics — but only a small fraction are Republican. And not just any Republican — pro-choice Republicans.)
Of course anyone is entitled to organize a conference, but the last thing today’s young women need is more guidance from women on the left. This group — via academia, the media, and Hollywood — have done enough damage to the modern generation.
Left-wing women, a.k.a. feminists, have brought American women nothing but misery by teaching them that America is a patriarchal society and that women are discriminated against at every turn. To hear the media tell it, the only women who have made something of their lives are leftists who “broke through the glass ceiling” for the rest of us. But as Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard (who started out as a secretary) and 2010 Republican nominee for the United States Senate, said:

“What glass ceiling?”

This is not the message young women are used to hearing. Rather, they’re besieged with “feminist” lingo via a relentless focus on women’s empowerment (beginning in college), girls’ self-esteem, and women’s needs in general. The Oprah Show is almost entirely devoted to women and their issues, as is We television for women and, of course, the Lifetime channel — which might as well be titled “All Men Are Wife Beaters and Neanderthals.”


As if the media messages aren’t bad enough, we must contend with powerful women in politics. In late 2009, Maria Shriver wrote a 400-page report in conjunction with the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress, called “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.” Its premise is that the traditional family is a thing of the past, and Americans must wake up to the new world we’ve created. Women run things today — and that’s just the way it is. Writes Shriver,

As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table.

The Shriver Report was delivered to each of the Fortune 500 companies, all 535 members of Congress, and President Obama — who says he’s constantly looking for ways to improve women’s lives. He and Nancy Pelosi believe American women are victims of discrimination — based on the fact that women make 77 cents for every dollar men earn. As President Obama said a few weeks ago in his Presidential Proclamation on “Women’s Equality Day”:

As we celebrate this important milestone and the achievements and shattered ceilings of the past, we also recognize the inequalities that remain and our charge to overcome them. Almost 50 years after the Equal Pay Act was enacted, American women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn. These disparities remind us that our work remains unfinished. My Administration remains committed to advancing women’s equality in all areas of our society and around the world.

Fortunately, smart women (i.e. conservative women) know true empowerment does not lie in feminist ideology. The only way to be truly empowered is for women to reject so-called feminism, embrace marriage and motherhood (if that is what they desire, and most do), find meaningful work — which includes raising children, caregiving, and volunteering — and stay true to themselves and their principles.
That other path — the one young women are exposed to a daily basis — is nothing but a dead-end road.

Muslim Persecution of Hindus In India -- The Story You Won't See In the Western Mainstream Media

Sept 09, 2010


They are crossing the border illegally and violently displacing the indigenous population whose homes and possessions they either destroy or occupy. They are attacking the young, the elderly, and especially the girls and women, whom they kidnap, forcibly convert, or traffic into brothels. The locals are terrified of them. The police rarely come to their aid, nor do the politically correct media or government. Both are terrified by the criminals and terrorists who are riding these immigrant waves.
I am not talking about illegal immigrants to Europe or North America. I am describing Muslims who are penetrating India’s West Bengal region. These Bangladeshi immigrants are becoming conduits for criminal activities (arms, drugs, and sexual slavery) which also fund global jihad.
You won’t read about this in the Western mainstream media—or even in the Indian media, which has turned a blind eye to this ongoing tragedy because they are afraid to be labeled “politically incorrect” or “Islamophobic.” They are also afraid of reprisals. When Islamic zealots ransacked the office of the renowned newspaper, ‘The Statesman’ in Kolkata, in retaliation for a mere reproduction of an article condemning Islamic extremism, the Indian press remained silent. The editor and publisher of the newspaper were arrested for offending Muslim sentiments and no action was taken against the rioters.
Fortunately, there are a few very brave Hindus who are taking a stand against the Muslim terror campaign in India. One of them is Tapan Ghosh, whom I had the privilege of meeting recently when he came to New York City to talk about anti-Hindu persecution in his homeland. In 2008, Ghosh founded “Hindu Samhati” (Hindu Solidarity Movement), which serves persecuted Hindu communities in both West Bengal and Bangladesh.
As Ghosh emphasized in our interview, the Muslim persecution of Hindus in India is nothing new. Over a period of 800 years, millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims as infidels or converted by the sword. In 1946-1947, when British India was divided into India and Pakistan, Muslims massacred many thousands of Hindus in Calcutta, the capital of West Bengal, and all along the fault line which separated India and Pakistan. Anti-Hindu riots and massacres continued during the 1950s and 1960s, but it was in 1971, when East Pakistan broke away to form the country of Bangladesh, that things worsened for Hindus in the area.
As Ghosh explained to me, “The liberation movement for Bangladesh was characterized by an escalation of atrocities against the Hindus and pro-liberation Muslims. Hindus were specifically singled out because they were considered a hindrance to the Islamisation of East Pakistan. In March 1971, the government of Pakistan and its supporters in Bangladesh launched a violent operation, codenamed “Operation Searchlight,” to crush all pro-liberation activities. Bangladeshi government figures put the death toll at 300,000, though nearly 3 million Hindus were never accounted for and are presumed dead.” U.S. officials in both India and Washington used the word “genocide” to describe what took place.

According to Ghosh, there has recently been a sharp increase in incidents of “Muslim rioting during Hindu festivals, destruction of Temples, desecration of Deities, and large-scale, provocative cow slaughter.” Worse: “Hundreds, thousands, of Hindu girls have been kidnapped, trafficked into sexual slavery, or taken as second or third wives for wealthy Muslim men. In recent years, Ghosh’s organization has rescued nearly 100 such girls, and one of his main missions has been to help reintegrate those survivors into their families and societies.
Ghosh wants the Indian government to stop the illegal immigration from Bangladesh and to force the return of undocumented Muslims; to ban madrassas and polygamy; to enforce a single standard of law and education; and to arrest and prosecute known Muslim mafia kingpins and terrorists. He challenges the media to report on the anti-Hindu atrocities and to address the issue of religious apartheid.
Ghosh is not optimistic. “The establishment of massive Saudi-funded Madrasas across rural Bengal is only contributing to the growing religious extremism among Muslims, [and] implementation of Sharia laws by [Islamic] courts is quite prevalent in many villages.” His greatest fear, he tells me, is that one day shouts of “Allahu Akbar” will ring out across the land and that Muslim zealots will demand that Hindus either convert or leave West Bangal—or die.
Ghosh came to America not just to appeal to Indian-Americans with family and historical ties in West Bengal and Bangladesh but to appeal to all Americans for their support. As he sees it, the battle against Muslim persecution in India is just one front in a much larger battle against Islamic expansionism and terror throughout the world.
All Americans must realize, he told me, “that the war on Islamic terrorism cannot be won without curbing religious extremism amongst the Muslim masses, be it in the suburbs of Detroit or Delhi or villages in rural Bengal. And this will require the active support and cooperation with each other, ranging from cooperation at the highest level to those who work at the grassroots level. We hope that Americans and Westerners will come out and support the Hindus in Bengal in raising resources and creating awareness about our on-the-ground realities.”

Man Up

 This media outlet is pro Feminazi trash box to even come up with crap like this.

What if men everywhere had to conform to beauty standards set by women?

(Page 1 of 2)

We sure spend a lot of time talking about ideal female beauty—and why women spend so much time obsessing about it. But what if we lived in a world where women had always been the kings, the presidents, the bosses (and, thus, the arbiters of beauty)? Perhaps we’d call it a “Gynocracy”—a place where superficial women would set the standards for attractiveness, and men would have to conform to them. It would be a place where ugly men would have a hard time getting a date or a promotion, and the women would burn off steam over beers at a restaurant called Hunks, where all the waiters must have 30-inch waists and grapefruit-sized biceps.

You certainly wouldn’t see many paunchy, balding, older guys on TV. Sitcoms would feature couples where the men are tall, muscular, and hot, while the wives are chubby and witty. Salons, cosmetic-surgery offices and Weight Watchers meetings would be filled with men who spend a fortune trying to get that iconic masculine “V” shape women crave. And the maintenance—ah, the maintenance!—would shock men in our world. Think if you took a random group of men from your office and told them that they had to conform to the standard grooming norms of the Gynocracy. The rules might look something like this:

 

1. Weekly Forearm Waxing

No hairy arms or knuckles. It’s a crazy fashion thing that just sort of evolved—like the way women had to start shaving their legs a hundred years ago. To keep up with the beauty ideal in the Gynocracy, men have to wax or shave their forearms. To avoid it, some men just keep their sleeves rolled down—even in the summer. But if they want to wear short sleeves, or get a date with a woman, they absolutely have to be smooth and shaven from the elbow down. Sure, they could rebel, and show up to work hairy, but it’d be like a woman in our world sitting in a meeting with thick black hair on her legs. It’d be a STATEMENT.

 
2. For the Short Guy: Heels or Leg Extenders

Any guy shorter than 5 feet 10 feels uncomfortable in the Gynocracy—magazines are filled with tall men, as are the boardrooms. So, most short men wear big wedge heels. Once again, a guy could choose not to conform, but it might be tough when all the other men are wearing heels. Plus, lots of guys like the way they look with longer legs.

 
3. Hair Replacement

PHOTOS: The Lengths We Go for Beauty »

Being bald or even having thinning hair is just as unacceptable in the Gynocracy. Sure, some guys go natural, but they tend to be Men’s Studies professors at liberal universities. So guys who are unlucky enough to be losing their hair usually wear hats, or get hair replacement. Even the ones with thinning hair get extensions—and the salons are just full of men trying to get that fashionable, thick, wavy hair women like so much. Some say they’re doing it for themselves.

4. Hair Coloring for Him

There simply aren’t gray-haired men. Women can let themselves go gray, or even have white hair—people think they look smarter, hotter, more “distinguished.” But men? Never. So guys of a certain age who don’t want to look like they’ve passed their “use-by” date are always running off at lunchtime to get their roots done.

 

5. Tummy Tucks and Ab Work

Because the style for men in the Gynocracy is to wear skin-tight T shirts, men are obsessed with having a flat stomach. Older guys with the intractable paunches that sometimes come with middle age have a very hard time with these fashions. They either look sad in their tight shirts with belly rolls, or they cover up with frumpy “Chico’s for Men” shirts that make them look old and dated. And of course female bosses are always paying more attention to the young guys in the tight shirts, so just for economic survival, some guys have resorted to wearing full torso girdles called Manx—which is murder in the summer.

Some men in the Gynocracy do rebel. They ask: why won’t women love us for who we are, or for our money, or our success, instead of our flowing hair and broad shoulders? The women shrug their shoulders. “We can’t help it,” they say. “It’s pure biology and evolution.” Occasionally some unattractive guys break the mold. (One was even secretary of state!) And there are a few TV newsmen who are getting close to 50—but they’re really talented. And then there was that little frumpy guy who ran for president. He got a respectable number of votes—though he could never take off his suit jacket without all the political columnists writing about how his butt looked flat in pants. Secretly, no one really blamed his wife for cheating on him—he did seem like shrew—always bossing everyone around and insisting on people doing things “his way.”

Men in the Gynocracy would have to make time for hotness maintenance and still do all the other things necessary for success. They’d exhaust themselves trying to juggle family and work. Some would slowly give up. Others would try and change the standards and try to get women to like male models with beer bellies. Maybe some women would see beyond the superficial and say: “I don’t care if you have stubble on your forearms, your gray roots are showing and when you take off your Manx, your belly expands like a balloon, I’m crazy about you. Sit down near me and have a beer.” Surely there’d be women in the Gynocracy like that. In fact I even know a few men who do it for us here in this world.

No, Thank You. I Don’t Want A Gender Card.

Feminazi Witches are not happy with content women, they have to make sure they get their poison into them.

Sept 22, 2010



Conservative women neither want nor need a gender card, yet  some seem hell-bent on forcing one upon us. It is one thing to correctly point out blatant sexism and the outright misogyny of the Left, particularly that of the so-called feminist Left. But it’s quite another to make up sexism out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what has happened recently, in regards to Christine O’Donnell.
The first to enter the “let’s invent an -ism where none actually exists” fray was The New Agenda. At least they are honest enough to admit that their entire goal is a new form of gender identity politics. Anna Belle Pfau wrote:

Delaware has never elected a female senator. The state is among seven of the original thirteen states that have never been represented in the Senate by a woman. Delaware may get its first real shot at correcting this oversight should polls bear out in the primary between Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle today.

This oversight? Yes, because that is the entire basis of what we should look for in a candidate: a “historic” first. That’s worked out so well in the presidency, hasn’t it? She then went on finding things “fishy” and magically discerning that phrases like “Perspective, Boys, Perspective”and “My mistake, fellas.” were “typical insider boys’ club-style of talking over a woman’s head.” I hate to inform Miss Pfau, but those aren’t very big words and aren’t over my head, girly as it is.

After Jeri Thompson, came Peggy Nance at AOL.com telling GOP men to grow up. Yes, she sunk so low as to basically accuse anyone – with external genitalia, natch – who isn’t particularly fond of O’Donnell of thinking that girls are icky and have cooties. You’ve come a long way, baby!
The delusional whingeing was topped off yesterday when Orrin Hatch himself pulled a gender card right out of his frightened of the tea partiers pocket. He said:

I think women have got to start getting mad about the way they’re treating her,” Hatch says. “It’s been pretty darn rude and vicious, I’ll tell you. There are some legitimate questions that can naturally come up, but to bring up an eleven-year-old quote? Give me a break.

Oh, really? Why women? Is it because you think that women must automatically think that a man is the bad guy and run to swing our purses at him in uterine solidarity?
Listen, actual sexism should, and does, get pointed out. Deciding to discuss if Sarah Palin had a boob job the day after primaries, as a way to diminish the primary wins of candidates she endorsed? Sexist. The Palin Newsweek cover and “humorous poems“? Sexist.  Journolist’s planned attacks on Palin? Sexist. A democrat congresswoman suggesting that GOP women need to lift their skirts before voting to check to see if they are female? Yes, that’s all sexist.
However, trying to compare those things to strategic opining by Karl Rove is asinine. Nothing he said was sexist. I may not agree with the time or place wherein he said them, but they were in no way sexist. To claim so, is acting like Eleanor Clift or, worse, Amanda Marcotte (only minus the “edgy” F words), for cripes sake. Acting stupidly (strategically) gets you a beer summit, maybe. But it does not equal sexism.
The Left clearly has disdain for women, which is why I write so often about that. But conservatives are usually the ones who understand that we are equal, yet different, and that’s a good thing. We don’t need to differentiate between women and everyone else. We’ve been correctly saying for the last three decades that affirmative action is insulting to minorities. It is. There is no reason at all that we should now embrace a slightly modified form of it ourselves. The racism card has been over-played and one of the worst results of that is that actual racist acts are now diminished by all the Boy Who Cried Wolf calling. The same will happen here. By inventing sexism where none exists, it harmfully diminishes real acts of sexism. Because, if everything is sexist, then nothing is.
We do not need our own Sexist Card. Conservative women are rising to the top due to the people they are, the beliefs for which they stand, and the convictions that they hold. It is not, nor should it be, because they have a rack and girly bits. Peggy Nance inadvertently and unintentionally belied her own argument in the article referenced earlier, when she said this:

As anyone in public life knows, there are times when people wish they could have been more eloquent or said things differently for a quote here or there.

Exactly. And someone pointing those things out is not doing so out of sexism. That’s politics, baby. When Ines Sainz claimed sexual harassment after entering a male locker room dressed in an outfit so tight that she wouldn’t need to walk through an airport scanner,  I said that the Teachable Moment ™ is that if you truly don’t want to be ogled and whistled at, don’t, you know, go into a male locker room sporting a camel toe. The same applies here. If you truly don’t wish to have your policies and your background questioned, don’t enter politics. And for goodness sake, don’t blame it on your estrogen if you do.

Do 21st Century Men Do Their Fair Share?

Fascist Feminist Rhetoric at play, these radical witches have an agenda to be met and dont give up so easily. This is like Yin and Yang, Good and Evil at play. Evil being Feminists vs rest of society, the Feminist are successfully holding society hostage, unless everyone obeys and plays by their rules. Feminists are like Bullies in a playground, if you allow them to push you around they will never get the message you want them to leave.

2010 September 23

Margaret Hoover is a great example of how feminism has confused the hell out of modern women — and therefore, men. Last night, Hoover was on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss this week’s Newsweek cover, entitled “Man Up.” The point of the article is to highlight how women’s roles have changed over the past several decades while men’s have not. Its message is that men in America haven’t changed enough to accommodate the feminist ideal and thus don’t do their fair share at home.
To make the article sound balanced (a big feat for the folks at Newsweek), it was written by two men. Yes, indeed, the editors of Newsweek found two feminist-inspired men to do their dirty work for them. I’m sure it wasn’t hard to do. Feminized men are everywhere — and, as Margaret Hoover demonstrates time and again on The O’Reilly Factor, even conservative women support the feminization of America.
Add it all up and you have an entire generation of men and women — on the left and the right – who’ve been brainwashed by feminist dogma. Those who watch O’Reilly know that two of his regular contributors include fellow “culture warriors” Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover. Carlson is great: she’s sensible, fair, and smart. She’s also 44 years old and a parent. Margaret Hoover, on the other hand, is 33 years old and not a parent. Thus, there’s a colossal difference in the way these two women view the world.
I don’t know whether Gretchen Carlson identifies with feminism or not; it doesn’t come through loud and clear either way. Hoover, however, is a raging feminist. Whenever the subject of women’s roles is broached, she takes the standard feminist line that women get the bad end of the deal and that men are prone to dominate women if given the opportunity.
She clearly thinks feminism has put up the proper barriers to keep this scenario at bay.


O’Reilly played his favorite role during last night’s discussion about feminism: he was acerbic and refused to take the subject seriously by pretending to be a Neanderthal. Whether he is a Neanderthal or not only his wife knows — but my best guess is that he’s not. I think he’s merely playing the part to get viewers riled up.
Gretchen Carlson doesn’t bite — she understands O’Reilly’s style and has no personal stake in whether he’s a Neanderthal or not. Could care less. But for Hoover it is personal. Not only is she clueless about how life unfolds once children enter the equation (Hoover is married but has no kids), she is young enough to fall for O’Reilly’s bait. She plays right into his hands by demonstrating her feminist bias.

Are you uncomfortable with the changing role of genders in our society? Women in the workplace, women not at home… ” she asks O’Reilly. (Yes, he says. He is.) “So you’re saying you’re a little like, good old-school sexism?” (Yes, he says. He is.) “Look, this article is for men who are comfortable with their masculinity, who don’t think it’s a threat that women are suddenly…” (O’Reilly cuts her off again.) “I know you’re a macho guy, Bill, but I do think there is, in our changing society, still… (She gets cut off again…)

In chimes Carlson who asks O’Reilly whether or not he changed any diapers when his kids were little — to which O’Reilly says yes.

“Well,” says Carlson, “so then you ‘manned up.’”

She then highlights a supposed statistic from the Newsweek article which says that in homes where both parents work, “the woman still does the load of the domestic responsibilities and spends 400 percent more time with the children. ”
Unfortunately, O’Reilly ended the segment there. Even if he hadn’t, though, the folks at FOX would not have challenged this claim — not because they’re biased but because they simply don’t know the facts. Women on the left have ruled the roost for decades and refuse to allow the truth to come forth. Without digging deep, how would the producers know?
Of course they could have dug deep; and if they had, what they’d learn is that the notion that wives and mothers work harder shifts than husbands and fathers is bogus. Feminists argue that women’s roles have changed dramatically (true enough, but so have men’s) and that, in so doing, they now take on two jobs: they are employed, plus they take on the lion’s share of child care and housekeeping.
Men, they say, have just continued with what they’ve always done — with perhaps a bit more diaper changing and grocery shopping.

In fact, husbands and wives both work hard — just in different locales, which a nationwide study first proved almost twenty years ago. In the Journal of Economic Literature, it was reported that while women perform roughly 17 more hours of work inside the home per week, men do about 22 more hours of work outside the home per week (including commuting time). When the hours of the average woman were compared to the hours of the average man both inside and outside the home, hers amounted to 56 hours — and his to 61.
Indeed, the average married mother works only 26 hours per week outside the home, while the average man works 48 hours. But articles like Newsweek want Americans to believe that women get short-shrifted, as of they’re doing the exact same thing men are — and then some. They are not.
Much to feminists’ dismay, women continue to opt for part-time work outside the home in order to be a strong presence in their children’s lives. What’s more, they like it that way — and so do their husbands! It is only feminists — and the women they’ve indoctrinated, many of whom are conservative, such as Ms. Hoover — who believe otherwise and bring their misguided notions to the public sphere.
The result, as Warren Farrell points out in his excellent book, The Myth of Male Power, is that women are viewed as victims of  a supposed patriarchy and thus become “angry,” which in turn fuels “the divorce rate, which deepens the anger, which…”
And that’s just the beginning of the female left’s dreadful effect on American society.

 

8 Ways Fascist Feminists Are Ruining America’s Women

Amazing this is this article is written by a women about women for everyone's attention. This tells you how some women are ruining it for the majority of women. Feminist Witches are no better then Nazi's Fascists. Number 7 is my favorite.

American women have some of the best lives in the world. We can literally do whatever we want. American women can go to school where we want, we can go to college, we can work wherever we want, we can marry whoever we want, and we can choose to lead whatever kind of life we want to lead. Millions of women in oppressed countries around the world cannot even imagine the freedom that American women so enjoy — and take for granted. We’ve come a long way in less than one hundred short years, but a lot of women can’t see that.
We’re constantly told that we’re victims of an invisible patriarchy, that we’re slaves to our hormones, that without abortion on demand we can’t fully be women, that we don’t need a man but we need the government. The people that tell women these lies are the same people who pretend to be fighting for us, who have hijacked feminism: the fascist feminists. Whereas once feminists fought for equality, today the femisogynists fight for things like taxpayer funded abortion and universal health care. They fight for women to be able to sleep around like men and ignore the consequences. And most of the time, women don’t even know they’re being manipulated and lied to. Thankfully, once the lies are exposed, it’s easy to see the con.

Here are eight ways that fascist feminists are ruining America’s women.

8. Encouraging Promiscuity

Once upon a time, men had to earn sex with a woman. He would have to take her on a series of dates. He would have to enter into a relationship with her to prove his commitment to her. He would have to invest time, money, and emotions into their relationship. The woman held all of the power. Now, men don’t even have to take women onto dates. Often, dating happens after a couple has started sleeping together regularly. Men barely have to put any effort into it anymore, women just give it up hours after meeting random guys at a bar or a party.
This, according to the femisogynists, is called being “empowered”. It’s being in charge of your sexuality. As far as they’re concerned, all that you need to do is get yourself some birth control and you’re A-OK. Emotional consequences? STDs? No problem! As long as you don’t get pregnant, sleeping around is just fine, even if you’re still in high school.
The problem? Most women don’t feel this way, and especially not young girls. Two-thirds of teenage girls who have sex in high school go on to regret it. Teenagers who have sex are much more likely to be depressed or suicidal. 1/4 of sexually active teens have an STD. A whopping 8,000 teens get an STD daily. And, even when you use contraception, pregnancy is still a possibility. Teenage mothers have higher likelihoods of poverty and dependence on welfare. But do the fascist feminists care about any of this? Nope! It’s sexual freedom, baby. Who cares about the consequences? If it feels good, just do it. The problem is that sex has become so devalued that celibacy has actually become trendy. Women are realizing that sleeping around all the time with tons of different men does not bring you strength or empowerment or freedom or love. But femisogynists don’t want women to know that.
Feministing founder Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book about it called The Purity Myth. Expecting women to be abstinent is ridiculous, virginity is weird, and fathers wanting their daughters not to have sex is creepy. But casual one-night stands? Hook-ups? SO awesome! Just use a condom, because they’re totally foolproof. Abstain? Hold out? So for our grandparents’ generation and un-empowered, frigid, prude chicks.

7. Sanctioning Victimhood

If a woman loses to a man in an election, it’s because she’s a girl. If a woman doesn’t get a promotion, it’s the patriarchy trying to keep her down. If a man winks at a woman on the street, he’s just trying to keep her in her place. If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, her life is forever ruined and her only option is to get an abortion.
These are some of the attitudes you’ll find in the fascist feminist set.
Rather than encouraging women to take control of their own lives and be truly empowered, the femisogynists are forever trying to make sure that women always wallow in victim hood. Everything is sexist, everything, from jeans to office dress codes to the obvious fact that men like to look at boobs. They complain that there aren’t equal numbers of men and women committing suicide. Even having babies is considered sexist (but more on that later). Radical feminists see sexism everywhere, and the patriarchy is always trying to keep women down. But how does this do women any favors?
The reality is that sexism is not everywhere, and women cannot be truly empowered if they see themselves as consummate victims. The reality is that the victim act is really just an excuse for fascist feminists to be greedy little whiners who get special treatment.

 

6. Dabbling In Misandry

Feminism has gotten a nasty reputation. Radical feminists are to blame for this of course, and they whine about it incessantly. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the word “feminism”, and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters”. And there’s a good reason for it, too. When radical feminists hijacked feminism, a great many of the people involved in the radical feminist movement do indeed hate men.
A large part of the man-hating movement from the fascist feminists involves domestic violence and rape, which are, of course, horrible. The vast majority of men do not beat or rape their wives or daughters and find men that do despicable. But fascist feminists paint all men with a broad brush, so that even men who don’t engage in domestic violence or rape are still somehow responsible for it. And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women. You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist feminist movement. The depths of the anger that these women possess is disturbing. Maybe they didn’t have a father growing up, maybe they had a boyfriend who did beat them, but for whatever reason, many of the fascist feminists truly hate men. The only men they approve of are feminized-beta male-Michael Cera-types, who I guess pose no threat to them because they’ll roll over and do anything a woman wants them to do.
It’s sad and ridiculous that femisogynists spend so much time accusing American men of oppressing women, and then completely ignore the actual oppression women face in the Middle East. The radical feminists are almost completely silent about that. They’ll throw it a bone every now and again, but by and large, they ignore it. Women in the Middle East are raped and have no way of getting justice for it; they are sold into slavery through forced marriages when they are still children. Oftentimes they cannot get an education or work among men. They cannot wear what they want, practice whatever faith they want, or make their own decisions. And this is all because of actual sexist men. But radical feminists ignore them and set their sights on American men, some of the most enlightened men on the planet.
Ask any American man who has a daughter, a sister, or a wife what he wants for American women, and most of them will say that they want girls to be able to get an education and be whatever they want to be. In this last presidential election, Hillary Clinton came extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination for president — that alone shows how far we have come. But fascist feminists ignore that, because they have an anti-male agenda to push.

 

5. Destroying Chivalry

One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions. Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman. Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth. But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack. Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.
Why not? Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism. Chivalry has been dubbed sexist. There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man. Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful. So why should men continue to be chivalrous? Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady. And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist. Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning. It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down. They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor. How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well? Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that. Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it. They still crave it though. They’re wanting something better.
Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after. If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her. Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it. It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.

 4. Attacking Motherhood

What would women say their most important role is as a woman? Could it be high-powered careerwoman? Sexually liberated minx? Pro-abortion activist? Maybe these are the most important roles a radical feminist could play, but for most normal women, their most important role is that of mother.
Think about it. Motherhood is biologically hardwired into us. Most women feel called to have children, and feel that there is nothing more beautiful or precious than a child. It’s why so many women are devastated when they miscarry or can’t have children. It’s also why so many women are destroyed after an abortion — they realize that they’ve just killed their baby.
Fascist feminists, though, want to free women of their motherhood chains. Having babies is sexist and breastfeeding is creepy. Nuclear families are dangerous, and motherhood destroys your life. It’s their own agenda that is being pushed, not what women actually want or need.

3. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test

Nothing angers leftist feminists more than combining the words “feminism” and “Sarah Palin” in a sentence. When Sarah Palin defined herself as a feminist, Jessica Valenti and the feminist left lost their minds. That’s because to the fascist feminists, only certain women count as “real” feminists. Amanda Marcotte even helpfully defined the specific issues that women are supposed to care about. Only women who cater to the liberal extremist agenda can be called feminists to women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.
Consider Sarah Palin, a feminist if there ever was one. She’s an empowered, self-made woman with a high-powered, successful career. She also has five beautiful children, and a loving, supportive husband. She’s even admitted to struggling with the thought of having an abortion, but chose instead to give birth to her son Trig. But because she is a conservative, and because she is pro-life, she is shunned by the fascist feminist set.
The truth is, they’re likely intimidated by strong conservative women. Conservative women don’t live in a world of constant victimhood. They don’t define themselves by their gender. And when conservative women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley endure disgusting misogynist attacks, they don’t wail about the patriarchy keeping them down. And conservative women actually represent feminism and the average American woman, whereas femisogynists represent only themselves and their own pro-abortion, sexist, anti-male, victimized agenda. When faced with true empowerment, fascist feminists can only try to tear the empowered women down.

2. Promoting Lies and Manipulation

The lengths femisogynists will go to in order to keep abortion legal and commonplace are shocking and despicable. The abortion lobby, and Planned Parenthood in particular, profits off of the lies and manipulation of women. Live Action has exposed the dishonesty in their Rosa Acuna Project, which shows how far clinics will go in order to convince a woman to get an abortion. They’ll tell women that there isn’t a baby inside their womb, they’ll lie about the heart beating, or how developed the baby is. Clinics routinely give out medically false information to women, and radical pro-abortion feminists never say a word about lying to women in order to sell an abortion.
But if you really want to anger the fascist feminists, bring up mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds, which they call emotionally torturous. One mother interviewed by the New York Times about seeing an ultrasound before her abortion said that women “almost have to think of it as an alien” in order to keep the images from haunting them. Of course the images haunt women — it’s an image of their unborn child that they’re about to kill! Seeing that image will convince many women not to have the abortion. And this is why the pro-abortion feminists are so vehemently against making women see an ultrasound first. They claim to be pro-choice, but how can anyone be pro-choice if they can’t make an informed choice?
The femisogynists don’t want women making their own choice when it comes to abortion. They want women with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion, always, and never to keep their babies. So they excuse the lies, cover up the manipulation, and fight an ultrasound which would force abortion providers to be truthful about the baby they’re about to kill. If women are going to have abortions, then abortion providers and the pro-abortion feminists owe it to those women to at least give them medically accurate information.

1. Glorifying Abortion

There is perhaps nothing more anti-woman than abortion. But the pro-abortion radical feminists have flipped that onto its head, claiming that to be against abortion is to be anti-woman. And this may be the number one way that fascist feminists are destroying women.
Right now, 22% of all pregnancies will end in abortion. But how does abortion hurt women?
Well, first there are the physical risks. Abortion triples the risk of breast cancer, and abortions also increase the risk of future miscarriages. Emotionally, there are also some horrific consequences. Women who abort are much more likely to commit suicide, with a suicide rate three times higher than the general suicide rate. Women who have an abortion are at a higher risk for long-term clinical depression. There is also a link between abortion and substance abuse, and it can even have an effect on the children who were not aborted (called Survivor Syndrome). There’s also been a connection found between abortion and subsequent child abuse.
But all of this is denied by the fascist feminists. Abortion is important, because an accidental pregnancy will ruin your life! It’s horrifying how much the radical feminists actively try to convince women to have an abortion, that it’s no big deal, that you won’t feel guilt, sorrow, and regret for the rest of your life. The facts are clearly against them, which is why they try so hard to cover those facts up.
The truth is that abortion is not just some normal little medical procedure; it’s a tragedy. Most women intuitively know that; it’s why so many women struggle so much after aborting their children, especially when they realize they’ve been lied to or manipulated into doing it. That is anti-life, and it is anti-woman. It’s a tragedy, for the life that was lost and for the women who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
The radical pro-abortion crowd fights for abortion “rights” because they have an agenda to push. They don’t care about how harmful it is, and how it can absolutely destroy a woman.

Tollywood Actress Swastika Mukherjee admits her dowry harassment allegations were false

Is this the kind of talk you would expect coming from an Actress, who is suppose to be a Role Model for little girls? This is what happens when their are no repercussions for your false 498a, women get away with murder. What kind of rubbish talk is this from Swastika, “I was young, I did not have enough sense back then and I did what my family, friends and peers advised me to do,” this kind of talk is first of all irresponsible and arrogant, and it shows how evil she really is. I would boycott her movies just for this.   


 Sept 23, 2010

Kolkata,  Tollywood actress Swastika Mukherjee has confessed in a media conference that the dowry harassment allegations she made against her estranged husband were false, apparently bringing a closure to an episode that has been playing out amidst full media glare for ten years.
.
“I was young, I did not have enough sense back then and I did what my family, friends and peers advised me to do,” is how Swastika on Wednesday chose to explain why she falsely accused her husband singer Promit Sen of “subjecting her to cruelty” and “criminal breach of trust”.

Swastika’s shocking but predictable confession comes a day after she apparently submitted an affidavit at a city court admitting that the charges she made against her husband and her in-laws under Indian Penal Code 498A and 406 were “unfounded, false, baseless and speculative”.
Swastika and Promit, the youngest son of renowned Rabindrasangeet exponent Sagar Sen, were married in June 1998, when the actress was just 18.
“Things started to go wrong around two years later when like a bolt from the blue my brother, our family and even me, who all lived in different places, were charged by her for dowry related crimes,” said Pritam Sen, Promit’s elder brother, who also attended the press conference.
“We went through hell for the past ten years. So many arrest warrants, all the expenses and the defamation aside, my brother is never going to get back the last ten years. He’s totally mentally devastated,” he added.
Though divorce was reportedly filed by Swastika in 2001, the cases are still under legal red tape.
Pritam said recently Swastika had issued a press release which after being published in the media made it seem as if the two parties had reached a compromise and were heading for divorce which was definitely not the case.
Hence Wednesday’s press conference was called by the actress “to come clean”.
“I am deeply sorry for all that Promit and his family has had to go through. I hope he can move on,” said Swastika.
“As far as the custody of our daughter Anwesha is concerned, lets see what plays out. She’s a ten-year-old girl and she too has a say in this,” she said.
When asked what drove her to suddenly make such an effort, she replied that it was not out of any pressure but just a “realisation”.
Sources, however, say this might be just a coup to get the divorce the 30-year-old actress, who is known for her ‘who cares’ attitude and has not exactly had the smoothest relationships over past few years, has been after for quite some time.
Pritam, however, said he and his family were pleased at Swastika’s confession.
He said, “I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what this leads to. But we’ll not accept anything but a genuine apology.”
The Sen family is apparently not mulling pressing charges on the actress since they are “not vindictive people”, said Pritam.
The confession, apart from sending gossip mills in overdrive, also sheds light on the Indian Penal Code which leaves the door for such a heavy-handed charge wide open for misuse.

'Domestic Violence Act is for man’s family too'

Sept 19, 2010

NEW DELHI: The mother and sisters of the husband are equally protected in a dispute with his wife under the Domestic Violence Act and they cannot be made accused without a scrutiny of charges against them, a Delhi court has said. "The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects the mothers, sisters and daughters from any kind of physical and mental abuse or violence in as much as it does the daughter-in-law. The court as a protector and implementor of rights, is required to perform a balancing act," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau.The court said that raising allegations by a woman against her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law without any substance would rather cause violence to them."Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother tantamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is protected from the same. "Violence can also be inflicted by an estranged wife or daughter-in-law or sister-in-law upon other members of the husband's family to gain and secure personal points and financial control or for separating her husband from his parents and other family members," the court said.It further said that mother-in-law or sisters-in-law (married or unmarried) cannot be permitted to be subjected to harassment only because they happen to be related to the estranged husband of the woman (complainant). "It is necessary to ensure the court does not get swayed by astute legal drafting of the counsel and is required to get at the truth of the allegations by examining them on the touch-stone of reasonableness and probabilities. Where a complaint appears to have been filed on grounds only to humiliate the family members, the same is required to be thrown out at the earliest opportunity", the court said. The court made these observations while setting aside an order to summon the mother, two sisters-in-law including the married one of a man on a complaint filed by his wife alleging harassment.ASJ Lau pointed out that the complainant alleged that her in-law had forcibly taken away her salary and wages which is false and incorrect as she herself admitted that she was not working. The court also said that the allegations regarding harassment for dowry do not appear to be "credible and truthful" particularly in view of the background that the marriage between the sparring couple was a secret, runaway marriage as an outcome of a love affair between them.The woman said that she had married the man in July, 2008 and had faced harassment and torture for dowry.