Sluts and Manginas demonstrating just that..

The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”

Tweaking the Nose of Radical Feminism
Carey Roberts

Two weeks ago Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair, met her match in one Rep. Allen West. It seems that Wasserman Schultz waited until West left the House floor, then cut loose with a liberal jeremiad for the congressman’s support of the GOP-supported Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.
Apprised of the incident, the former Lieutenant Colonel fired back, calling her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the House of Representatives…If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face.”
It wasn’t the first time the libber-turned-congresswoman saw her grandstanding tactics backfire. A couple months ago Wasserman Schultz accused House Republicans seeking to cut off taxpayer abortion funds with waging a “war on women.”
In the past, the slightest suggestion of a GOP “war on women” would be enough to bring out the white flag a-flutter. But this time the stiff-spined GOP refused to be buffaloed by the high-octane rhetoric. Within days a group of Republican women fired back, calling Wasserman Schultz’s demagoguery “baseless” and “inaccurate.”
For years, feminists have succeeded in dictating the parameters and vocabulary of the gender debate. By trotting out a sympathetic victim, playing on lawmaker chivalry, or resorting to outright falsehoods, feminists have been able to maintain hegemony over the public discourse. Politicians, newspaper editors, even university presidents learned to toe the feminist line, or else become tagged with the “anti-woman” moniker.
All that changed on February 18. That’s the day the U.S. House of Representatives’ continuing resolution bill scrapped the funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.
In short order, revenue-pinched state legislatures took up the same refrain. Planned Parenthood funding cuts were approved in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed HB 1210, prohibiting abortion providers from receiving state funds.
Another sacred cow of radical feminism is the near-automatic award of child custody to a divorcing woman. The fact that children who lose contact with their loving fathers are far more likely to drop out of school and get in trouble with the law doesn’t seem to register with feminist logic (forgive the oxymoron, if you will).
But in recent weeks, a bevy of Republican presidential candidates, including Herman Cain and Gary Johnson, lined up to pronounce the current system deeply flawed. Newt Gingrich castigated the “extreme anti-male bias” of family courts.
Another gem in the feminist diadem is the Violence Against Women Act, which is used as a slush fund by domestic violence groups to support lobbying efforts for a broad array of radical causes. But two weeks ago, House Judiciary Committee member Ted Poe vowed to make the law gender neutral. “I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order,” the Texas congressman explained.
And it’s not just politicians who are poking holes in the feminist catechism of gender victimhood.
Following its embarrassing overtime loss to the Japanese women’s soccer team, Bryant Gumbel of HBO Sports revealed the double-standard that permeates sports reporting these days. “Had a men’s team turned in a similar performance,” Gumbel commented, “papers and pundits nationwide would have had a field day assailing the players, criticizing the coach, and demanding widespread changes to a men’s national team that flat-out choked.”
Then the cheeky “Everything I Do Is Wrong” campaign by the California Milk Processor Board that lampooned clueless men and hormone-addled women. The campaign triggered the wrath of the feminist Politburo, with Ms. Magazine demanding an immediate end to the “sexist” campaign.
The Ms. Magazine antics elicited this rejoinder from columnist Jenn Taylor: “What better way to expose portrayals of women as irrational whiners and hysterical bitches than by whining irrationally and bitching hysterically?”
It gets worse.
It’s one thing when conservative knuckle-draggers delight in the excesses of feminism. But when a fellow liberal debunks a feminist sacred cow, that’s hitting below the belt!
That’s exactly what the current issue of Time magazine does – it puts to the lie the shibboleth that working women pull a second shift when they come home, facing a pile of dirty laundry and shrieking kids, as dad lounges on the porch to watch the Dodgers game. According to Ruth Davis Konigsberg, “Quantitatively speaking, we have no grounds to stand on. And it’s time that women — myself included — admit it and move on.”
It’s getting harder and harder for the gender guerillas to play the victim card. Things are looking grim

Mirth in the Mutilation of Men

by carey roberts

No one disputes the facts of the case. After a brief marriage, a 60-year-old California business owner filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. He allowed his wife, Catherine Becker, to remain in his condominium while the divorce was finalized.
But Becker apparently became consumed by a jealous rage over the man’s new-found romantic interest. So last Monday she drugged the man, lashed him to a bed, severed his penis with a 10-inch knife, and tossed the appendage into a garbage disposal.
Most were appalled and outraged. “It’s hard to believe what would motivate a person to do this sort of thing,” said Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. “It’s one of the worst things you could do to a person short of killing him.”
Ali Ammar, who handles hundreds of divorce and domestic disputes a year with Orange Detective Agency in Irvine, commented, “I’ve seen people with their heads blown off, but this story makes me cringe,” Not surprisingly, Judge Debra Carrillo ordered Becker held without bail.
But for some, the incident was cause for merriment and glee.
Veronica Roberts of California made light of the incident, headlining how Becker made “mince meat” of her victim’s appendage. “Another women performed a ‘Bobbit’ and goes for the cleaver,” she wrote cheerfully.
Leigh Moody, anchor at KSPR-TV in Springfield, Missouri, prefaced her blog entry with the words, “Revenge Attack.” Apparently Ms. Moody was not troubled by the notion of vigilante justice implicit in her headline.
At SodaHead News, the attack was cause for ribald hilarity. “What’s up with all these severed penises? It’s like the new go-to punishment for unruly husbands.”
The blogger at Hegemony Heights was inspired to pen this light-hearted limerick:
There once was a woman called Becker who cut off her poor husband’s pecker
On her way to divorce she used drugs and some force to become the ultimate home wrecker
But some dispensed with the façade of facetiousness.
At The Stir, Maijken Brence wrote, “some men deserve things like this happening to them.” And over at the Online Dish, Kim commented, “the jaw dropper is the garbage disposal part…hahaha.”
And the inevitable Facebook page offering approving “You go girl!” call-outs for Becker: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catherine-Kieu-Becker-Fan-page/111461202282860
When Wendy Williams was asked about the incident, the TV personality quipped,
“When you cross a woman, all is fair.” Finding humor in the garbage disposal, Williams joked, “It was more efficient than throwing it in a field, where they could pick it up.”
Over at ABC’s The Talk, Sharon Osbourne decided it was time to goose her audience ratings. So after averring she didn’t know the circumstances for his decision to file for the divorce (did the reasons really matter?), she described the incident as “hysterical” and summed it up with the remark, “it’s quite fabulous.”
A couple days later Osbourne issued an apology, stating, “I do not condone genital mutilation and I didn’t mean any harm by laughing about it and I’m sorry that I offended people ‘cause that’s not my intention or the intention of the show – it’s not what we are about.”
But that apology misses the mark. The issue is not whether Osbourne intended to offend her viewers or whether people were in fact offended. The point is, Osbourne indulged in grossly inappropriate behavior in a way that minimized the grotesque incident and ridicule men.
Let’s call it woman’s inhumanity to man.