I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I suppose Daniel Foster thinks that feminists mostly sit around lazily not doing too much. Presumably, therefore, fighting for suffrage, equal pay, opportunity, and reproductive rights -- all things the National Review hate -- doesn't fall under the category of "fricking doing stuff."

To be fair, this is an appropriate tribute to the Iron Lady, since she herself famously said,

I hate feminism. It's poison.

There you have it.

The conservatives in this country will not be happy until the entire country has turned into the fabled days of the Wild West, a literal and figurative Tombstone (like most of their nostalgia, it is rarely based in fact). It is an odd psychology, this need to blame victims. It's the poor's fault that they haven't succeeded. Those who suffer from chronic diseases and want to rely on universal health care are purposely not taking care of themselves. Those seniors should have planned better for their retirement so that Social Security benefits can be cut, for the betterment of future generations. And rape victims should most definitely be armed to prevent sexual assault.

And so it was in this looking glass world that Democratic strategist and rape survivor Zerlina Maxwell entered this week, appearing on the Hannity show with a radical notion: rather than tell women to avoid being raped, how about we teach men not to rape?

This is not without precedent. In Vancouver, an anti-rape campaign, Don't Be That Guy, actually saw number of sexual assaults drop the following year by 10%. And for a party that claims to be all about "personal responsibility," this would seem to be the most logical tactic to take. But then, when has Hannity been about logic?

Absolutely, sometimes the rapist is the guy with a ski mask who jumps out of an alley. And no, he doesn’t care about learning to be a better person. But Hannity’s offhand remark that “evil exists in the world” reduces the experience of rape to one particular type – the violent stranger attack. Absolutely, we need to continue to empower women to avoid high-risk situations, to get themselves out of them when they’re in them and to defend themselves however they best see fit. But when rape is overwhelmingly an act perpetrated by men upon women, we also sure as hell need to stop thinking of it exclusively in terms of what women have to do to prevent it. We need to involve men and boys. We need to remember, as a revealing Reddit thread last year proved, that a rapist can be your friend or your boyfriend or your co-worker. We need to acknowledge that a rapist can be your husband. That, as chilling as it is to admit, as Maxwell says, “Those kids in Steubenville were average guys.”

Maxwell says, “I don’t want anybody to lecture a rape survivor about anything. And I don’t want anybody telling women that if you don’t wear a skirt or don’t drink at all you’re going to be safe. That is a lie.” What she wants instead is more training, more dialogue and a process that is much longer and harder, and infinitely subtler, than just telling women to get a gun or not wear high heels. Maxwell says, “I knew that [doing "Hannity"] was going to be hard, but I did it because I knew that I wasn’t speaking just for myself. I’m not alone. Clearly, what we’ve been doing isn’t working. We’re telling women to be afraid of the person in the bushes when it’s the person in your house. We need a reality check. We’re talking about the wrong things. We’re asking the wrong questions.”

And if you're a Fox News viewer (or a reader of Glenn Beck's The Blaze, which did an article as well), you are apparently also internalizing the wrong message, because what happened to Maxwell after this appearance just proves how far we have yet to go:

In the wake of her appearance, Maxwell was bombarded with harassing messages calling for her to be raped or murdered, often in explicitly racist terms.

Continue reading »

Jedediah Bila is a professional wingnut who makes the rounds on Fox & Friends, Hannity, Fox Business and Glenn Beck's glorified YouTube channel. And her twitter feed is full of nonsensical little rants like this.

Now, the contraception debate we had in this country -- touched off by Bila's homeboy El Rushbo calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" -- wasn't about the government "paying for everyone's birth control." It was, in fact, about whether the federal government can regulate private insurance plans. But wingnuts can't win that argument, so they lie about it.

Anyway, what I want to know is this: does Jedediah Bila have an insurance policy that covers her contraception, and if so, does she refuse the coverage and pay for it out of pocket?

I'm guessing no.

Stop it. Just stop it now.

Who knew in a country where we are have serious debates about taking away women's access to contraceptives for others' religious freedoms and mandating that they be forced to look at the monitor while being violated by a transvaginal probe, there are still people who insist that women can "have it all"?

Frankly, I don't know what "all" is, but I'm pretty sure that no one has it. Male or female. There are only so many hours in the day and I've yet to meet anyone who can balance work, relationships, children and other activities without making serious and painful sacrifices fairly regularly. In my own life, I made the choice to sacrifice my career (and my Social Security income later in life, as I'm informed annually) to raise my kids. My husband sacrifices time at home with his kids (and often, outside interests) in order to succeed at work. But that success enables me to stay home with them. It's a trade-off I personally question occasionally (especially when the kids are being bratty), but works for us.

But seriously, after three or four 'waves' of feminism (or whatever it's been now), we're still having this conversation that posits that somehow women--and women only--should aspire to it "all"? Why? Why these impossible standards to which we never hold men? When was the last time a male politician was asked whether he should run with a young child at home?

Or write articles on their clothes?

Or their hairstyles?

Or whether they should consider plastic surgery?

So let's just agree to stop. "Having it all" isn't possible. And it's unfair to hold women to that impossible standard.

My gratitude to the stalwarts at Right Wing Watch for watching nearly two hours of Phyllis Schlafly's seminar earlier this month at The Citadel. She had some interesting things to say about feminism.

In the World According to Schlafly, the word "liberal is a pejorative now since Michael Dukakis...no politician wants to be called a liberal anymore" and because it's a pejorative, Schlafly thinks "that's the way we should treat feminism." She goes on to say women don't want to be called feminists because it's a bad word, and that "everything they stand for is bad and destructive."

I admit, I'm confused by this, especially since the right wing has been trying to hijack the term feminist for the past several years, courtesy of Sarah Palin. As far as our badness and destructiveness, I guess it's bad and destructive to work to take care of our kids so we're not at the mercy of the welfare state? Let's see. She truly believes "America is a giant island of freedom, achievement, wealth and prosperity", too. I guess for her that means freedom, achievement, wealth and prosperity for men and men only?

But wait, according to Phyl, "American women are the most fortunate people who lived on this earth" and feminists just want to be victims.

Are you facepalming yet? Wait till you get to the part where she hypothesizes about a man and a woman competing for the same high-paying job, and the woman being at a disadvantage because the man has a WIFE, something the woman is "insanely jealous of", so she wants to "abolish the wife of the man" because she can't have a wife of her own.

Continue reading »

RedState, home of CNN's Erick Erickson, front-paged this masterpiece of wingnuttery on Monday about Rick Santorum which begins,

Left-leaning elitist pundits are scratching their heads. After two weeks of liberals trying to convince women that Rick Santorum wants to rip the birth control out of their hands and put them in the kitchen, more and more women are supporting Rick Santorum. “How could this be?” they ask. Answer: We are smarter than you think.

If by "women" this blogger means "Republican women not in Arizona" -- and if by "more and more" she means "some" -- then yes, this statement is technically correct.

But just what is a "Femi-regular" you ask?

Let me offer a little primer on American women to the liberal elitist folks who spend too much time in New York and Washington DC and not enough time where Femi-regulars live. “Femi-regulars” is a term I coined during the 2008 election when leftists just couldn’t grasp the appeal of gun-toting Sarah Palin. Palin, I explained, like most women, was a femi-regular, not a femi-nazi (a tag coined by Rush Limbaugh to label rabid, man- hating feminists).

It's never a good sign when you have to explain your neologism. But this blogger isn't referring to the same Sarah Palin who is one of the most reviled figures in American politics, is she? Because Palin's "appeal" seems difficult for the entire country to grasp, not just New York liberals.

Most women are femi-regulars. They are strong women who are too busy accomplishing important things to worry about the divide and conquer strategies of leftists. They are more interested in voting for principled, honest, strong, America-loving folks who will stand up to evil, advance liberty and let our free enterprise flourish—all things that they see in Rick Santorum. They don’t vote as women; they vote as Americans.

Let's take a look at how "most women" have voted in the last, say, three presidential elections.

2008
Obama 56 percent, McPalin 43 percent

2004
Kerry 51 percent, Bush 48 percent

2000
Gore 54 percent, Bush 43 percent

Those Femi-regulars sure love them some Democrats!

Anyway, I'm not sure I follow the logic here.

Most women are Femi-regulars who vote Democratic.
Most Femi-regulars support Rick Santorum.
Therefore, most Democratic women support Rick Santorum.

Sadly, this is what happens when your only three news sources are Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and Newsmax.

Hat tip WaPo.

John King asks if the easing of roles for women in combat is a good thing. And Santorum answers with: "“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” he added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

"Other types of emotions?" That must be his Low T talking. Those old guys get so cranky when it's "that time of life."

In Santorum's 2005 book, "It Takes a Family" he famously came out against women working outside of the home. He wrote, "It provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." Yes, he blamed radical feminism. And he quickly lost his senate seat by 17 points.

So, keep talking Rick. You're sure to win the primary against Herbert Hoover who's looking more progressive and forward thinking every time you open your mouth.

Balloon Juice: This is analysis

Nitpicker: Teapartiers vs. George Washington

Tina Dupuy: Feminism in the wake of 'Ladies' Night'

Economist's View: "The Economics of Libertarianism"

The Washington Independent: S.C. Dems move ahead with challenge

Words of Power: Which tide will overcome?

Most of us are familiar with James Dobson's Focus on the Family outfit, since they've played a major role in promoting the religious right's positions for the past decade and more nationally: "The group supports the teaching of "traditional family values". It advocates school sponsored prayer and supports corporal punishment. It strongly opposes abortion, so-called militant feminism, homosexuality, pornography, and pre-marital and extramarital sexual activity."

Now, Michael Reynolds at JulyDogs has a series of posts detailing how FoF's influence is spreading south of the border too -- and it isn't pretty:

On Saturday an internal intelligence report on La Familia from the Mexican justice department surfaced in Milenio, bringing the news that the faith-based cartel grounds its indoctrination program on the writings of macho Christian author and veteran Focus On The Family senior fellow John Eldredge, who now heads Ransomed Hearts Ministries in Colorado Springs.

There are four separate references to Eldredge in the Mexican intelligence memo on La Familia. The cartel has conducted a three-year recruitment and PR campaign across Michoacan featuring thousands of billboards and banderas carrying their evangelical message and warnings. La Familia is known for tagging its executions and other mayhem as “la divina justica”–divine justice.

The report says La Familia leader, Nazario Gonzalez Moreno aka El Loco o More Chayo (”The Craziest”) has made Eldredge’s books required reading for La Familia and has paid rural teachers and National Development Education members to circulate the Colorado-based evangelical’s writings throughout the Michoacan countryside.

Reynolds goes on to cite Christian blogger Tim Challies:

John Eldredge became a major player in the evangelical world with the release of The Sacred Romance which he co-authored with Brent Curtis (who has since died). Following The Sacred Romance he wrote Wild at Heart, Waking The Dead, The Journey of Desire and more recently, Epic. I have read all of these except for Waking The Dead and The Journey of Desire. Eldredge’s books are targeted primarily at men and his writings have great appeal for men, many of whom feel that society has forced them to be like Mr. Rogers – harmless and just a little effeminate. Eldredge encourages men to be real men – to head to the wilderness and be the rugged warriors we all want to be if we look deep inside ourselves. Eldredge continually writes about William Wallace of Braveheart or Maximus, the main character in Gladiator – real manly men.”

As Reynolds explores in two follow-up posts, the way this has translated on the ground in Mexico is a wave of violence directed against not merely rival drug gangs, but also anyone who fails to live up to its version of "masculine Christianity":

“La Familia doesn’t kill for money, doesn’t kill women, doesn’t kill innocent people. It only kills those who deserve to die. Everyone should know this: Divine justice.”–message left with five severed heads on the dance floor of the Sol y Sombra nightclub in Uruacan, Michoacan, September 6, 2006.

... From all available information so far, it appears that La Familia has developed into a faith-based right-wing populist social movement emanating from and orchestrated by an organization that happens to be a well-armed, well-financed violent criminal enterprise.

... La Familia is strongly pro-family (and all that that implies) and requires its members to abstain from alcohol and drugs. There is an indoctrination program all La Familia recruits must go through that inculcates “ personal values, ethical and morlal principles consistent with the purposes of the organization.” Last year La Familia brought in two motivational speakers to lecture its members. The group is hierarchic and maintains a strict top-down emotional control of its members.

Think of Jim Jones’ People’s Temple, only with more money and firepower and you get the idea.

So maybe Tony Perkins' bashing of Dr. George Tiller just prior to his assassination was not an accident after all.

Just don't tell Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin. Their heads will explode.

There goes Bush's last alleged achievement:

Taliban militants have banned female education in the northwest Pakistan valley of Swat, depriving more than 40,000 girls of schooling, officials said on Saturday.

"My daughters are sitting at home," said Mohammad Ayub, father of two girls whose school was blown up by militants in October. "Their future looks bleak because they will stay uneducated."

There has been fighting in the valley for more than a year, but residents say the military is losing control to militants who aim to impose a severe form of Islamic law.

Swat is just one front the militants have opened up as violence has spread across Northwest Frontier province from adjoining semi-autonomous tribal areas that border Afghanistan.