Over the next few days, The Pink Flamingo will be working on several posts about the war against women in this country. There is a faction within the far right that is just as terrifying as any anti-woman Islamic zealot – because they want to strip us of so many rights. It is based on a growing movement with in the religious right. It is time we stop ignoring what is going on, and decide what we are going to do about it. To continue down this path is NOT the America I know.
In certain parts of NYC, the cops are telling women they should not wear skirts if they don’t want to be raped. They are also going around criticizing women who are wearing things that may be a little skimpy or showing a little skin. You read it right, they are now telling women if they don’t want to be raped they should not be asking for it.
“…”He pointed at my outfit and said, ‘Don’t you think your shorts are a little short?'” she told the Journal. “He pointed at their dresses and said they were showing a lot of skin.”
The officer also told them that “you’re exactly the kind of girl this guy is targeting,” according to Lauren.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the officers “are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”…”
If Saudi women are being given the right to vote, why would some seriously disturbed, neo-confederate libertarian tea partiers want to take it away from American women? What is their true agenda?
The war on women is coming from the libertarian right.
“…Rothbard’s version of libertarianism favored genetic accounts of racial difference and social rank. Votes for women, and equality for African Americans, upset the natural order….”
In California and Florida, high school cheerleaders are being asked to cover up their “skimpy” uniforms and not wear them in class. Their uniforms have not changed in 25 years, but now minis have been banned. The uniforms are now no longer modest enough.
Evidently the old ‘keep ’em barefoot and pregnant’ still applies in certain “Christian” conservative sources.
“…The wise know another method of restoring household stability, and it is a restoration of the traditional, biblical nuclear family. It will do little good to have both parents live in the same home if they refuse to subscribe to the natural roles provided by the God of nature. How the husband and wife manage themselves — the man laboring as the breadwinner and the giver of law, the woman laboring with equal nobility to raise her children and ensure the propagation of heritage — is as important as marriage itself. This is not to say that women should never seek maximum productivity, as even the Bible praises the woman who, above and beyond her duty to her household, operates a business from her home. But her income must remain in most cases a responsibility secondary to both the care of her children and the economic liberty of the family. This structure is intended by God. And if mankind is not wise enough to heed His call, as shown above, it will be enforced by the iron hand of nature….”
Women have been at the forefront of this nation’s awakening of activism since the beginning of the nation. By 1810, women were increasingly interested in politics.
“...Activism in some of the societies of the benevolent empire encouraged women to re-examine their roles in marriage and all of society. Martha Moore Ballard, a midwife in Maine, kept a remarkable diary of everyday life from 1785 to 1812. She documented a woman’s perspective on events such as marriage, death, economics, and social customs. Hannah Webster Foster wrote “The Coquette.” Judith Sargent Stevens Murray, Susanna Haswell Rowson and Mercy Otis Warren were authors. Mary Bosanquet Fletcher became a deconess in the Methodist church. Women began to be active in auxiliary female antislavery, temperance and suffrage societies. Conventional organizational structures remained; men took leadership roles, heading the state and national societies, while women were expected to raise money to support lecturers and official newspapers….”
There is a looming war on women coming from the far right. Not true, NORMAL conservatives, but the extremes, lead by the loony libertarian Ron Paul Bots, Tea Party fringe freaks (not to be confused with regular tea party types, which are enough of a problem, and the dingbats of the Constitution Party.
“…“Today, my ACLU connection would probably disqualify me,” she said.
It’s worth noting exactly what kind of work Justice Ginsburg did for the ACLU before she was confirmed to the federal bench. As director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, Ginsburg was literally the single most important women’s rights attorney in American history. She authored the brief in Reed v. Reed that convinced a unanimous Supreme Court to hold for the very first time that the Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection applies to women. And her brief in Craig v. Boren convinced the Court to hand down its very first decision holding that gender discrimination laws are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny. It is possible that modern doctrines preventing gender discrimination would simply not exist if Ruth Bader Ginsburg hadn’t done the work she did for the ACLU.
And yet, in today’s era of rampant right-wing filibusters, that alone would disqualify her for a seat on the federal bench….”
Fortunately, Ann Barnhardt is still considered a lone crack-pot. On Aug 19 she wrote the following irrational dribble:
As almost a reply, Andrew McCarthy wrote:
“…Maybe, some suggested, voting rights are natural and unalienable. In the United States, of course, we hold the equality of human beings to be “self-evident.” The Declaration of Independence is explicit on the matter when it comes to “all Men.” Implicitly, we now recognize that the principle applies to all men and all women, regardless of race or creed. Thus, if voting is a foundational right for one, it must be for all.
Others countered that unalienable rights are few and sweeping: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — but not voting. The overarching principle of equality renders this distinction insignificant. Whatever their taxonomy — natural, constitutional, statutory — we see voting rights as universal. The notion that they could be granted or denied by a king was rightly seen as a perversion of equality’s premise that the ruler is no greater than the rest of us….”
Is this the world people like Barnhardt wish to join? She envisions a world where women are taken care of by men, basically their property. In a world like that, this is an every day depravity.
“…Last August, Sision Nchoe – a 12-year-old girl – was held down and cut. Once it was over, she bled and bled and it wouldn’t stop. Within a few hours, she was dead. Her father said this was a bad omen from the spirits – nothing to do with the cutting, oh no – and ordered she be buried immediately. Normally the story would end there: another anonymous death. But a local campaign to end this mutilation had a supporter in the community – and they called the police. Her father, Ole Nchoe, was outraged, asking the police: “It is only a woman who died. Why is there all this fuss?” But Sision’s mother was wailing “You have killed my daughter! My daughter!”
An array of prisoners shuffle into the courthouse, each wearing only one shoe: it turns out they confiscate one of them when you are arrested to stop you running away. They each plead on minor charges in front of a stern magistrate, before being dismissed, or jailed. Finally, Ole
Nchoe and the woman he paid to cut his daughter, Nalangu Sekut, shuffle into the witness box.
The father looks angry and uncomprehending. As soon as he is given a chance to speak, he begins to shout. “Forgive me – I was not involved in this incident…” he says. “God did this, not me! I am asking for forgiveness.” The circumcisor is even more angry. She shouts, jabbing her finger in the air: “If what I did was wrong, why did the chief accompany me? Why does my local councillor approve? Why?” In a bar, their local councillor Stephen Kudate tells me: “There’s a lot of anger in the community at this coming to trial.” It is adjourned. There will be a verdict in April….”
The lovely little white supremacists from Stormfront believe much the same as Barnhardt. Strange, isn’t it?
The white supremacist Camp of Saints agrees.
This is rather interesting. The Pink Flamingo is discovering a serious white supremacist angle in all of this. It sure makes a heck of a lot of sense. In order to prevent Blacks from voting, they must first stop women from voting.
“...It is an indisputable fact that Progressivism, what Marxism with a kinder face was deceptively named in late 19th Century America, began it’s march of destruction through The United States in the early years of the 20th Century, but, at first, it was at a slow pace. It is also an indisputable fact that it picked up speed after 1920, which just happens to be the year the 19th Amendment was ratified. Coincidence? I think not. As women began exercising their new right to vote, they demanded more mothering from their government at all levels. While such spending by the national government did not really take off for the stratosphere until the final months of Herbert Hoover’s term, it increased dramatically on the state, county, and local level [see: FDR, New York Governor; Smith, Al, New York Mayor; Curley, James Michael, Boston Mayor]. Thus, began our decline into a nation so horribly in debt that we face economic ruin.
-Women tend to not research the issues, instead making their decisions based on their perception of the appearance and demeanor of the candidate. While women are very good a sussing out bad characters, they tend to turn off their perceptive and useful intuition radar (1) in personal romantic situations [see: bad boys, infatuation with] and (2) when assessing candidates [see: Romney, Mitt; in Mrs. Belvedere’s case, see: Trump, Donald — and they wonder why I drink]….”
What The Pink Flamingo finds rather interesting is the fact that almost the same language is used by the Repeal the 19th bigots.
“...Thanks to the 19th amendment, we now have the same kind of Marxists running America that Ronald Reagan defeated from the Soviet Union. However the weapon of destruction used was not a nuclear warhead, no it was an emotional outburst that melted the brains of logic. On August 18, 2010 it will have been 90 years since the 19th amendment was ratified and became the law of the land. In those 90 years, America has gone from a God fearing Christian nation to a sadistic society that would make the founding fathers turn over in their graves. In my opinion, the icing on the cake was the day we witnessed Barack Obama getting elected President. So now we are confronted with the situation that almost every important issue facing the country comes down to an argument between an emotional feeling and a logical thought….From the beginning of time women have been the emotional nurturers of society while men have been the logical protectors and managers. It was the men who had to do the dirty deeds that required more logic then emotion. Men have always debated and discussed what it is they thought was best for their families and communities, but there was usually a strong women standing behind and supporting them. It was this behind the scene interaction between husbands and wives that helped men see the emotional side of things. However when it came time for the tough decisions women understood that the ultimate course the men took was best for them, the community, and the nation because they would do what logically made sense.
There was a slow and methodical thought process that men used to allowed for the orderly progression of laws that, for most part, worked. This is not to say that men never acted irrationally or got overly emotional about the issues. After all, I admit that many wars in history were started for irrational and emotional reasons. Which only supports my opinion that overly emotional thinking individuals, like women, should never have been given the ability to make political decisions like who will represent the people in the government, or for that matter what policies and initiatives will be enacted into law. Unfortunately men eventually abdicated their God given responsibility and allowed their emotional partner an equal footing in deciding the country’s fate. From that day forward, men have been vying for the emotional vote of women and worrying about their reactions after they got in office….”
The Pink Flamingo finds it rather interesting that those who are proposing limiting the rights of women in the US are connected to libertarians, the CofCC, Ron Paul, and some of the weirder tea parties. They are the very same people who are constantly damning all forms of Islam, while embracing the very worst of it. Andrew McCarthy wrote about Islam and women.
“…Furthermore, in Islamist ideology, what makes the ruler viable is his fidelity to sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood’s most influential theoretician, Sayyid Qutb, put it plainly: “The ruler in Islamic law is not to be obeyed because of his own person; he is to be obeyed only by virtue of holding his position through the law of Allah and his Messenger.” In Saudi Arabia, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man. Ditto her inheritance rights. She may marry only one man, while the man may marry four women. The man may peremptorily divorce his wives — and he gets custody of the kids…”
For the life of me, I can’t understand why the far right hates feminists and detests women who want “rights”. They get some of it from Rush Limbaugh, who doesn’t appear to like women all that much. When a man advocates women being held back – for our own good – there is something abjectly wrong with him. It is just like an upcoming piece about “Modest” dress. It’s all about accommodating men.
I guess we still are second class citizens.