First up I just want to say thanks very much for the many lovely anniversary wishes.  Secondly, I’d like to say I’m sorry to be repaying you with a Doug Giles column, but as you’ve probably noticed, I have absolutely no sales resistance when it comes to jive and alliteration.

Why Do Feminists Attack Sarah and Not Sharia?

Doug can’t understand it.  He found a good spot to put up his stand, he laid a burka on the game trail and sprinkled it with doe estrus, and yet he’s been crouching here for two hours and he hasn’t seen a single feminist (although he did take a shot at a guy wearing a plaid shirt and an orange safety vest on the theory it was probably a lesbian).

Given Islam’s enslavement of women and the Sharia erection of the Cordoba Initiative’s chief con man, Abdul Rauf, you’d think N.O.W. and their ilk would now be raising more Cain about this Ground Zero Mosque than they are about Sarah Palin.

Doug poses an interesting question.  Why can’t a women be more like a man, if by “man” we mean “a social, easily panicked animal which can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded by a single screaming man on horseback to follow the rest of the herd over a cliff.”

Why should one think this?

Because one is a moron?

Well, it’s principally because Sharia kind of sha-whizzes on hard-won women’s rights, that’s sha-why.

Sha-dup.

Duh. Yet we’re not hearing a whole heck of a lot from the fiery feminists regarding this Ground Zero affront and what it could entail for the girls among us. Yep, we’re hearing crickets from the virulent vixens of the lovely Left who vie for women’s rights.

And Hollywood, where are the bra burners of Tinseltown?

Given that they’ve lately been replaced by the Koran-burners of Gainesville, I’m feeling a little nostalgic for the innocence of incendiary lingerie.    By the way, Doug, since you’re demanding the National Organization for Women adopt a position on a lower Manhattan community center — something a bit outside their bailiwick – what’s your opinion on the torching of religious texts?  As an ordained cleric with a hobby church, that would seem to be within your area of competence — or, if that’s overstating it, at least your field of interest.  So where do you stand, Doug?  You’re fine with lighting up the Koran, but you draw the line at incinerating the Book of Mormon?  You’re okay with the medieval penchant for burning the Talmud, but you object to stoking the furnace with the Avesta, or the Icelandic Sagas?

I figured they’d be on this topic of Muslim mama oppression like Clinton on a chunky intern, but alas … nada.

Which is weird, because I thought they’d be on this topic like Ted Haggard on a woman.  Which is to say, not at all.

Why the silence, pussycats?

Well if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.

Does it not jive with your agenda?

I just checked the NOW website and here are their “Priority Issues:”

Constitutional Equality Amendment
Reproductive Rights
Racism
Lesbian Rights
Violence Against Women
Economic Justice

So no, it would appear that “local zoning issues” are not a major part of their agenda.  It’s like calling PETA a bunch of sell-outs because they’re not demanding more stringent safety regulations for recumbent bicycles.

Y’know, the fact that some rapscallion like Rauf can actually table support for Sharia law and then go balls-to-the-wall with building a Mosque within spitting distance from where we were attacked on 9/11, and then you—the supposed champions of chicks everywhere—do not go Twisted Sister over this bloody BS is both odd and revealing.

It sounds like Pastor Giles just applied a fresh coat of lip-glossolalia.

Nope, the fems’ fixation remains on Palin. Palin is the threat. Palin is the She Devil. Palin is the one who gets the nasty jabs—and not Islam and the potential spread of Sharia from sea to shining sea.

You ladies really have to learn to pick your battles — preferably imaginary ones, like Helm’s Deep, or Mons Badonicus.

I know what you fembots are thinking:

“That guy must get penis envy every time that little red meat thermometer pops up on the turkey.”

Sharia can’t happen here, right? Cha?

No, it’s Che.

Yes, we’d never allow Muslims to take us back to Bedrock legislatively. And I’m equally sure that’s what our snaggle-toothed feminist cousins in the UK thought right up until September 2008.

Facts be damned, however. For the feminists, the menacing foe they have to stave off remains Sarah and not Sharia.

Maybe the girls will more properly calibrate their hysteria once Sharia starts appearing frequently as a Fox News commentator.  And what with the influx of Wahhabist money into News Corp, it shouldn’t be long now.  Say, wait a minute, Doug…you’ve appeared on Fox News too!  So along with that Scripture-burning question, maybe you’d like to tell us just how long you’ve been lining your pockets with Saudi gold.

Last time I checked, liberal lassies, Mrs. Palin does not believe that …

- Women are inferior to men.

- Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.

But she does apparently think that Larry the Cable Guy should have more rights than American Muslims.

- Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.

Given that there are a billion and a half Muslims in the world, our best chance for peace is an attitude of mutual respect, and the cultivation of ties with liberal and moderate members of the faith, and the best way to do that is to imply that every Muslim holds extreme fundamentalist views.

- Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.

That reminds me of the time I saw four women in chadors emerge from the Frederick’s of Hollywood flagship store on Hollywood Boulevard, laden with shopping bags.

- Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.

Really?  All of them?  Everywhere?  Because in the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, the marriageable age is 21 (16 with parental consent).  It’s 18 in Doug’s home state of Florida, 16 with parental consent.  In Iraq it’s 18, but only 15 with the parents’ blessing, which is undoubtedly due to our civilizing influence.  Under the previous, secular government, it was probably legal to wed a zygote.

- Women should be cool with hubby having a couple of hoochies or female slaves on the side.

Doug, I refuse to continue this conversation until you put down the Gor novel and zip up your pants.

- Women, on the pretext of “honor,” should be locked up, isolated and unable to have a girls’ night out at Mango’s on Ocean Drive.

Doug’s a little bitter, since back in the 90s he made some decent money moonlighting at Mango’s.  However, he’s gotten a little older and a touch craggier, the pecs aren’t quite as perky as they were, but he still picks up some spare change laundering and Bedazzling the younger dancer’s cock-socks.

Yep, last time I checked, Miss Sarah ain’t down with the above, but you know who is? I’ll tell you (because your lack of Ground Zero Mosque angst is auguring for the return to the cave man era): the Crapslinger Extraordinaire, Ground Zero’s grand zero, male chauvinist Imam Abtool Rauf. He likey Sharia.

And you, as you’ve oft told us, are down with Leviticus — sounds like you have a lot in common.  You two should go have a pork-free boys night out.

So, my question is this: From an equal rights standpoint, why in God’s name do you, the Liberal ladies who are supposedly so earnest for fair treatment for the fairer sex, go after Palin and not the women’s rights-refusing Imams who think Sharia is the shizznah?

It’s hard to believe that major feminist organizations decline to take their cues on women’s rights from Doug Giles, but hey — that’s pussycats for ya.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 39 Comments »

First, I’d just like to admit that I’m a little embarrassed at having forgotten about Dr. Jack Wheeler’s previous appearance on Wo’C.  True, s.z. has covered hundreds of different wingnuts since starting the blog in 2003, but I should have done a bit more due diligence with the Google.  My only defense is that, at the time I was working on the post, I only had 24¢ on me, and with Dr. Jack you never know when you’re going to run into a billable insight.

Speaking of selling crazy by the gross, WorldNetDaily has been going through the wingnuts lately like an adolescent boy with a box of tissues and a broadband internet connection, and today it brings us yet another new face, Mark Crutcher, “president of Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas,” an “anti-abortion pro-life organization.”  (I’m glad he cleared that up, because if I’d had to guess, I would have said Life Dynamics was that company that made the Shake Weight®.)

Instead, the Li-Dynamos, as I like to pretend they call themselves, “fight to…end legal abortion and return the right to life to unborn babies from the moment of conception. Our motto is, ‘Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology.’”  So like most anti-choice groups, Mark wants to go spelunking in your vagina and dust your uterus for zygotes, but unlike his colleagues, he’s a little pushy about it.

Mark’s organization (which seems to consist basically of Mark, since his website doesn’t mention any other staff, and the About Us button links to his bio alone, but the whole site is kind of confusingly laid out, and I admit I spent only a few minutes there because I suddenly noticed we were out of calamine lotion and Febreze) employs the usual anti-choice tropes — sections include Women Killed by Abortion, Black Genocide, Baby Body Parts for Sale, and Death Camps.  But Mark has a couple of fresh gimmicks up his sleeve…

Besides inciting people to sue abortion providers for malpractice, he boasts a unique “Direct Mail Program” in which he sends weirdly insulting brochures to medical students and doctors:

Being an abortionist is a miserable life. The medical profession has never accepted abortion as a respectable part of mainstream medicine and even those people who call themselves pro-choice still see abortionists as the scum of the earth.

And, being scum, they are naturally susceptible to junk mail.

There is nothing that the abortion industry can do that will convince the medical community that abortionists are anything other than society’s washouts and losers, because that is what they are. However, many on the pro-life side don’t even realize how medically inept abortionists tend to be…[O]pen your eyes to the danger abortion presents to women and just how often women suffer sexual assaults, permanent injuries, and even death at the hands of abortionists.

My sister-in-law’s pregnancy triggered a condition which hospitalized and nearly killed her, but fortunately she didn’t have an abortion, because the abortionist would have touched her lady parts.

But while his poison pen industry is fascinating, “Mark is probably best known for his bold undercover operations that have exposed shocking and even illegal activities inside the abortion industry.”

Now, Life Dynamics Incorporated is necessarily vague on just what these operations were, or exactly how Mark went undercover, but I assume that he was clever enough to exploit his resemblance to Wooly Willy.  Thus, with nothing more than a magnet and some iron filings, he could change his appearance at a moment’s notice.

In addition to going undercover at abortion clinics, posing as a large, third trimester fetus, Mark also works the language beat like a latter day William Safire.

[Pro-Choice advocates] label abortion as ‘reproductive health care’ despite the biological reality that by the time abortion is a consideration, reproduction has already taken place.

Exactly!  As soon as conception occurs, the woman could just tweeze that little multicellular slacker out of her vagina and make it go get a job somewhere instead of mooching off her for nine months.  But these Gen X parents today, they just baby their embryos.

Okay, enough foreplay.  Let’s take a squint at Mark’s contribution to WND.

America’s night in jail

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.

The odds are against it, but sure, I’ll play.

First, the country elects a godless Marxist as president.

It’s rare you hear that needle-scratching-across-the-record-grooves sound in the very first sentence.

Second, in order to ram through one of his pet socialist projects, this moral degenerate stands in front of the American people and solemnly promises that his government-run health-care system will not pay for abortions.

Abortions are like sex: we all want to get us some, but it’s a point of pride to say we’ve never paid for it.

Third, less than four months later, government funding of abortions is discovered to be already in place in at least two states.

As Terry K. at ConWebBlog points out, that’s kind of a lie, but I hesitate to interrupt Mark when he’s on a roll.

To put it succinctly, Comrade Obama was lying through his blood-stained teeth.

If I had a chance to talk to the President, I guess the one thing I’d most want to tell him is, “if you’re going to devour fetuses just before a press conference, always make sure to keep a packet of Crest 3-D Whitestrips in your pocket.”

Oh, and “watch out for snakes.”

Of course, this is precisely what those of us in the pro-life movement were saying all along, only to be ridiculed and dismissed by the abortion-lobby stooges who dominate the media.

Have you noticed that almost all women love the Abortion-Lobby Stooges, but men don’t seem to find them funny at all?

That is where America is today. The Obama administration is shoving down our throats a bitter foretaste of what life is like under the rule of jack-booted Marxists.

I originally read that as “shoving down our throats a bitter foreskin,” but this probably says more about me than about Mark.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 10 Comments »

Judie Brown, as you may recall, is president of the American Life League, which I think is the one that used that flashy red, white, and blue ball; an advisor to Pope Benedict; and “one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century,” according to The Daily Catholic. She probably would have made the Top 100 Catholics of the 21st century, but The Daily Catholic, as commenter Djur pointed out, is “a sedevacantist rag,” so they hate pretty much everyone who continued to Catholicize after 1962.

Ethics, morality, and in vitro fertilization

Shorter Judy: One of these things is not like the other/One of these things does not belong.

Shortly after my insights on the clinical problems with in vitro fertilization were published…

…in the prestigious and peer-reviewed forum of her own blog, where she offers the following clinical analysis: “While it is a blessing for these couples to have the opportunity to bring children into the world, we wonder if they realize that they are proceeding along a route that is fraught with danger and death.” But some of her readers don’t quite understand how the introduction of a turkey baster turns motherhood into a summer tentpole action film.

Subsequently, we have received a few questions about why American Life League so vehemently opposes in vitro fertilization. Many Americans do not understand Catholic teaching on this question nor do they understand how a couple facing infertility can actually find answers without going down the very costly path of assisted reproductive technology (assisted reproductive technology).

Oh. (Oh.)

In order to clearly understand why assisted reproductive technology is problematic, it is essential to know that the Catholic Church teaches that the child has the right to be “the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception [biological beginning].” Children are not chattel nor are they property.

Okay, but I was conceived naturally, and obviously nobody told my mother about the No-Chattel Rule, so maybe if I hadn’t been Conjugal Love Fruit she wouldn’t have made me go out in the yard every day and pick up dog crap with a trowel.

The desire to give birth to a child is laudable, but when technology gets in the way of God’s plan, it can have devastating consequences on everyone involved. For example, one researcher has documented that the hormones doctors use to stimulate the ovaries can have negative effects on the women to whom they are administered. There may well be additional clinical reports that address the downside of in vitro fertilization as it affects the woman — and subsequently her husband.

There may indeed be additional clincial reports that address more stuff — who knows? There may well be hormones so powerful that simply by being in the same room with you, your husband will begin weeping and watching Lifetime. (In case you don’t want to get out of the boat, the link above leads to a .pdf of a report by the delightfully named Inmaculada de Melo-Martin, who was (in 1998 when her paper was published) an Assistant Professor of Philosophy, St. Mary’s University, the oldest Catholic college in San Antonio, TX. In other words, she’s got unimpeachable hard science credentials which rule out even the whiff of a possibility of bias.)

However, the fundamental question is, what can a couple facing infertility actually do? There are several options available for those who understand the moral and ethical dangers of using in vitro fertilization but still desperately desire to have a child.

By an amazing coincidence, they all involve the advanced scientific breakthroughs of Catholic dogma!

The best option is NaProTechnology. The doctor who mastered this treatment, Thomas Hilgers, M.D., points out, “Most medical approaches today bypass the woman’s problem or simply override her natural processes altogether. With NaPro, we find out why the body isn’t functioning correctly, then apply treatments that work cooperatively with the body.”

Although Dr. Hilgers is competing with IVF providers, he points out that his treatment is much less expensive — because it’s basically just the Rhythm Method in reverse. (Said Dr. Hilgers: “If you have a clogged sink, are you just going to pray about it-or are you going to call a plumber?” He explained that he is not playing God, he’s just being used to bring about God’s plan.) You know, I had surgery once, and I would have felt a lot more comfortable in that operating room if, just before I lost consciousness, the masked man standing over me holding a knife had said, “I am an instrument of the Lord.”

The truth is that practitioners of in vitro fertilization do not work to cure the underlying causes of infertility because they are not motivated to do so.

All they want to do is help you conceive a child and bring him or her to term; they clearly don’t even care about unclogging your sink!

Dr. Hilgers’ studies — and those of others who truly want to help couples overcome their infertility —

– as opposed to doctors working in IVF clinics, who don’t truly want to help, and are only using their patients’ wombs to hide their teeny tiny Easter eggs.

– indicate that “infertility is a symptom of underlying disease.”

Remember girls: if, at any moment, you’re not pregnant, you’re probably sick.

As long as in vitro fertilization and its progeny bring in the big money, there won’t be a huge outpouring of support from the medical community for those who, like Dr. Hilgers, believe in solving problems naturally instead of using technologies that are fraught with danger and disappointment.

But when aspiring parents finally realize that IVF is nothing but a pseudo-scientific boondoggle, they will gladly (and financially) support the research of Dr. Hilgers and his team of menstruation-timing monks, who are on the verge of proving that by inserting a poultice filled with a thermometer, a tiny hourglass, several ground-up rabbit testicles, and the ashes of St. Margaret of Antioch into a woman, they can make her great with child.

If you know someone who is experiencing infertility problems, the very best thing you can do for them is recommend that they contact the Pope Paul VI Institute.

Press “1″ if you are suffering from the disease of nonpregnancy. Press “2″ if you are possessed by Satan. Press “3″ if you are pregnant, but your fetus is possessed by a lesser demon. Press “4″ for Billing.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 33 Comments »

Remember the Post-Abortive Men? Back in 2008 they were featured on the front page of the LA Times, and for those who may have missed it, PAM is both a non-stick cooking spray and a recovery movement for sperm distributors who claim to have been robbed of their inadvertent patriarchy by Planned Parenthood. It involves a lot of activism and role play, such as naming their imaginary children, scheduling playdates in Ramada Inn ballrooms with other ghost dads, and issuing press releases in which the PAMs threaten to sob until abortion is sent back to the alleys and basements where it belongs.

When men are widely recognized as victims [of abortion], Rue said, “that will change society.”

But the activists leading the men’s movement make clear they’re not relying on statistics to make their case. They’re counting on the power of men’s tears.

As you may recall, the Times‘ cover boy was Jason Baier, who now runs the Fatherhood Forever Foundation, and is also a Man from M.A.N. (Men and Abortion Network), which is a super-secret anti-abortion organization that is accessed through Del Floria’s Tailor Shop.

Well the agents of S.P.O.O.G.E. returned just in time for Father’s Day, or as I like to call it, A Bad Day To Go To Claim Jumper. This time, the man who had his fatherhood filched was Jerry DeBin, who “served 17 years for the State of Alabama in senior leadership roles and liaised with the Governor.” Presumably, “liaising with the Governor” is like “hiking the Appalachian Trail,” except you don’t use protection, and then the Governor has an abortion behind your back and you wind up with an empty photo-cube on your desk at the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. But Jerry’s co-author comes with a much more detailed and distinguished pedigree:

“Author’s note: This piece is co-authored by Jeanne Monahan.”

Jeanne Monahan is the Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. She researches, writes and speaks on the culture of life, with a focus on the sanctity of human personhood from conception until natural death. Prior to FRC, Jeanne worked for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Office of the Secretary. Her federal government experience includes global health policy, as well as domestic and international health care issues.

I’m going out on a limb and guessing this means “working to defund family planning organizations in the the Third World who acknowledge the existence of abortion.”

Before working in public policy, Jeanne worked for the Catholic Church

Quelle surprise.

…in a variety of positions involving educating on life issues, human sexuality, marriage and family. Jeanne has an undergraduate degree in psychology from James Madison University and a Masters degree in the theology of marriage and family from the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

The Pope John Paul II Institute also has a very highly regarded Marine Life Studies program, in which they teach fish how to swim and breath water.

A Woman’s “Choice” That Affects Men: Post-Abortion Trauma

This Father’s Day will be a celebration for dads all over the country, an opportunity for children to thank and honor their fathers. Yet for many men, the memory of involvement in a past abortion, of “cards they will not receive,” will be painful and palpable.

“I didn’t want to marry your mother, or help her raise a child, but I did want to force her to carry one to term in order to increase my annual greeting card yield.”

Granted, Hallmark hasn’t gone out of their way to meet the demand for holiday mementos from spectral zygotes (I’m thinking something simple, but sincere, like “World’s Greatest Condom Forgetter”) but Fantom Fathers Forever has stepped up and offered their own line of e-greeting cards (which will be available on their site as soon as they can figure out the complicated HTML).

Seasonal Abortion Greetings from the “That Bitch!” Collection.

In a debate where the primary focus is a woman’s body and a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a child to his or her delivery, the “other partner,” the father of the baby, is rarely given consideration, and is often completely disregarded altogether. The question of abortion is myopically women-centric.

Exactly. And this is a shocking and unforgivable miscarriage of justice, especially when one considers that since 1973, there has not been a single verified case of a man choosing to terminate his pregnancy — even to save his own life — so really, who has the moral high ground here? Maybe it’s about time America put on its bifocals and looked at the question of abortion in a slightly more dick-centric way.

Abortion advocates often mock pro-life men. Men are told they shouldn’t speak out because they can never become pregnant. Yet, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that two women cannot a baby make.

Therefore, in the case of such a tie, only one of the women will be allowed to have the abortion and advance to the evening gown competition. (As a side note, even though a man and a woman joined together to create this article, it seem they cannot an argument make.)

Less acknowledged is the fact that this decision deeply impacts the dad, too.

Suppose a man deposited money in the bank, expecting that it would accumulate interest and grow, and instead that bank just decided to purge his account? Would any customer stand for that? Of course not, and we need to start holding women to the implied contract they sign when they accept a deposit from a man’s testicles, or else report them to the Sperm and Exchange Commission.

This year three Father’s Day cards will stand prominently on Jerry’s kitchen countertop, telling the wonderful story of the lives of his three grown children. But there is an empty space next to the cards which tells another story that continues to grieve Jerry and his wife, Dayna. Over thirty years ago, Jerry and his then high school sweetheart, Dayna, chose to abort two of their children.

Too bad they don’t have access to a time machine. Of course, going back and deciding to have those two children (twins? Two separate pregnancies?) in high school would radically change their lives, causing chrono-ripples and time-space paradoxes, so when they returned to the present they might find they were divorced, never married, and/or their three, grown children were never born, so they’re still short a few cards on the mantle. Of course, this would necessitate another trip back, with Jerry making sure to spread his seed on the nights his present children were conceived — but then Past Jerry would walk in, see Future Jerry copulating with his wife, and shoot him in a jealous rage, or maybe grab him by the throat, starting a chain-reaction like Ron Silver in Time Cop and turning them both into explosive goo.

And no child is going to send a card to goo. So again — bare mantle!

Jerry deeply empathizes with any man who has taken the life of another human and lives daily with that burden and emotional trauma. The negative psychological impact of abortion on women has been well publicized, but less so have been the effects of abortion on men.

There are two primary vectors for PTSD: doing a tour of duty in Falluja, or driving your girlfriend to the Free Clinic.

In researching the topic, we found a variety of books, websites and support groups dedicated to male post-abortion trauma, as well as a number of studies on the issue. One study reported that 82 percent of male parents of a recently aborted baby (ranging from two days to 37 months) experienced depression.

Of course, late term abortions can be medically necessary, but terminating a 37-month old pregnancy just seems a bit callous.

Another study found that men experienced anxiety, helplessness, guilt, and a dual sense of responsibility and regret during an abortion.

Which is often why you’ll see men weeping and pounding on the walls of the waiting room, although sometimes they’re just trying to dislodge a package of Nutter Butters stuck in the vending machine.

According to Guy Condon and David Hazard, authors of Fatherhood Aborted: The Profound Effects of Abortion on Men, post-abortive men suffer from a whole host of problems, including relationship struggles, inability to trust friends, rage, addictions and sexual compulsions, sleeplessness, bad dreams, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, depression, fear of failure, fear of rejection, and loneliness.

I’ve experienced a lot of those conditions myself, but I never knew they were signs of being a Post-Abortive Man — I thought they were just symptoms of living in America during the previous Administration. Now I realize — and am only just beginning to wrap my head around the implications — that Dick Cheney aborted our child.

Having found hope in their grief and regret, [Jerry and Dayna] deeply wanted others to avoid making these same mistakes. They felt the best way they could do so would be to support young people facing similar tough decisions, and decided to start a pregnancy resource center in Prattville, Ala.

Quelle friggin’ surprise.

Jerry and Dayna helped to start Grace Place to share truth about abortion

It’s tearing the heart out of America, and American Greetings®.

An estimated 50 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. For each of those 50 million babies, there is a father.

Some men take the responsibilities of raising a phantom blastocyte seriously, and work hard to emulate their own fathers. But a word of warning: while you may consider it “just a friendly game of catch with my boy,” to the passerby it more closely resembles, “heaving a baseball at a woman’s abdomen.”

Even adjusting those numbers to allow for men who father more than one aborted child, the count of post-abortion men in America is easily 30 million. This Father’s Day let us honestly engage men in the conversation about abortion and its impacts on everyone involved. There remain significant, long-term consequences of Father’s Day cards that will not come this week … all across America.

We must ask ourselves if a woman’s right to control her own body is worth the grief and loneliness suffered by the millions of men who do not receive enough mail.

UPDATE: Amanda has provided some additional greeting card options for the holiday shopper.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 73 Comments »

Apparently, two K-Lo posts in a two week period is just too much, causing Wo’C reader Fred Burfle to relive the climax of The Wicker Man, and that scene from The Dunwich Horror where Al from Quantum Leap dresses up in a dashiki and tries to ritually sacrifice Gidget.

So I’ve got a fresh new wingnut for you kids today — still in the original packaging. It’s Bruce Walker! (Please, hold your applause til the end. Thank you.) According to his various bios, “Bruce Walker is an author of more than one thousand online articles,” which have appeared in “American Thinker, WorldNetDaily, FrontPage, the Washington Times and many other online periodicals.” Additionally, Mr. Walker has written two books, one of which is apparently the Necronomicon:

Bruce’s bio continues, “his first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, has been ranked among the most essential books of our times.” I know I haven’t been able to get along without it, ever since the right front leg of the couch broke off. But aside from me and my cheap IKEA furniture, who else has ranked it? Well, it’s been “rated by professional reviewers from three continents as among the essential books for our time.”

In a strange coincidence, Bruce’s book has been reviewed by three different people on Amazon, presumably each from a different continent. One reader remarks that “[t]here is no index and I would have expected a correction of all the typos and spelling errors in the first edition. Not so. For example, Leni Riefenstahl is spelt correctly once but thereafter the Nazi filmmaker and photographer is called Lili Riesenthal.” Another states, “[w]ith a wealth of documentation, Bruce Walker reveals the shocking truth that there is no such thing as right wing extremism.” And the third pays perhaps the highest compliment, declaring “This author has performed an excellent service, as has Jonah Goldberg.”

So get yours today!

Mr. Walker has also written The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, the thesis of which seems to be that the real target of the Final Solution was Christianity, and the Jews were just collateral damage. Alas, professional reviewers don’t seem to have gotten to this tome yet, but it’s inspired critiques by four different users on Amazon (no word yet on their continental distribution), one of whom rhapsodizes, “This is a short book (95 pages, 5 of which are Bibliography).”

Bruce has now reached the Scheherazadian score of 1001 online articles, with this week’s contribution to American Thinker, which puts Feminism in historical perspective, and Feminists back in the scullery where they belong:

The New Cleaning Ladies of Leftism

Forty years ago, American society (or at least those parts of it owned by the leftist establishment) was aflutter with feminism.

It was one of those crazy 70s fads, like pukka shell necklaces on men, Pet Rocks, mood rings, and those transistor radios that looked like the Pods from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The Moral Equivalent of Feminism. (Except you could also use it to listen to ball games, or Blues Image doing “Ride Captain Ride.”)

This was the newest incarnation of the flower of leftism.

True, the word “feminism” had been around since at least the turn of the century, but 1970 was the first year the ladies were actually able to make it flutter.

Colleges rushed to include courses in “Women’s Studies,” oblivious to the fact that “Aryan Studies” in German colleges represented the nadir in human scholarship and that the stark “Women Good, Men Bad” animus of this pseudo-academic adventure smells just like something the National Socialist Student Association would have cooked up.

At a time when women were entering universities and the workforce in record numbers, some people felt there was room for a course or two emphasizing their contributions to society, especially as they’d previously been given rather short shrift in the history books. But in retrospect, it’s obvious the girls were just trying to do to men what the Nazis did to Christians — crush them beneath the boot of the Master Sex, round them up into death camps, and send their remains to the Easy Bake Ovens.

Men were dumbfounded to discover that they had been “oppressors” —

As shocking twists go, it rivals the later works of M. Night Shyamalan.

– that they had forced wives to stay home while they savored the sweet joys of rush-hour traffic and heart-attack jobs

This reminds me of that piece by Matt Patterson, in which he revealed that “feminism” was actually designed by men, who realized that fooling women into becoming well-educated and financially self-sufficient would naturally incline them to give “easy mating access” to smirking bachelors.

Sex differentiation in species close to Homo sapiens very closely mirrors those sexual roles which have independently evolved in wholly separate cultures for thousands of years. This surprising fact — that men and women are inherently different and complementary — never surprised conservatives, and to their great credit, conservative women emphatically rejected the notion that the apparatus of leftist inquisitions were needed to protect them from the dark hearts of wicked men.

Look at the example of Phyllis Schlafly. Although she’s spent her life in the public sphere as a writer, constitutional attorney, and conservative political activist, at home her behavior is so closely modeled on the Rwandan Mountain Gorilla that Dian Fossey rented the house next door to the Schlaflys just so she could spy on Phillis while she was mowing the lawn.

Something else happened, too. The tired, nagging voice of leftist feminism showed its dirty petticoats the first time that questioning ideological orthodoxy demanded decency.

I don’t mind a voice — even a nagging one — wearing an underskirt, especially for a dance or special occasion, but if you don’t keep them clean they can really make your throat scratchy.

Bill Clinton — if we are to believe the impassioned and credible tales of multiple women — did not just have affairs. He intimidated women. He sent goons to stalk them. He took advantage of women at their weakest. And, very probably, Clinton savagely raped Juanita Broaddrick. The New Cleaning Ladies, the aging ward heelers of stale feminism, came in and mopped up all the evidence, showing credentials which confirmed them as semi-officially sanctioned representatives of women everywhere.

The Cleaning Lady Cops (who were, ironically, dirty cops) flashed their badges as they brusquely took over the crime scene and tampered with the evidence, but fortunately, their staleness was later detected by the forensic specialists of CSI: Patriarchy, who noticed that the feminism didn’t feel fresh.

When George W. Bush launched campaigns in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the strategic prudence of his crusade was the subject of fair review. The impact of these campaigns on women, however, was clear: Whoever else may have been liberated, women were magnificently liberated.

As long as we’re putting things in historical perspective, Iraq under Saddam was a secular society and women enjoyed perhaps the greatest degree of social equality in the region. Since the U.S. invasion, many women have suffered a serious and widespread erosion of their rights, and a shocking increase in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and sectarian homicides, but in a really magnificient way.

The misogyny of Islam is a very old story, and radical Islam treats women worse than other versions. The explosion of crimes like honor killings in America and other parts of the West is ignored by the New Cleaning Ladies of old femi-leftistm.

Jonah Goldberg proved with Liberal Fascism that coining a paradoxical neologism for your ideological enemies is the shortest route to a Fox News appearance; and while Bruce will be the first to admit he was disappointed by the performance of the word “Sinisterism,” he really thinks he’s sitting on a gold mine with “femi-leftism.” It just rolls right off the tongue and drips straight into your shoes.

The nuttiest slanders of the Christian or the Jewish attitude toward women can be blown into a shrill shriek of horror by these old hags, but show them a girl subjected to “female circumcision” by enemies of America and its liberties, and the crones yawn.

Sure, Alice Walker published a book decrying the practice a decade before the Iraq war, but it took George W. Bush to actually stop the practice of female genital mutilation by dropping cluster bombs on civilians, because sometimes you’ve got to destroy the woman to save the clitoris.

But “the times, they are a-changing.” Now the scalpel of conservative writing cuts deeper than does just the pen of Ann Coulter.

Who, judging by the previous paragraph, is apparently now using her pen to perform female circumcisions?

She is not just brilliant, but beautiful and bold. Ann movingly wrote loving tributes to the memories of her mother and of her father, both of whom she clearly admired and adored. She was but one of the army of principled pens guided by female hands.

With Ann, the pen works on the same principle as the pointer on a Ouija board.

Sarah Palin, quite literally a beauty queen, stood up as perhaps the bravest braveheart in the conservative movement.

Because Palin also, apparently, likes to moon her enemies, and thinks the Jews started the Schmalkaldic Wars.

These are women who need no crutch of nebulous patriarchy to earn a place at the table of public debate. These women love and trust men as well as women.

Well that was their first mistake!

They trust in the goodness of Judeo-Christian traditions

Such as multiple wives, the “rule of thumb,” and obtaining divorce by transubstantiation into a pillar of salt.

and they worship God as common children, like all mankind, of His creation. Their cheerful, saucy, direct, and polemical assaults on leftism will force counterattacks — indeed, those counter-attacks have already begun. And because the left is, at essence, simply vile, the attacks on Sarah and Ann have been vile.

Yes, how dare the left counterattack after being assaulted. Especially when it was such a saucy assault!

In the corner, with the mop and bucket, stare the old ladies of femi-leftism, knowing their place, biting their tongues as their masters mock each element of womanhood which these conservatives possess.

I’m lost. Who are the masters of femi-leftism, and why aren’t the femi-leftists in charge of femi-leftism?

So Sarah has a special needs child? Men heap cruel mockery, and their female servants sit by.

Because Gloria Steinem didn’t arrest Bill Clinton for rape, men are now free to make fun of Down’s Syndrome.

So a male blogger has invented an affair with Nikki Haley? Well, the New Cleaning Ladies of leftism don’t think all men are bad.

Yeah, well you’re not exactly burnishing our escutcheon, Bruce.

Even the tiniest tweaks they make now, like about when Obama shoved aside Hillary and then gave her an empty job

Exactly. Secretary of State? Oh whoop-de-doo, he made her a secretary. She’s practically Peggy from Season 1 of Mad Men, except not even Pete Campbell wants to bone her in his office.

While the New Cleaning Ladies of leftism watch, real women, like Ann and Sarah and Nikki…will lovingly guide America to a happier future.

Yes. Real women like…Ann Coulter. Who, in keeping with a more modern, less Cleaning Ladylike feminism, wants to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

A little further along in his bio, Bruce reveals that he’s “married and the father of four children.” The odds are against it, but I’m going to hold onto the admittedly naive hope that none of them are girls.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 37 Comments »

National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez is usually found mooning over dreamy, but married men such as Mitt (shoulders you can land a 747 on) Romney, and George W. (choked on a pretzel) Bush (or, when she really wants a challenge, confirmed bachelors like Pope Benedict), while telling other women to start having babies and stop having sex. But in her Townhall column this week, Ko-Lo blazes a trail through new and unexplored wastelands of rejection with a fawning, seductive tribute to Sarah Palin, in an apparent effort to stir up some hot prude-on-gal action.

Palin, History and Life

When Sarah Palin speaks, liberal feminists go wild.

Really? I ask because recently I had drinks with several women who could be described as “liberal feminists,” and when Sarah Palin appeared on the television, and not a single one of them drizzled beer on her t-shirt, whipped her bra over her head like a lariat, or danced on the table, with or without underwear. Next time I should probably turn the sound up a little more.

The woman is like a stilettoed catalyst for backlash from the professional political sisterhood.

The simile is like a Mason jar for backwash from a woman who likes to rinse and spit.

Much of the bitterness that gushes forth from the lefty ladies has very little to do with Palin herself.

As seen in the latest release from National Review’s line of Porn for Conservatives: Socialist Squirters #4: Lefty Ladies Lugubriously Lap Laissez Faire Lubrication.

It’s about many of the things she represents:

Greed, rank opportunism, and a non-stick-to-itiveness that suggests she sprays on Pam as a sunblock.

She’s a happy mom, surrounded by a big family and husband; she’s pro-life, religious and conservative; and, lest we forget, a political powerhouse the likes of which has not been seen for decades.

You’d have to reach all the way back to Lonesome Rhodes. So let’s tally up her powerful political achievements: she was trounced in her one national campaign, and quit halfway through her term as governor of a remote, sparsely populated state. But her time as pageant royalty technically counts as executive experience under a constitutional monarchy, so if you throw that in, then she’s about ready for her diamond jubilee.

Palin talked about “a new revival of that original feminism of Susan B. Anthony.” She said, “Together, we’re showing young women that being pro-life is in keeping with the best traditions of the women’s movement.”

The tradition of spending decades struggling for a basic and hard-won right, so that subsequent generations of women can spend more decades chiseling away at it.

Palin talked about “empowering women,” and in her worldview that translates into making sure women know that they have options when they are pregnant in “less-than-ideal circumstances.”

Those options include “having the baby” and “having the baby,” unless the pregnancy threatens your life, in which case you have the option of “getting a nun excommunicated.”

In the rhetoric and reality of the liberal feminist movement from which a comment like that is born, freedom doesn’t extend to the unborn child. Increasingly, Americans are not tolerating this. In the tradition of the suffragettes, women, increasingly, will have none of it.

Well, they’ll have abortions, but they’ll pay for them with Susan B. Anthony dollar coins, which will heroically slow things down at check out, and make it a real pain in the ass for whoever has to go to the bank on Friday.

And so I understand why women of the left react early and often to Palin. It’s not about her, it’s about the threat to their power she represents. They’ve based so much of their political activism on the tenets of the sexual revolution, which have been such a disaster for women, men, children, and families.

Yeah, I love getting advice on my driving from someone who decided to ride in the trunk.

But the jig is up. It didn’t fly with the likes of Anthony and Stanton. And it’s increasingly not flying now. It’s not the pro-lifers who went rogue in the first place.

I thought going rogue was a good thing, something worth paying stylists, branding consultants and ghostwriters a lot of (your publisher’s) money. But then I read the asterisked disclaimer:

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 23 Comments »

The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Pill has inspired a lot of wingnuts to spill a lot of electrons bemoaning the fetal famine of the last half century. But it’s also — refreshingly — caused many of them to drop all pretense that the pro-life movement is concerned with anything other than slut-shaming. Today, it’s World Net Daily columnist Patrice Lewis, a teabaggery matron who lives on a farm in Real America (the title of her column) and likes to dig down deep into the fertile loam of her homestead for metaphors and rich clods of yeomany wisdom. Now just to set the record straight, I have nothing against the agrarian lifestyle — for most of our history it was the backbone of the American economy, and my own family were all farmers until I came along to spoil it — so if Ma Ingalls here wants to blame the birth control pill because her cow got itself knocked up, well then, who am I to tell her she’s flipped her bonnet? Still…

The following post contains graphic scenes of bovine lust. Parental discretion is advised.

Keep your pants on, America!

One of our cows was in heat and we didn’t want the bull to breed her because we didn’t want a calf born in the middle of winter. But bulls, as everyone knows, are notoriously single-minded when it comes to hormones.

In the end, the bull won and the cow got bred. This is animal nature, folks, and sometimes you can’t do anything to stop it.

But I like to think humans are above animals in that respect. Sure, we have hormones just like cattle. But unlike animals, humans have the ability to think and reason. This allows us to control our urges and do what is best for ourselves and for society

Unless you’re taking the birth control pill, which makes women rut like cattle.

Right now feminists are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Pill, lauding its effects and congratulating society for allowing women to act like rutting cattle. See how far we’ve advanced in the past half-century?

So if you’re a woman and you enjoy sex, you will act like rutting cattle; but if you’re a woman who enjoys sex, and you’re on the Pill, then you will act like rutting cattle who are too selfish to have calves because they’re busy being bitches and breaking through the glass ceiling at the dairy.

Recently, a friend in Oregon was driving with her three homeschooled teenagers when they passed a billboard depicting a smiling, wholesome-looking young woman. “Take Care of Yourself!” announced the billboard (sponsored by – surprise – Planned Parenthood). “Free Birth Control!”

Outraged, my friend and her kids started bandying counter-slogans and came up with this: “Keep Your Pants On, America!” I think it’s brilliant.

Absolutely! But then, advertising men have known since the dawn of carnival barkers that nothing appeals to the consumer like a prim and purse-lipped disapproval of sex. On the other hand, it’s no “We keep you clean in Muscatine,” or “I Like Dick.”

(via Franklin Avenue)

Just think of the implications if America kept its pants on. If women kept their bloomers buttoned. If men kept their wick zipped.

If men kept their stockings gartered. If women kept their bustles unrustled. If men kept their trousers hiked up with both a belt and suspenders. If women kept their corsets laced and men kept handlebars waxed and their dickys starched. (However, I find that zippered wicks conduct too much heat, so I prefer button-fly candles.)

But no, instead we got the Pill, lauded by feminists the world over for allowing us to rut like cattle.

So if you ever hear your neighbor mooing, you know she’s on the Pill. Or she’s Pasiphaë gettin’ busy with the Cretan bull.

“For the first time in human history,” says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine, “a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. Critics warned that the Pill would spawn generations of loose, immoral women; what it spawned was generations of empowered women who are better equipped to make rational choices about their lives.”

Empowered, that’s it. Women acting like rutting cattle are empowered.

…with the Power of Cow!

Proponents of the Pill point out the ability for couples to plan their families rather than having more kids than they can support. While the Pill has undoubtedly been used for this, it’s pretty obvious the majority of women who take it aren’t planning families with their husbands. They’re single women enjoying the freedom to rut like cattle with no side effects.

Well, I wouldn’t say no side effects. I’ve known women who’ve gotten migraines from the Pill, or experienced weight gain. And of course, since pilled-up cowgirls always insist on rutting in an open pasture in order to keep it real, there’s also the danger of windburn, or bee stings, or worst of all, winding up in a series of blurry, telephoto paparazzo pix in the gossip segment on Modern Farmer.

And if there should be a “side effect,” then Planned “Parenthood” (what a laughable name) stands in the wings waiting to “liberate” them. Gosh, I feel empowered.

Look, I understand that in many cases abortion can be be a difficult choice, but if you bring the pregnancy to term and give birth to a Minotaur, your husband’s going to know you’ve been rutting.

Economic historian Claudia Goldin says, “The Pill was a great ‘enabler.’ With the Pill, large numbers of college women could embark on careers that involved long-term, up-front time commitments in education and training as physicians, lawyers, veterinarians, managers and academics, among others. The Pill fostered women’s careers by effectively lowering the costs of training.”

Well, for Pete’s sake, it’s the easiest thing in the world to obtain all the education and career advancements you want. You simply keep your pants on.

Although you might want to invest in a crotchless pantsuit.

But this isn’t good enough for “liberated” women. Somehow they’ve concluded that mindless rutting is empowering.

I think someone’s jealous of their cow.

No less a person than sex icon Raquel Welch,

What does that mean? Is she more of a person than most people? Says who? You ask me, she’s only half the person Chang and Eng were.

who was in a unique position during the ’60s and ’70s to see the true effects of the Pill’s benefits

She was one of the few fur bikini-wearing movie sex symbols who also moonlighted as a board certified gynecologist.

…admits its failures. She said a “significant and enduring” effect on women was the idea that they could have sex without any consequences – with the result that fewer today saw marriage as a “viable option.”

After all this time, I’m not really surprised by the number of wingnut women who believe that every sex act must have “consequences,” but I’m a little dismayed at how comfortable they seem sharing the same moral universe as the axe-wielding serial killer from a mid-80s slasher film.

She adds, “Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad.”

Your career? I wouldn’t worry; your revisionist history text seems to be making quite the splash with its target audience.

Feminists who applaud the Pill forget that multiple sexual partners and responsibility-free rutting causes mental, emotional and spiritual pain to women.

Crouching inside a wooden cow effigy — even a nice one made by Daedalus and upholstered in rich Corinthian leather — just so you can get nailed by an albino bull is bound to gnaw at a girl’s self-esteem. Or at least cause lower back pain.

We are no longer held up as something pure and beautiful through our maiden years. We lost our dignity and nobility. Courtship and vows went by the wayside. We’ve been reduced to the sum of our body parts, with our favors offered freely to uncommitted men for their use. Feeling empowered yet?

Once you’ve rutted, nobody’s going to want to fit you for a glass slipper, lock you in a tower, or put vegetables under your mattress. And you can just forget about French kissing an amphibian, or sharing costs by rooming with beasts or dwarves.

My friend who created the “Keep Your Pants On” slogan notes, “The business of promoting ‘safe sex’ to kids is clearly promoting kids having sex. This isn’t just moral decay, this is planned market development and sales. Start ‘em young, groom ‘em right, and you have a forever ready cash crop of 20-somethings who will keep forking over cash.” Hard to argue with that, since Planned “Parenthood” blatantly encourages teens to have sex, then offers “solutions” when girls become “victims” of unplanned pregnancies.

Except sex education and the Pill are designed to prevent pregnancies, so who’s making all this money off the hump-happy twentysomethings? Pfizer? Trojan? To whom are they forking over cash for the privilege of porking? Or are the rutting women modeling themselves on cow prostitutes, and charging the bulls for a roll in the hay?

I’ve seen the argument that sex is a natural part of human nature

Ha! As if!

…and to deny our urges is stupid and old-fashioned. “Why is sex made to be this big, sacred thing?” asks an Irish reader commenting on Welch’s article. “It’s completely natural, and if people want to sleep around that’s their business. Also, blaming the Pill is stupid. People had sex before contraception was invented, and what has it got to do with marriage anyway?”

Sure, go ahead and rut like an animal, sweetie. I hope it makes you feel empowered.

I’m a dazzling urbanite, so forgive my ignorance, but is “empowered” a rustic euphemism for “satisfied,” “spent,” or “less tense”?

Are feminists telling me they can’t control themselves?

I think they’re telling you they want to get laid this weekend, and are adult enough to do so without risking an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

That, like our cow in heat, they are mindlessly controlled by hormones? That they are incapable of keeping their pants on and therefore need artificial methods to allow them to advance their careers between sessions of mindless rutting? This is empowerment?

Actually Patrice, I think “this” is an unhealthy obsession with beastiality.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I always thought humans were something special.

Really? I take it you’ve never read World Net Daily.

We have taken our large brains and created amazingly good and amazingly bad things. No other species on the planet is capable of impacting his world as much as humans.

Not that Patrice meant to accidentally endorse the theory of anthropogenic climate change. She just meant that we have been endowed with huge brains capable of creating planet-affecting pants.

To rise to such heights, we’ve learned to control our instincts by our logical behavior. If our instincts tell us to mate, our behavior guides the instinct into appropriate channels. Ergo, if you want to mate, then do so within a safe and appropriate context (marriage) which will maximize the benefits to offspring and society.

So in your farmhouse, sex is strictly procreational, never recreational? How’s your husband feel about that, Patrice? And why’s your sheep languidly smoking a cigarette?

Because of our cow’s ill-timed heat cycle, we will be giving her a shot of Lutalyse (an abortant) so she won’t have her calf in the middle of a bitterly cold north Idaho winter. Bingo, problem solved.

But is this really how you want to “solve” the problem of your teenage daughter’s ill-timed pregnancy? A quick trip to Planned Parenthood and bingo, an abortion? Have we really “advanced” this much?

It does seem primitive. In a truly advanced society, you’d be able to get an abortifacient delivered right to your home, like milk, or a strip-o-gram.

I suppose 50 years of the Pill has done some good. It’s shown us that returning to the roots of our morality isn’t such a bad thing. It’s demonstrated that sinking into the depths of hedonism doesn’t bring lifelong peace and joy.

C’mon, folks, don’t let a bunch of cows show us up. Keep your pants on, America.

Yeah, folks! Listen to the animal sex-watching cow-abortionist!

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 53 Comments »

(A cordial welcome to all the folks arriving via stumbleupon and pewsitter.com. Update below.)

On May 9, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid, the first oral contraceptive, which means that yesterday The Pill turned 50. Now ordinarily we don’t do birthday posts for pharmaceuticals, but there are a couple good reasons for making an exception in this case. First, half a century is a major milestone, and means The Pill will now have to get regular prostate exams, which is unfair or ironic, I’m not sure which. Second, it’s driving all the Papist Anti-Pillers into a frenzy of frustrated fertility.

Matt C. Abbott is “a Catholic columnist,” who writes in the tradition of Desiderius Erasmus and Henry of Ghent, bringing a scholarly and classical perspective to complex theological issues by drawing upon his “Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication, Media and Theatre from Northeastern Illinois University.” But while Brother Abbott is firmly grounded in the Humanities, he also brings a rigorous epistemological approach to ontology, in the manner of William of Ockham, by virtue of an “Associate in Applied Science degree in Business Management from Triton College in River Grove, Ill.” which means that he took a junior college night course and totally knows how to work a cash register and one of those laser things that scans bar codes.

I’ve never bothered with Matt in the past because his writing usually consist of long excerpts of someone else’s writing — emails from cranky retired priests that are too long to print in the South Bend Tribune letters to the editor column, for instance — so he’s kind of hard to mock. But this week, perhaps inspired by the Golden Jubilee of the Zygote Holocaust, he offered up a title I just had to share with you:

Has ‘the pill’ caused drive-by shootings?

Judging by the laudatory articles on the birth control pill popping up all over the Web in recent days, one might conclude that the pill was in fact the greatest invention since sliced multigrain bread.

Why did Matt feel the need to update the classic cliché, “the greatest invention since sliced bread?” Because The Pill is taken by Feminists, who are into that crunchy, Birkenstocky granola stuff, and by adding the word “multigrain,” he signals that he is playing a deep and subtle game here. However, he sort of peaks in the first paragraph, since the rest of the column is, as usual, just stuff he lifted from other people, including a prominent contributor to neo-nazi periodicals (Matt, to his credit, admits the guy is “controversial”).

This week Brother Abbott starts off with a snippet from a Washington Post piece by feminist historian Elaine Tyler May, who wrote, unsurprisingly, about the history of The Pill and how it remade motherhood for the better, then he segues into a bit of guilt by association (“May’s fondness for the pill — actually, she seems fonder of the morally bankrupt Margaret Sanger than of the pill itself”) before bringing in someone else to refute her. In this case, it’s “Chicagoan Eleanore Veronika Strong,” who doesn’t appear to be a historian, or to have done much to impress Google, but we’re six paragraphs in and Matt really needed someone to spell him at the keyboard:

“It always strikes me as ironic when self-proclaimed feminists like Elaine Tyler May…”

A lady always waits for a gentleman to open a door, pull out her chair, call her for a date, or proclaim her a feminist. Remember girls, if you’re a serious advocate for sexual equality, you’ll play by The Rules.

“Moreover, why would she further enable such a man’s behavior by ingesting hormones to suppress her body’s natural functioning so that she can be sexually available to him with no investment or responsibility required on his part?”

Strong says that “women are most liberated when they set boundaries that encourage men to accept and respect them exactly as they are.”

The Equal Rights Amendment would have passed back in the 70s and women would have spent the last few decades enjoying equal pay and opportunities for professional advancement if they’d just insisted on risking pregnancy every time they had sex. If you ain’t fertile, you aren’t liberated.

She also advocates the use of natural family planning for married couples, which the Church approves.

Along with exorcism.

“If a couple has discerned that they have a serious reason to avoid conception, periodic abstinence during the woman’s fertile periods is a beautiful way for a man to demonstrate restraint, maturity, and ultimately love for his partner.”

Stock up on plenty of porn and Kleenex to increase the beauty.

Wow, Matt wrote a whole sentence of that last paragraph, he must be exhausted. Who can he quote next? Ah, it’s Dawn Eden, authoress of The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On. From Publishers Weekly:

Eden herself is a convert to both Christianity and chastity, and now an unmarried 30-something, she’s persuaded that chastity is more “hope-filled” and “vibrant” than sex outside of marriage. She draws on John Paul II’s theology of the body to explain why Christians should reserve sex for marriage; “our bodies are living metaphors of God’s loving nature,” she argues, and to have sex casually is to make a false promise of total commitment. Eden doesn’t just theologize—she gives practical advice about…masturbation (avoid it—you’ll just feel lonely afterward).

When you’re telling women not to masturbate, should you really use the word “vibrant?” Seems like you’re kind of undermining your own presentation. (As we’ve mentioned here before, Dawn is working on a follow-up book for gals who want to use their new found virginity as a selling point in landing Mr. Right, entitled Hi Men! I’ve Got a Hymen!) Anyway, Dawn steps onto the rubber and pitches a quick couple of relief paragraphs:

If the pill made motherhood ‘better,’ then one would expect that mothers would be happier now than they were in 1972, before the birth rate fell dramatically as contraception use expanded. Instead, as a recent report by researchers at the Wharton School of Business shows, between 1972 and 2006, the happiness of U.S. mothers fell just as dramatically.

Speaking from my own experience, I have to to admit that Dawn makes a good point. My mother was definitely much happier in 1972, in large part because she was stoned on Valium. But 1972 is an interesting date to pick, since that’s the year Eisenstadt v. Baird was decided by the United States Supreme Court, giving single women the same access to The Pill that married women had enjoyed since Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. That might explain the increase in contraception use. In any case, while measuring the happiness of mothers, we should probably factor in the happiness of women who were now no longer forced to become mothers (along with middle class wage stagnation, the decline of American manufacturing, the rise in divorce rates and a bunch of other social issues that weren’t caused by oral contraception, but still might affect maternal happiness.)

“Clearly, from the point of view of general trends, the pill’s enabling women to have fewer children does not make for ‘better’ motherhood, if ‘better’ means happier. Nor can it be said to make for better mothers from the child’s point of view, since using contraception makes it easier for women to commit adultery.

And unregulated fertility makes it easier for women to die from complications of childbirth. So what’s it gonna be, kid? Your mom can be Madame Bovary, or a corpse. Take your pick…

In fact, [May] shows no visible concern for children’s well-being at all — which isn’t surprising, given what she’s pushing. By encouraging a culture of radical individualism that treats children as accessories, the pill has created a generation of ‘wire monkey’ mothers.”

Some kids prefer that:

But enough of these women and their opinions. What do neo-nazi men think about The Pill? Matt?

Finally, author E. Michael Jones (yes, I know he has some controversial writings on other subjects) has an interesting take on contraception and its effects on American society:

Interesting is scarcely the word. Personally, I think Dr.. Jones is by far the most quotable of the day laborers Matt hires out of the Home Depot parking lot to mow, mulch, and fertilize his column. But first, let’s do a cursory bit of due diligence on those “controversial writings” — fortunately, Dr. Jones is much more popular with Google than Mrs. Strong.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that he “founded Fidelity magazine after being fired as a professor at South Bend’s Catholic women’s college, St. Mary’s” in 1981.

In 1996, Jones changed the name of his magazine to Culture Wars, and he has increasingly focused on the alleged evils of the Jews…that “Jewish media elites” run the country, that Jews are “major players” in pornography, and that Jews are behind Masonry and the French Revolution…He also accuses Jews of poisoning society with thinkers such as Karl Marx (a devotee of Satan, says Jones) and Sigmund Freud (who set off an epidemic of sexual sin, he says). And he describes the World War II Nazi genocide of the Jews as “a reaction to Jewish Messianism (in the form of Bolshevism).” Last April…Jones charged that anyone who went to a mainstream university would emerge “with a Jewish world view … and maybe a Jewish spouse.” Jones, who has written nine books and hundreds of articles, regularly cites extremist sources, especially the American Free Press run by veteran anti-Semite Willis Carto.

Dr. Jones has also contributed to The Barnes Review, which is published by the aforementioned Holocaust denier, Willis Carto. But these writings were all on “other subjects.” I’m sure he has something completely sensible to say about oral contraception.

The last time I spoke here, I talked about how contraceptives caused drive-by shootings

You know how sometimes you’ll be walking through a restaurant, or a store, and you’ll catch a fragment of conversation (“…But she wouldn’t wear the sponges, and I told her, monkeys are wrinkled!”) that’s so perfectly incoherent you hope you never learn the context? I almost don’t want to read on and spoil it.

…how over the summer of 1965, the regime decided that the contraceptive, not providing jobs for black fathers, was to be the solution to this country’s welfare problem and how as a result of this sort of ideological gasoline poured on a social fire, black illegitimacy soared from 20 to over 70 percent.

The one disadvantage to the widepread use of the birth control pill is how it increases the birth rate. Other than that, it’s great.

The demographic surge among Catholics that would come to be known as the baby boom was causing people with an eye for demographics, like the Rockefellers, much concern. In fact, the demographic handwriting was on the wall; the United States was on its way to becoming a Catholic country. But the Enlightenment counterattack was waiting in the wings. Ethnic cleansing can eliminate the political power of people in a particular place by moving them some place else, but it will not provide a long term solution to demographic increase, because as the oppressed group increases, it will also take over the areas it moves into. The long-term solution to the ‘Catholic problem’ had to blunt their demographic power. The long-term solution to the ‘Catholic problem’ was the contraceptive.

And that’s why the Church won’t let you use a rubber. The Rockefellers have been locked in a secret shooting war with the Vatican ever since 1925, when Cardinal de Sangre, the right hand to Pope Pius XI, and the man many expected to become the next Pope, was exposed as Margaret Sanger in drag. She had spent five years in the papal halls, spying and passing on the results of the Church Fathers’ experiments with the Rhythm Method. Outraged, by this betrayal, Pius turned the cold war hot with a sneak attack on Radio City, and the Rockefellers responded the only way they knew how — by trying to kill his cannon fodder with contraceptives.

“How many divisions does the Pope have,” Stalin once memorably inquired, and the answer nowadays, of course, is:

“None! Thanks to The Pill! Gah…! Oh, and you can’t have condoms either, because the Brits call them bishops, and that makes me self-conscious about my hat.”

UPDATE:

I just noticed that this is not Dr. Jones’ first appearance at WO’C. In a 2003 piece about the Christian Broadcasting Network’s annual Halloween panic attacks, s.z. wrote:

In Avenging Monsters: The Origins of Horror Fiction, Charles Colson reports on a book by one E. Michael Jones, who says that horror movies reflect sexual decadence, and so presumably you shouldn’t let your children watch “Casper the Friendly Ghost.”

Per Jones, Percy Shelley was a libertine who made his second wife Mary sleep with his friends. She got tired of it, but she couldn’t relieve her conscience “because she didn’t understand repentance.” So, she wrote Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein represents Percy, who wanted to create an “enlightenment sexual ethic,” but his creation turns out to be a monster that hangs out with the wolfman and terrorizes Abbott and Costello, thus showing that violating traditional sexual mores causes angry, torch-carrying villagers to burn down your castle. And thus was the horror film born, a hundred years later.

And Dracula is really the story of syphilis — which, as we all know, renders those who suffer from it unable to cast a reflection in a mirror, but which can be prevented by wearing a crucifix.

But even more horrifying:

A century later, another vengeful monster emerged in the wake of the modern sexual revolution: that is, the creature in the 1979 film Alien. The man chosen to create the monster, H. R. Giger, claims he never procured an abortion for his mistress. And yet, Jones notes, “his art is full of images of abortion and dead babies.” In any event, Jones writes, Giger’s thwarting of child-bearing, through either contraception or abortion, “is so morally significant that it embeds itself onto his consciousness.”

And Giger’s conscience sought relief by creating a fetus-monster for Alien. At the film’s end, a female astronaut kills the monster in a manner that strikingly resembles a suction abortion.

The warning of these films is that “sex disconnected from the moral order is horrifying,” Jones writes.

This Halloween, when your kids want to rent a horror film, don’t let them. Instead, sit down with them—and with the neighbor’s kids, as well—and explain where horror films really come from and why they are perverse. It’s a great way to expose the cultural lies that are at the root of our society’s celebration of horror.

Yeah, tell them all about wife swapping, syphilis, and suction abortions — that will tramautize them WAY more than even Texas Chain Saw Massacres would. Your neighbors will thank you for enlightening their children this way.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 63 Comments »

I apologize for the scanty posting, but our usual wingnut friends have really been leaving it in the locker room lately. Fortunately, WorldNetDaily has just brought up a young prospect from the farm level, and let me tell you — this kid really knows how to bring the heat.

This year, as the birth-control pill turns 50

…it now has to get yearly prostate exams.

America is discovering a lethal side effect. It’s called moral stupefaction. The pill has made an entire generation of adult Americans progressively more stupidly infantile.

America’s most mature and intelligent adults:

One half-century of a fatal, anti-baby culture is killing us. There is a culture-wide inability to think intelligently about what we have done to ourselves.

Remember the days of uncontrolled fertility and high maternal and infant mortality rates? Man, we were smart back then…

When the saga of oral contraception began in 1960, my surviving peers and I were in kindergarten. I say “surviving” because the pill emerged the year my classmates were conceived.

So you attended kindergarten as a fetus? These Head Start programs are getting out of hand.

This was the year some of my other peers were not conceived.

“[P]eers who were not conceived” seems like an overly fancy term for “imaginary friends.”

The fanatical eugenics crusader Margaret Sanger had been demanding a “miracle pill” since 1923. In 1953 she persuaded a rich, frustrated, anti-child feminist to bankroll hormone experiments on women. Eight-hundred ninety-seven test subjects, who did not want to have babies, simply popped the new experimental drug. Eureka. No babies.

Well, you can’t argue with success. Thanks, Science!

My surviving peers grew up being taught this was success in the name of science, in the name of the future and in the name of the state. The FDA approved commercial sales in 1960, and the Sanger generation, seated in the kindergartens of a government school system, would now give life to a culture of death.

Right after Story Time and finger painting.

I have since wondered which of my potential classmates missed their birth days.

I’m guessing all of them.

And I wonder how many of my kindergarten friends lost little brothers and sisters when the pill went on the market that first year of school – the year my school chums were celebrating each others’ 6th birthdays.

I think you forfeit the right to have your argument taken seriously if
A) You use the word “chums,” and
B) You’re not Adam West.

We were the culminating fruit of the eugenics movement.

That’s the worst name for a school athletics team I’ve ever heard.

Soon my hot-blooded classmates were matriculated into junior high.

To the accompaniment of Foreigner’s Double Vision album.

They were now old enough to taste social freedom themselves, and they all knew exactly what this culture of freedom was. It was an endorsement by science and government to be immature and irresponsible. They knew exactly where babies came from. And they knew this drugs-and-personal-self-indulgence culture was anti-baby. Eureka. Perpetual fun, no consequences, and no babies.

That sounds…awful?

For the Sanger generation, mature family life with children was no longer a part of growing up. Approved drugs could be obtained – free – by the healthy adolescent for a new cultural purpose: to bypass the responsibilities of family.

Mature, responsible adolescents start making babies the instant their testicles drop.

These drugs cured no medical ailment, but promoted a long-term social purpose endorsed by the government. The FDA, the Post Office, the courts and the school curriculum all approved of the new “pill” culture.

The Post Office? Seriously? You’re not just pining for the Fifties like most wingnuts, you’re actually weeping bitter, salty tears over the Comstock Act? Wow. I’m accustomed to reactionary pundits who want to turn back to the clock, but Mr. Botkin apparently wants to turn back the sundial. Let’s check his bio…

Well, you’ve got to admit, he’s got a friendly face.

Geoffrey Botkin is the founder of the Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences. He is the host of a mentoring webinar for men at www.westernconservatory.com.

His wife and two daughters are profiled along with (Reverend? Lay Preacher?) Mr. Botkin at Vision for Ministries:

Geoffrey Botkin is a Christian leader and mentor to pastors in New Zealand, a nation that holds promise for the reformation of Christian civilization…Geoffrey is the father of Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin, recent co-authors of Vision Forum’s best-selling book, So Much More, a book which is reintroducing the West to concepts of multi-generational family fruitfulness and the ways daughters can become cultural leaders by becoming dynamic assets of family and church.

Unfortunately, Anna Sophia and Elizabeth were recently confiscated by the federal government when the FDIC determined they were “troubled assets.” Anyway, back to the way the Pill raped Modern Culture, and then didn’t even have the decency to give it a baby…

Take a pill and engineer the population of an entire nation. Take a pill and be yourself. Take a pill and gratify your desires immediately. Take a pill and protect yourself from the consequences of infantile stupidity.

So there’s a pill that will relieve me of the urge to read your column?

Now, sex and recreation were co-joined with the concept of permanent adolescence. An entire generation was listening to Mick Jagger croon, “Let’s Spend the Night Together,” and Jim Morrison scream, “Light My Fire!”

They were also listening to the 1910 Fruitgum Company sing “Goody Goody Gumdrops” and Frankie Avalon croon “True, True Love” and “Theme from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.”

Federal bureaucrats were doing their part in the revolution, not just giving pills to poor minorities (per Lyndon Johnson), but to school girls (per Margaret Sanger).

She was our worst President ever.

My headstrong peers graduated to yet greater social freedoms, with fewer and fewer responsibilities. The first year of dorm life in college was an opportunity for unlimited indulgence and uninhibited childishness. When the pill didn’t work, my peers threw tantrums to demand a backup, another “fix” for the wages of indulgence. It came that year, right on time, with Roe v. Wade. I remember campus discussions about legalized abortion.

“It’s murder, isn’t it?”

“Of course it’s murder. Everybody knows it’s murder. But it’s legal. And it’s just a baby. The Supreme Court said it’s totally OK to abort. So it’s totally OK.”

How nice that they have Special Ed programs at the college level.

Eureka. Perpetual intemperance, no babies and no arrest warrant for murder.

Well, I’d call that a good day. Now comes Miller Time.

But consequences of the death culture are piling up. The children they never had are not there to keep the economy strong.

If only we had more crack babies on welfare, we wouldn’t have had to bail out AIG.

The government’s solution? No babies. According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the government must tax more workers to pay for more state-funded contraception so there are fewer children to take care of, thus relieving the nanny state of the high costs of raising children for infantile parents.

Ah yes, Nancy Pelosi — mother of five, and anti-baby jihadist.

But the absence of babies leads to, well, something the Sanger generation does not want to think about: future consequences. Infants think only about the immediate present. Infantile men have the same problem.

Voting Republican?

Could this be true partly because of the pill and what the pill does to men physiologically? An estimated 110 million women currently ingest the pill. Large amounts of unprocessed estrogen and progesterone pass through their bodies, into the sewage treatment systems and back into the water supply…

Male fish down river from these plants are becoming physiologically female.

It’s a valid lifestyle choice.

When male humans drink the water or eat the fish, what happens to them? Why is sperm count falling in American men?

Well, it could have something to do with the industrial and agricultural chemicals that saturate the environment: “Among the estrogen mimickers scientists are concerned about are carbon chlorines, used in many pesticides; phthalates, widely used in the plastics industry to soften PVC; and dioxin, a byproduct of paper processing and herbicides.”

So unless Archer Daniels Midland is using woman pee as a pesticide, I think toxic runoff from factory farms remains a greater threat to public health than the consequences of eating a tranny trout.

Why is breast-reduction surgery on the rise in men?

Well, I don’t know about you, but these boobs are killing my back. Plus, yesterday I got poked by my underwire.

Why do men show such passivity?

Because we’re Passive Purple Four Balls!

Why do they insist that overpopulation is still the No. 1 environmental problem when there are so few babies?

Really? I guess you haven’t been to a movie theater lately. Or a grocery store. Or on an airplane…

Fifty-nine modern nations are plagued by the high-tech benefits of birth-control pills.

And that would be — what? Flying cars? Warp drive? Programmable sex droids?

Each of them have waged a cultural war against babies.

So far, we’ve barely held our own, thanks to our high-tech, birth control-powered weapons, and the babies’ preference for fighting like barbarian warriors — with sword and shield — mostly because their diapers can double as loincloths.

Each of them suffer below-replacement birthrates. Each of them face potential extinction.

Apparently he saw , which opens with the words, “Man is an Endangered Species,” and he’s afraid that soon we’ll all be wearing leather Viking pants and French braids, like Barry Pepper, and mining gold for genocidal aliens who sport deadlocks and platform shoes from the Bootsy Collins collection. But don’t worry, Geoff, because even though we’ll be crapping behind bushes and barely able to summon fire from flint and tinder, we’ll be totally capable of flying thousand year-old F-16s, so we can bomb the Pfizer plant that makes birth control pills.

But concerns such as national suffering, dangerous international geopolitics and the disappearance of entire nations are matters that would require mature thinking – something that was successfully bred-out of the American people when they accepted the pill as, in the words of Hugh Hefner, the greatest invention of the 20th century.

So is it just the Pill, or do all forms of contraception make you stupid, infantile, and indifferent to the disappearance of entire nations? Suppose Luxembourg vanished, overnight — even though the study door was locked from the inside! — would I still be able to solve the mystery — assuming I just use condoms and hadn’t caught man-boobs from girl urine or hermaphrodite mahi mahi? Or would the baffled police have to bring in a consulting detective who likes to bareback?

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 48 Comments »

When I say “feminism,” what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?  Hm?

Unfortunately, I can’t hear you through the Internet — although I’m sure that whatever you said, it was urbane and trenchant, perhaps even a wee bit risqué, but still in good taste — so in this, as in all matters touching the eternal struggle between the sexes, I must turn to my own masculinity mentor and personal Iron John, Admiral Ackbar.  The Admiral, whom I found in a sylvan glade, naked but for a loincloth and dripping sweat after a particularly energetic and purgative drum circle, obligingly considered the word “feminism,” swishing it around his thin-lipped, tentacle-fringed, piscine mouth like a fine Chardonnay, before finally concluding, “It’s a trap!”

Of course, the Admiral thinks everything is a trap, from escalators to Circus Peanuts, but in this case, he’s correct.  Thanks to an enterprising hacker (probably the same guy who exposed the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam) we now have conclusive proof that the entire Women’s Rights movement, from Seneca Falls to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act has been an elaborate fraternity prank, engineered by this guy:

Matt Patterson (whose Omega Theta Pi name is “Blueballs”).  According to his bio, “Matt Patterson is an author and analyst whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, National Review Online, and Pajamas Media, among others. In 2009 he was named a National Review Institute Washington Fellow.”

I’m not sure what, if any, credentials or achievements are required to become a National Review Fellow (although I myself was deeply honored to be named a Maxim Institute Dude in 2005), but I assume it means that in lieu of carefully verified facts and exhaustively annotated research, Matt is simply allowed to make his own gravy.

“From 2008-2009, Matt served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer.”  I believe this is a slightly more polite way of saying “Matt spent a solid year sprawled on the sofa in his sweatpants, watching daytime TV and eating Trix cereal out of a soup tureen.”

“In the 2008 Republican primary race, he served as policy communications coordinator and a state political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.”

This isn’t a resume, it’s a confession.

“Matt is an honors graduate of Columbia University, where he studied ancient Greek and Latin, and has performed across the U.S. and abroad as an award winning sleight-of-hand artist.”

This either means he’s a crappy magician or a talented masturbator.  Anyhow, let’s sit back and listen to Matt’s tale of how he Punk’d Sojourner Truth and Betty Friedan.

Confidential Memo

To: All Men

Re: Operation “Feminist Movement”

Men, our long twilight struggle with the opposite sex is over. Our victory is total.

It was the War to End All Sex.  In Flanders fields the poppies blow, and that’s the most action Matt is going to get, our long twilight struggle having become a fairly brief wrestling match with a Fleshlight.

Can you believe the way things used to be? Remember when our fathers and grandfathers would drag themselves to mind-numbing jobs every day, having the sole responsibility for the feeding, clothing, and housing of their entire family?

And things were no easier before marriage, when men’s quest for sexual satisfaction was all too often hampered by the widespread moral code which taught women not to give out the “milk” for “free.”

Fortunately, that was never a problem for Matt, since he’s lactose-intolerant, if you know what I mean.

Well, that state of affairs just wouldn’t do. So we men came together and did what we do best — formulate and implement a plan. First step, design the perfect world, the perfect male world. We decided such a world would consist of two things: less responsibility and more — and no-strings — sex.

Unfortunately, the world decided it would consist of pay-per-minute Internet porn videos and microwavable Chicken & Cheese Chimichangas.

Brothers, have we succeeded.The amazing thing, really, is how easy it was, how fast the old world of obligation and responsibility dissolved. The first, crucial step, of course, was convincing women that they had it bad, that our jobs were “intellectually stimulating” and not the soul-crushing monotony that they in fact were.

Kind of a tough case to make when your job description is “research assistant to Charles Krauthammer.”

It worked, and soon women were clamoring to join us on the job. It seems never to have occurred to them that we could have so easily prevented them from doing so — and yet we didn’t.

It’s just like in high school, when Matt cleverly enticed Doug Flanzer into sitting on his neck and punching him in the head until Doug’s class ring made the back of Matt’s skull look like a phrenology chart.  Once again, Matt had lured his opponent into a trap!

Right away, women at work began to solve our problems. First, men and women interacting more frequently inevitably led to hanky-panky, which led to the breakup of families, which led to less responsibility for us.

“Thanks to wage stagnation, I’m getting laid more than ever!”

But that was only a start. To really fix things, we had to root out that old bourgeoisie mentality that had in previous times kept girls frustratingly modest and chaste. And what better way to do that than to convince women that the most reckless elements of our sexuality — the promiscuity — were in fact the correct behaviors, which had to be imitated in order for them to be “liberated”?

Matt Patterson: Male Slut

Amazingly, they bought that, too.

Until Matt pulled his scam, most women regarded the clitoris as purely decorative.

Unfortunately, our sister selves

Our–?  Yeah, okay, whatever Matt.

…are less suited to such behavior, which can cause painful and lasting tears in the feminine soul.

Soul, hymen — what’s the difference?

But no matter — we were also able to convince them that there was no such thing as a “feminine” soul, any more than there is a “masculine” soul, and that both sexes are equally suited to all things.

It’s hard to believe women fell for this, when it was God Himself who decreed that the soul shall come in two flavors.

(Many of you said that women would never buy this, that the accumulated history of our species speaks to the deep and abiding difference between the sexes, a difference which has benefited both sides from time immemorial. But I was sanguine about our ruse — have I not been vindicated?)

From time immemorial until the early 1960s, women flatly rejected our efforts to fool them into having careers.  Fortunately, one of the side effects of the Pill is gullibility.

Men, “Operation Feminist Movement” has worked, and more swiftly and completely than many of you thought possible. Mere decades ago, we spent endless hours and countless dollars before marriage courting and wooing; after marriage, we shouldered the entire financial burden for our families.

Matt has spent the bulk of his National Review Institute Fellowship fact-checking Leave It to Beaver, and is now up to Episode 118, “Beaver Won’t Eat.”

Now, after marriage, women can be expected to pay for half of everything, which is to the good, because video games are expensive. But, as more and more of you are discovering, why bother with marriage at all anymore? You can stay up all night, hang with your buds all the time, secure in the knowledge that on any given night you can be sure to find a willing woman, a woman who has likely been taught, conditioned even (by other women!) to expect nothing from you in return — and that this is a good thing.

“Dear Pajamas Media: I’m a Fellow at a small Northeastern Institute.  I never thought your articles were real, but a recent experience changed my mind.  I was hanging with my buds, when suddenly a willing, well-conditioned woman bumped into me on the street and her massive, Triple-E bosoms knocked my inhaler into the storm drain…”

Is it any wonder that, according to recent research, women these days are “becoming less happy relative to men” across all age, income, and marital levels? No, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, although the unhappiness of the modern woman seems to be taking many of them by surprise.  After all, don’t they “have it all”?

I think we should give Matt’s question very serious consideration, especially since he came all the way from 1982 to ask it.

No — it is men who now have it all.

Congratulations, brothers. Our day is at last at hand, a day of no responsibility and easy mating access as far as the eye can see.

Matt, don’t Bogart the Fleshlight.

Sure, there are downsides. Civilization has now entered into free fall; those masterpieces of art and science and literature, for which men have been almost exclusively responsible, have ceased to issue forth from our minds and hands — and is it any wonder?  Such pyrotechnics are no longer necessary to impress women, which, really, was the only reason we bothered.

Michaelangelo was often heard to remark that the Pietà was “a total trim magnet.”

High culture seems a small price to pay, though, for the loosening of morals and duties which has brought our present Sex and the City-fueled bounty.

So sit back, men, and enjoy the slide. It’s Miller time.

I’ve never met the author, but judging by his work, I suspect that Mr. Easy Matings’s sexuality never much progressed beyond that tingly feeling he got from the Slide ‘N’ Slide when he was ten.

Anyway, thanks for the sleight-of-hand-job.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 48 Comments »