Why Does Sandra Fluke Drive Conservatives Bananas?


Let me tell you a story….

There once was a time when women knew their place. Back in those halcyon days, young women accepted that sex was a dirty thing they should go out of their way to avoid, lest the taint of it made them unmarriageable. Girls married young and dreamed of staying at home with children, far away from the dirty worlds of men and power. Of course, slipping up did happen, and girls got pregnant outisde of wedlock but since there was no birth control or abortion, those girls had to get married straightaway, so either way, women ended up where they belonged, in the home, while men went out and did all that working. 

Then the birth control pill was invented and abortion was legalized. All of a sudden, women started screwing who they liked without any consequences. They didn’t get married young anymore, instead choosing to do things like have careers and demand power. This meant the end of cherished gender roles, which in turn meant gay marriage, men losing their rightful place as leaders of nuclear families, single motherhood, and anarchy in the streets. Clearly, women’s abortion rights need to be taken away and access to contraception curtailed, and then perhaps we can return to the bliss of “Leave It To Beaver.”

This is a story is one we all know, and it is the singular fable that drives the anti-choice movement. It is a story that is actually not true, of course. In the reality, many mothers worked outside of the home, premarital sex was surprisingly common, men abandoned women they got pregnant routinely, and abortion was common even as it was illegal. And yet this fantasy lives on, a fantasy of returning America—at least middle-class America—to a strong patriarchy where women’s talents and ambitions are all aimed at supporting men and where sex is irrevocably tied to procreation. It’s the fantasy that motivates the anti-choice movement. It’s the fantasy that leads to abortion restrictions, the building of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the shooting of abortion doctors, usually by men who will never be Ward Cleaver and have grown bitter.

But admitting this out loud is difficult for conservatives, because stripping women’s human rights to create a patriarchal fantasy world flies directly into the face of their claims to be about “liberty.” Instead, a thicket of lies has grown up to rationalize their preferred policy options: Claims about concern for fetal life, concerns that mysteriously never extend to actual children. Claims about concerns for women’s mental health, even though science has refuted any connection between abortion and poor mental health outcomes; instead the notion that abortion hurts it is rooted in the belief that women’s purpose is birthing, and that deviations from it mean women are somehow broken. Claims that abstinence-only programs are about health, when they are clearly about promoting a paranoid view of sex as inherently dirty and sinful. Claims now that denying women insurance coverage of contraception is a matter of “religious liberty,” even though docking a woman’s benefits because she disagrees on matters of dogma with her employer is a pretty straightforward assault on that woman’s religious liberty.

But as we learned at the DNC this week, the Democrats have come up with a secret weapon that causes the entire wall of lies to come crashing down, revealing the sniveling, misogynist prude that is actually behind all these assaults on women’s reproductive rights.

That weapon’s name is Sandra Fluke.

As many people, including myself at Slate, noticed, right-wing commentators went absolutely nuts when Fluke spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Pretty much none of their responses actually addressed the policy for which Fluke is an advocate, the birth control benefit, ensuring that all insurance plans offer coverage of contraception without a co-pay. This requirement simply means that all insurance plans paid for or earned by a woman have this coverage, as part of an array of preventive care services also to be covered without a copay. Some misrepresented her position, either claiming she wants the “government” to pay or “her boss,” even though the policy references benefits already earned and passed over to the employee–meaning that one’s boss is no more buying your birth control for you if you use your insurance to pay for it than if your boss is buying it for you if you use your paycheck to pay for it.

But mostly they didn’t even address that, but instead made jokes about how Fluke’s supposed sluttiness and gasping in horror at her boldness. If I were to grab one tweet that sums up the right wing reaction, it would be Dennis Miller’s Twitter response: “DNC just announced Sandra Fluke, or ‘Moan of Arc,’ has demanded her speech be Pay-Per-View.”

What makes this sort of reaction stunning is that not only did Fluke decline to discuss her own sex life when she testified in front of congressional Democrats, but, to be frank, she seems so ordinary. She’s engaged to be married; she’s an ambitious law student. She’s not a sex worker or a nude model. She didn’t write a book about swinging. She’s never mentioned her own sex life in public! If conservatives consider her the height of sluttiness, quite literally every single woman who has ever had sex without being married to her partner at the time counts.

Which is something that feminists pointed out with Slut Walk, and conservatives denied at the time. Turns out, of course, feminists were right: If one of us is a “slut,” we all are.

But why Fluke? Why does a modest, ordinary law student draw so much vicious, over-the-top, sex-phobic and misogynist reactions? Well, it goes back to the narrative that I laid out above. Women like Fluke–white, middle class, intelligent–are the women that get married young and devote their lives to housekeeping in the fantasy “Leave It to Beaver” world for which conservatives long. When they imagine how contraception and abortion freed women to delay marriage and have careers, they aren’t imagining the whole of womanhood, but specifically the Sandra Flukes of the world. When they imagine that these rights sexually liberated women, and allowed them to define their sexuality for themselves, instead of as an extension of men’s, these are the women that come to mind. Fluke is the living embodiment of the woman that’s imagined “getting back to the kitchen.”

Instead, she’s standing up at the DNC, making a speech in prime time. No wonder conservatives lost their minds. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • arekushieru

    “She’s never mentioned her own sex life in public! If conservatives consider her the height of sluttiness, quite literally every single woman who has ever had sex without being married to her partner at the time counts.”

    Of course!  Because ‘sluttiness’ is always measured by whether one has had an abortion or not or, at the very least, supports a woman’s right to choose one or remain pregnancy-free!  *Rolls eyes*

  • give-em-hell-mary

    It’s OK to be child-free if you’re Sharon Barnes, Aikin’s hypocrite defender, if you prefer luxury globe-trotting over diaper-changing, especially if you oppose choice for rape victims.  It’s OK to be child-free if you’re the trophy wives of adulterers Nut Gangrene and Viagra-Slut Slush Limpballs.

  • blissed

    “women started screwing who they liked without any consequences. They didn’t get married young anymore”

     

    The greatest beneficiaries are the few socially-dominant attractive “who they liked” men who passed around all that tail while disguised as “liberation agents” and left it for the other chumps to deal with – the sucker husbands-to-be.  These days, exclusively in the West, its ALWAYS better to be the next-to-the-last man 

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Not sure what you mean.  Do you generally support or oppose reproductive choices for women?  Looks discrimination punishes men and women alike and limits their mating options.  However, looksism has more brutally punished mothers grossly disfigured in a zillion ways by childbirth complications.  Spoiled misogynists hate level playing fields and make life miserable for ordinary men as well.

  • blissed

    “Spoiled misogynists”

     

     Who did the spoiling and how?  If spoiled by women, how can there be hatred of women?  Are women such automatons as to allow their most personal areas to violated by a hater?

     

    “level playing field”

     

    What would make it level?  Who decides this?

     

    .

  • blissed

    They are wrong since a man considered her worthy of marriage to him.  Thus, she was not promiscuous and not slut.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Child-free multiple wife-dumper Rush Limbaugh and deadbeat daddy adulterous wife-dumper Newt Gingrich are perfect examples of spoiled misogynists who betrayed numerous adoring wives and mistresses who didn’t see their discardment coming.

    A level playing field means medical reproductive choices for women so they no longer have to fear numerous deadly pregnancies that drive men to divorce and child abandonment.

  • veggietart

    She stood up on behalf of a friend who had ovarian cysts and needed the pill to control them.  Because the friend lost her coverage and couldn’t afford the pill, she lost an ovary.

     

    Now, this is no more valid a reason for insurance to cover contraceptives than a woman who wants to avoid getting pregnant until she’s ready to start a family, but it certainly is indicative of the right-wing not really listening to women.  They hear birth control and they think slut.  They just don’t get it.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    But God forbid those same “sluts” like me show up at looksist playboy Clarence Thomas’s EEOC office back in the day with an easy unequal pay case, but also sporting Catholic family abuse scars and hormonal acne in need of expensive BC pills!  Thomas angrily threw my case out and denounced my looks to a male colleague.  Misogynists damn women no matter what they do.  They believe in equal pay only for stunning beauties they expect to seduce.

  • winterlion1

    My girlfriend (who is extremely pro choice and so am I) read this article and said “wow, this person actually had this thought process?  This has to be the stupidest article that I’ve ever read. Writing that pro lifers are bitter Ward Cleaver. Clearly you are a liberal whack job. I would laugh but people like you just aren’t that funny anymore. You attract hate wherever you go, you look for it everywhere assuming that everyone wants to get you, throw you back in the kitchen. That’s ridiculous. YOU’RE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

  • arekushieru

    How can you honestly believe that women spoil the misogynists?  The very fact that we’re TALKING about misogynists implies that the men are spoiled by the PATRIARCHY.  If women spoil men it is because of the PATRIARCHY.  How is that NOT an example of hatred of women? And expecting a woman to stand up to any violation of their most personal areas, is the most VILE example of not only hatred for women but also punishment/blaming for victims, especially if the same is not expected of men.    

     

  • arekushieru

    First you say that women aren’t automatons, then you go on to say they are….  Inconsistency much?  Women could now CHOOSE who they would sleep with. Guess that women aren’t the automatons that you implied you so despised and hated, earlier, after all, but why aren’t you happy?  Oh, that’s right, because the only option for women is to be dominated by men who oppose any sort of choice for them.  Yet, somehow if they fail to protect themselves from violation, they’re automatons to be despised and hated.  That’s the epitome of misogyny. 

     

    And, yes, what about the MENZZZZZ!?!?!?!?

  • arekushieru

    And you wonder how misogynists can become spoiled????  Through defense of the very patriarchy that you just approbated.

  • arekushieru

    No more valid a reason?  Could you please clarify?  Because I very much believe that BOTH of these are valid reasons…?

     

  • arekushieru

    Gee, and you wonder why women think that everyone wants to get them, when every hater tells women that very thing, ‘hey, women, “YOU’RE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.”‘  This is the biggest derping pile of bs I’ve read in a LONG time.

  • prochoiceferret

    My girlfriend (who is extremely pro choice and so am I) read this article and said “wow, this person actually had this thought process?

     

    It should be familiar to you, given that it’s the pro-choice thought process.

     

    This has to be the stupidest article that I’ve ever read.

     

    So I take it you haven’t read any “pro-life” articles?

     

    Writing that pro lifers are bitter Ward Cleaver.

     

    No, actually, Amanda wrote that “pro-lifers” will never be Ward Cleaver. You may want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

     

    Clearly you are a liberal whack job.

     

    Well, you’re certainly needing the liberal whack upside the head, it seems. Good thing Amanda is willing to take on the job.

     

    I would laugh but people like you just aren’t that funny anymore.

     

    That’s not surprising, since Amanda is making a serious argument about serious issues. I’m the funny one here.

     

    You attract hate wherever you go, you look for it everywhere assuming that everyone wants to get you, throw you back in the kitchen. That’s ridiculous.

     

    No, that’s sexism. And like a scary ex-husband, it tends to find women, rather than the other way around. If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because you’re not paying attention.

     

    YOU’RE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

     

    Indeed, that’s one of the core messages of sexism—that women aren’t as important as men. Do you remind your girlfriend of this often?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Bravo on every point!

  • give-em-hell-mary

    You nailed it!  You’ve described the core crazy-making gotcha contradictions that patriarchy imposes on, then persecutes, women for following.   This is why I have PTSD and can’t resist swinging verbal bats at victim-blaming misogynists.

  • jazzgrrl58

    Let’s not forget that women are now free to pass entirely on having children. This really drives the cons crazy.

  • uneasyone

    Sandra Fluke has class. Not the Stepford Wives plasticity you see from the cute, overly made up, every hair sprayed into submission Repub girl-bots, that you see at rethuglican rallies and events. She might actually be a virgin – lord knows, if she had a sex life, the rethugs would have pictures everywhere.

    She is just the kind of lady that any guy would be proud to introduce to his folks and the absurdity of the “she’s a slut” attacks exposes the complete insanity of the new fascists to any but the most fanatic observers.

    Combine this with her obvious intelligence calm demeanor and speaking ability and there are no real grounds to attack her on. This is enough to make any rethug go berserk.

    No one who gives any credence to the drug-addled, Viagra-popping, multiply divorced Limbaugh is amenable to reason anyway, and virginity is not a hallmark of class, of course. It’s just that Ms. Fluke is unassailable by the plastic and phony standards of the Republicans.

    I wish like hell she would sue that fat bastard for a billion dollars. I don’t know what her legal chances would be, but he has definitely slandered her without cause. I have never seen a clearer case.

  • veggietart

    The point is, everyone’s calling her “slut” when her concern was for her friend who had ovarian cysts that were controlled by birth controll pills.  That’s how she got dragged into the spotlight.  Perhaps she was hoping that the people who hate women’s sexuality would care about a woman trying to preserve her fertility or mitigate menstrual symptoms.  Sadly, she was mistaken.  These males hate women and don’t care about their health.

     

    Yes, of course both are equally valid reasons to ensure all women have coverage for contraceptives.   That’s my point.

  • blissed

    .

    in the minds of High-N women only, of course.


    Are you actually stating that men who use their agency, make a choice and quietly decide not to commit to a promiscuous woman is woman-hating and patriarchal?  Even if that were true, how does this manner of conducting his life in any way affect any woman negatively?


    .

  • blissed

    Interesting.  Please elaborate.

  • blissed

    How does this so-called “patriarchy” IMPOSE?  What is their method for getting that done?  Who is so gullible to fall for this imposition and why do they?  

  • blissed

    Well, no.  The combined effect of abortions and barreness hacks down the next generation of women willing to be the same and of course it cuts down the Democratic voter base

  • prochoiceferret

    How does this so-called “patriarchy” IMPOSE? What is their method for getting that done?

     

    Methods like social custom, pressure, stigma, ostracism, abuse, violence, sexual assault, and murder.

     

    Who is so gullible to fall for this imposition and why do they?

     

    I suppose you think that slavery was just a scam pushed on “gullible” Black men and women, too.

  • blissed

    Who are these patriarchs and where do they live?  Are they organized?  Is it a conspiracy?  How to stop them or shut them up?

    So glad to see that rejecting sluts for marriage does not fall under the perview of “patriarchy” or anything else.

  • blissed

    If it was not under the purview of insurance, the free-pillers would whine for another way to freely fund their precious equal right to screw with abandon ONLY because men are seemingly able to. Gettng others to pay includes men and its all about “leveling the playing field” a term they often love to spout out…

  • blissed

    That is obvious.  Very few sluts are considered for more than a lay.  Woman feel that way about men as well.  So there is some equality for ya.

  • prochoiceferret

    Who are these patriarchs and where do they live?

     

    Patriarchy is not something that has to do with the individual; it’s something that has to do with our culture as a whole. Just like with racism—it’s never been about the Archie Bunkers, but about the racist assumptions that are (still) taught explicitly or implicitly in our society.

     

    Are they organized?  Is it a conspiracy?

     

    No, it’s an institutionalized system of beliefs and behaviors that are learned and affirmed en masse.

     

    How to stop them or shut them up?

     

    Feminism. And lots of it.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Wrong! — the intolerable abuse among GOP breeders turns their fed-up abused kids like me into flaming Dems.  And most Dems have kids.  Why don’t you attack child-free GOP wives like Sharon Barnes, Callista Gingrich and Abigail Perlman Blunt (adoption doesn’t count in husband-stealer Abigail’s case)?  Why is it OK for these women and adulterous child-free Rush Limbaugh to rely on contraception and abortions to maintain their luxury lifestyles while you slam us struggling working class women for our own reproductive health maintenance?  You probably would have hated my late best friend who lived on disability because her last daughter’s high estrogen during pregnancy weaponized my friend’s facial skin cancer and rotted off her nose, lips, eye and ear before killing her.  My friend’s patriarchal ex-husband bullied her into breeding for his parents, but he was also disgusted by her pregnancy weight gain, started beating her, insulted her in the delivery room, kidnapped their new daughter, then got to keep the daughter even though he admitted molesting her because her mother then had no nose on her face!   When patriarchs like this mother-killer beat and abandon their wives for simply obeying them, why bother giving them more children?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Having lived for many years in the Washington, DC area and having crossed paths with many conservative on-the-prowl men, I can tell you that all they care about is stunning natural beauty, and so-called sluttiness is no barrier to these men if they hunger for what they see.  This is why GOP men cheat on and dump the disfigured aging mothers of their kids.   This is why GOP first wives and their abandoned kids join the Democratic party.  Your fairy tale has a fractured ending.

  • ljean8080

    mother is not the daughter’s fault.stop blaming the kids.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Many of the patriarchs are playboy priests like my childbirth-ruined mom’s favorite pastor or convicted pedophile Notre Dame provost “Father” James Burtchaell, who bullied wives to risk their lives breeding fresh victims for him.  My mom’s pastor urged her to disfigure me as her abstinence-only excuse.  It’s pretty hard for six-year-olds to defend themselves from cult abuse, especially when enablers like you blame victims and slobber over abusers.

  • blissed

    You are very free to determine YOUR personal use of sex, to have it or not to have it.  Its your business.  Do you want anyone whom you do not know or any organization or any company for any reason, directly or indirectly to be involved in any way whatsover?  If not, then we are completely in agreement.  If you do want others involved in this very personal aspect of your life (which is very weird) then of course you must be willing to accept their input.  Can’t have it one way only.  

  • blissed

    Not commitment 

  • blissed

    Alriiighty.  

     

    So whats the plan

    to ban

    The patriarchy boogeyman?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    You’re ignoring all the truly slutty Rush Limbaughs, Roger Stones and their wannabes whose pedophile sexual tourism and promiscuity numbers far exceed any partners women rack up.  Having gone to Catholic schools and being surrounded by conservative bachelors in Washington, DC, I can tell you what they tell me to my disfigured face:  “Looks are everything!  Models with pasts beat out homely virgins any day in any race to the altar.”

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I blame priests, abusive husbands and fetal idolators who lie to women about cancer risks, etc. from childbearing.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Homely virginity = lifelong miserable spinsterhood

    Drop dead beauty + lots of conquests = multiple weddings, divorces and adoring keeper fifth husbands

  • prochoiceferret

    So whats the plan

    to ban

    The patriarchy boogeyman?

      

    Part of it is opening people’s eyes to the realities of women’s lives, and teaching them not to treat it as a joke.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I don’t know any women demanding “free” birth control since they already pay for it with their insurance premiums.   Since they already pay thousands per year for that insurance, such insurance should make birth control affordable with low or $0 co-pays and since that insurance (like Notre Dame’s insurance) already hands out free Viagra to pedophile and playboy priests, cheating GOP thugs and non-procreative gays.  We women already pay hideous prices for your precious double standards.

  • blissed

    It used to be that the immediate benefits of marriage included a woman offering her youth, beauty, vivaciousness and reproductive potential amd respect to a man, in exchange for his love and perpetual support. What she offered is the stuff that binds a man tightly to her at a mental and biological level, and what he offered was love and the means to take care of her as her beauty faded. But if she’s wasted herself on the cock carousel and is now ready to marry, odds are she’s a slightly fading 30-something woman, probably emotionally wounded in a number of respects, with looks about to drop off the cliff, she’s cynical, has high expectations, low tolerance for anything that doesn’t meet them, and will have trouble bonding as she’s an oxytocin junkie. She’s also probably pretty angry because she believes she is “settling,” because day-to-day life with her beta provider just doesn’t measure up to that hot weekend she spent with an Alpha in Bermuda, whose life surely is just a succession of weekends in Bermuda… So the man gets that, and takes on the responsibility of loving her without question, and supporting her… forever… even if she sticks it to him pretty badly down the road.

    Women ignore male attitudes like this at their extreme peril.

  • prochoiceferret

    Women ignore male attitudes like this at their extreme peril.

     

    Oh, women are quite used to hearing this sort of thing already. But thanks for the demonstration.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I know a zillion Catholic women who obeyed your double standard Catch-22 virtue trap in their youth, including moi, and virginity got us ZERO marriage proposals if we didn’t have super model looks.  One neighbor who saved herself for her wedding night honeymooned at a gay dive because her “nice guy” groom needed a cover bride for his military career.  It took her ten years to get an annulment from her never-consumated marriage.  Other virgins who married and had kids soon got dumped anyway for younger child-free women because the enormous male shortage from several wars gives men endless do-over options from multiple countries.  I always avoided Alpha men, never went on any Bermuda trips, and my cruelest rejections always came from homely Betas and Gammas who were saving their date money for pedophile sex tours in Thailand and the Philippines!  Sharon Bush believed in your “good man” myth and was rewarded with a humiliating divorce from admitted Asian sex tourist Neil Bush.  Brian Ross of ABC aired the video of his divorce deposition.  Look how cheating former SC governor Mark Sanford and Sen. Roy Blunt “rewarded” their faithful wives of many decades.  You men are only as faithful as your options.

    Women obey you cheating patriarchs at extreme personal peril and humiliation.

  • lightning

    WHO was it “up to” when the insurance companies decided to cover Viagra?   No fights or discussions, just new coverage.  Why is THAT not covered in “YOUR personal use of sex?”   Why is there now such a hue and cry over actual HEALTH care, known as contraception?   When your own Viagra-enabled insurance automatically covers a performance-enhancing drug for you, why is THAT not “very weird” to you?

     

  • blissed

    .

     

    Its NOT about virginity.  It is about women presenting themselves as marriageable after spending years on a long Spring Break romp

     

    .

  • ljean8080

    got the things you talk about.there are women who WANT to have a BABY.

  • lightning

    Which makes all the sex-prowling Conservative Office-holders in DC sluts.

     

  • lightning

    “It is about women presenting themselves as marriageable after spending years on a long Spring Break romp”

     

    • So it’s the actual PRACTICE of sex-before-marriage, that “makes” a woman “unmarriable?”  Why?  Is the star football hero of your high school unmarriable, because HE got laid with a cheerleader?  Sad story, no woman would have him after that.  He RUINED himself for serious consideration as a life-partner for any woman wanting a faithful husband.  So sad about that FORMER male hero — he RUINED IT ALL by having sex before he married.  It was HIS CHOICE, and he BLEW IT BIG TIME!  So sad about the rest of his (former) plans.  He ruined them all, when he decided to make himself a slut.

     

     

     

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I never went on any Spring Break romps because my anti-choice mom disfigured me when I was a kid.  All my free time was sucked up by gruelling make-up applications to make myself acceptable for jobs and running errands.  I often worked 3 low-paying jobs at once to save for plastic surgery.  Every time I improved myself, homely self-important jerks in churches, offices and subways told me that I needed more surgery to pass their minimum standards.  They treated other nice smart women just as badly or worse.  It’s women’s looks, stupid, and unwanted pregnancies are women’s ticket to abandonment.

    In my college dorm only two women didn’t sleep around.  One was drop dead gorgeous Donna and the other was better-off-dead ugly me.  Only one didn’t get a husband.  Donna, who was gorgeous enough to make any man wait for her, and the others who hedged their bets with ambivalent guys all got lucky.

    Your insulting patronizing theories are crap.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    LOL!  You’ve made my day!

  • give-em-hell-mary

    OMG!  I could tell you stories!  In fact, I will!  I went a few times in the late 1990s to the Yacht Club, a popular Bethesda singles bar, now closed, and the very first “bachelor” that Tommy the Matchmaker introduced me to was none other than MARRIED Sen. John McCain!  Tommy sat me right down next to him, and stupid me thought he liked my newspaper art background.  No, he was just relieved that I wasn’t a reporter!  I left the bar area briefly, and when I returned, the other patrons informed me that he had left the club with a Vietnamese woman.   Hmmm! — not so much for me, but for poor Cindy, his second wife, who according to a Fiji Island vacationer, got publicly chewed out by him over her “weight problem.”  McCain also had unprintable comments on that vacation about their adopted daughter, an “overweight” bride on her honeymoon, and he sexually harassed a svelt Thai wife the entire trip.  Guess I really lucked out when I didn’t get any Monica Lewinski propositions!

  • blissed

    It IS the prolific so-called “hooker-up culture” so promoted by the likes of Marcotte that causes American women to hit double digits before the age of 28.  There is nothing wrong with that of course.  Its her choice.  Its also her choice to not want to commit to a man who did the same.  Its personal.  So whats he problem?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    You only hear what you want to hear.  I know countless women who suffered castastrophic injuries, some of whom died, and many wouldn’t rehave their babies because of the suffering.

  • ljean8080

    would have,you know there are good men in the world.I think Chris Reeves was a good man.OTTH THERE are bad women such as Susan Smith.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Not all women want to have children. It’s a personal choice which is not up for discussion. I don’t want to reproduce/breed/have children; period. Sure, I think a lot of women want to have children, and I think A LOT of women don’t want to have children. There’s a cultural norm for women to “coo” over babies and “want” to have children. If you don’t, you’re belittled and ostracized for not wanting to produce children. It is very normal not to want to reproduce children. I’m a happier person being childless by choice.

     

    Please respect my choice. Stay out of my uterus.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Good guys like, Sen. David Vitter (a Republican)? He cheated on his wife with several women.

  • blissed

    the taint of it made them unmarriageable.”


    Who gets to decide if a woman is unmarriageable?

  • arekushieru

    Wtf are you talking about?  I wasn’t the one who equated marrying a woman whom society considered promiscuous as not women-hating. YOU were.  Seriously, do try to keep up. 

  • arekushieru

    If you don’t know the subject of a topic, don’t comment.

     

  • arekushieru

    That’s why I asked for the clarification!  ;)

  • arekushieru

    Good thing that’s what WE’RE talking about.  Women who would rehave their children by CHOICE.  You are talking about forcing women to rehave babies despite their suffering.  If you’re not, then why are you disagreeing with Mary?  Whoops.

  • arekushieru

    Like Lightning Joe said, YOU’RE the one who wants to have it only one way.

     

  • arekushieru

    Mary’s comments actually hold more truth than yours do.

  • arekushieru

    YOU’RE the one who’s saying that women having sex before marriage makes them unmarriageable.  Seriously, don’t you READ what you type? So, by THAT logic, men having sex before marriage, makes THEM unmarriageable.  Logic. Get some.

     

  • arekushieru

    The problem, that you keep missing, is that people like you and the rest of society, call women sluts for having sex without commitment while men are perceived as studs.  There, now that wasn’t so difficult, was it?

  • arekushieru

    Claptrap, again…..  Seriously, people have TOLD you that Viagra is paid for under healthcare, but it doesn’t fit into your worldview, so your brain doesn’t compute and completely ignores it.  Specifically, the fact that you’re telling US that sluts = sex, not commitment, yet you’re avoiding using that very term for men, even though we’ve explained how it allows men to play the field just so.  And you still can’t see how patriarchy imposes this on women?  WOW.  Way to miss the stupidly OBVIOUS. And, I’m sure women have to pay for it, too.  Oh, snap! So much for a level playing field, after all. 

    If you don’t want people paying for sex, then why not tell medical insurers to stop paying for pregnancy care?  I assure you most women who got pregnant used sex to get that way. 

     

    Or, why not tell us how it’s an equal playing field when men bear no consequence for having sex?  Having contraception and birth control fully funded IS levelling the playing field no matter WHAT insurance covers for men.

    The stupid is strong in this post.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I hear you!  Even when I was most anti-choice in high school and college, I came across women with childbirth injuries who subsequently lost their husbands to other women, and being desperately boy-crazy, I saw the wisdom in being child-free to hang onto a partner if I ever got lucky.  Not only were my parents mentally unfit to be parents, they were driven further crazy by nasty child-free priests who were getting sex on the side.  People don’t need children to justify being married, and most domestic abuse comes from the mess, chaos, fatigue, noise, medical squalor, expense and heartbreak of forced parenting.  If my salvation-obsessed mom hadn’t been Catholic, she would have used real birth control and not have ruined me with her Munchausen by Proxy abuse version of Natural Family Planning.

    And notice how MSM and GOP bullies never criticize child-free priests, nuns, GOP trophy wives, and hate radio thugs?  And most of the single men I’ve met in DC don’t want kids!

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Either you’re living in a 1950s bubble, or you’re an American Talibaner!  I’m telling you that “sleeping around” doesn’t magically scorch letter As onto women’s foreheads, and even the most religious men only notice and care about where women rank in their centerfold scale.

    Example:  I overheard a co-worker and his wife gossiping about the wife’s cheated-on scientist co-worker at NIH.  The scientist’s cheating scientist wife was so nasty that she chewed him out for saving her from unnecessary brain surgery when he informed medics that she merely passed out from cocaine abuse!  So stupid me had to ask my co-worker what was so special about her that her husband put up with such abuse.  Drum roll:  she was a gorgeous blonde!

  • littleblue

    I can’t comment on any of these specific situations, Mary.  But remember when McCain offered up his wife to a biker rally’s topless beauty pagent?  http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501445_162-4328799.html

  • blissed

    Its the high number of so-called “sex partners” aka tattood bikers, bar tenders, thugs, frat trains, multiple flings and one night stands

     

    Its not the sex.  Its the mind boggling numbers many women in the West rack up.  All good.  But no man should feel bad or ashamed for not wanting to marry one.  

  • blissed

    .

    “young women accepted that sex was a dirty thing they should go out of their way to avoid, lest the taint of it made them unmarriageable.”

    –Amanda Marcotte

     

    Solution – make em all tainted so men can’t divide them into wife-material and non-wife-material.  What do you think Marcotte and her ilk are up to?

     

    This from Feministing –

     

    There is also something that is discussed on other websites but never in the wider media – something called slut rejection. The latter is what heterosexual men who seek a life partner supposedly engage in. I have personal experience with this. My ex did not try to shame me but upon knowing more about me, he just sort of faded away. Its so wrong that women may have to lie or not say anything and either strategy is prone to backfire. I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”

     

    http://feministing.com/2010/09/09/fatslut-acceptance-and-the-meritocracy-myth/

    .

     

  • blissed

    If women deems a man unmarriageable due to his high number then he is unmarriageable.  But few women need to concern themselves since its only a small percentage of men who are being sexually chased by the majority of single women.  

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Actually, previous DISFIGURING and money-pit childbearing is the real turn-off to most men, including Elvis Presley who refused to have sex with faithful wife Priscilla after she gave birth to HIS daughter because he was icked-out by her motherly birth canal changes.  You are mistaking hidden playboy looksism for bedpost notch snobbery.  John McCain left his faithful champion first wife when her car accident-mangled figure burst his centerfold image of her.

  • blissed

    Who calls men studs?  Um, could it be because they actuall have to make an effort to get sex and is thus viewed as an accomplishment?

  • ljean8080

    about Elvis?

  • blissed

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

     

    Yeah, that put Marcotte over the edge

  • prochoiceferret

    Its the high number of so-called “sex partners” aka tattood bikers, bar tenders, thugs, frat trains, multiple flings and one night stands

     

    So I take it you do most of your sociological research on HBO.

     

    Its not the sex.

     

    Strange… from the way you’ve kept harping on about this subject, it seems to be all about the sex for you.

     

    Its the mind boggling numbers many women in the West rack up.  All good.  But no man should feel bad or ashamed for not wanting to marry one.

     

    Unless, of course, he’s racked up a mind-boggling number himself. As many so-called “studs” tend to do…

  • prochoiceferret

    If women deems a man unmarriageable due to his high number then he is unmarriageable.  But few women need to concern themselves since its only a small percentage of men who are being sexually chased by the majority of single women.

     

    Does this observation have a particularly personal relevance for you?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Thank you!  I didn’t click on your link, but I think McCain didn’t realize it was a topless pageant, or at least that’s how his handlers spun it.  McCain was also rumored to be having an affair with a stunning blonde lobbyist for the Ion TV network.

  • blissed

    Yes, its time consuming to weed out the so called “reformed sluts” and those who lie about their harem-membership pasts (out of desperation) when its time to select a wife.  Grandpa did not have this horrific challenge to deal with.  Fortunately, this yecchhy situation is confined to the West and especially the US.  Men have only themselves to blame for being a captive audience since these days they know full well that 9/10s of Earth’s fertile women have never heard of Spring Break, “hook up” or flings and thus require no weeding out.  Grandpa would be proud…

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “Following the birth of their child, Priscilla said, Elvis no longer wanted to go to bed with her. She came to realize that Elvis could not reconcile the image of her as the mother of his child with that of the young girl with whom he fell in love.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123860&page=1

    I recall the movie (Kurt Russell version?) being more explicit when Elvis implied that childbirth ruined his attraction to her.

  • blissed

     

    .

    Unless, of course, he’s racked up a mind-boggling number himself”


    Few have.  So that leaves the very large majority of men with a very small pool of close to equally experienced women to choose from, or stay single, or venture to other countries where the sexual culture is much more natural, normal and comforting.


    Of course, the mind boggling numbers studs who created all those high-N women also prefer to avoid them for commitment.  Call them hypocrites…and they’ll just smile.


    .

  • prochoiceferret

    Few have.

     

    Keep telling yourself that. I’m sure it helps you feel better.

     

    So that leaves the very large majority of men with a very small pool of close to equally experienced women to choose from, or stay single, or venture to other countries where the sexual culture is much more natural, normal and comforting.

     

    In other words, more patriarchal.

     

    Of course, the mind boggling numbers studs who created all those high-N women also prefer to avoid them for commitment.  Call them hypocrites…and they’ll just smile.

     

    Why wouldn’t they? They have an entire culture supporting them and their hypocrisy. Everyone and their dog calls out women for having lots of sex partners, while no one bothers the men for doing the same.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “or venture to other countries where the sexual culture is much more natural, normal and comforting”

    You mean overpopulated Catholic poverty pits where spoiled Western studs and priests can have any 10-year-old virgin of their dreams for just a few bucks?  No wonder the RCC has kept contraception banned for starving Manila couples.  The RCC welcomes tourists like you who help “feed” starving Manila urchins.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Most American female students are too debt-ridden to afford spring break flings, too self-hating of their own bodies to be seen in bikinis at public pools, let alone fancy-schmancy beaches, and the auctioning of sex slave children in developing nations is hardly an improvement over your Hollywoodized Porky’s spring break fantasies!

  • blissed

    In other words, more patriarchal

    then less “patriarchal” must mean more promiscuous women.  Ironically however they are sexually satisfying their patriarchal oppressors as a twisted means to getting equal with them.  Wow

    Why wouldn’t they? They have an entire culture supporting them and their hypocrisy.

    They would be regardless.  Unless women decide to stop committing to them.  But alas, here we are


    Everyone and their dog calls out women for having lots of sex partners

    People tend to look down at anyone who gluttony gets things with no effort.  Maybe they should not be so quick to get always-willing guys off.  That’ll teach those oppressors!!  

    no one bothers the men for doing the same.

    Unlike women, men have to work for it but…

    Women are still free to call them out for their slutty ways.  Why don’t they?








  • prochoiceferret

    then less “patriarchal” must mean more promiscuous women.  Ironically however they are sexually satisfying their patriarchal oppressors as a twisted means to getting equal with them.  Wow

     

    You don’t know a whole lot about how oppression works, do you?

     

    They would be regardless.  Unless women decide to stop committing to them.  But alas, here we are

     

    Yes, in a world where women apparently have no trouble finding lots and lots of male sex partners, and yet are shamed and derided as sluts for doing so.

     

    People tend to look down at anyone who gluttony gets things with no effort.

     

    Is that why Donald Trump is a social pariah?

     

    Maybe they should not be so quick to get always-willing guys off.  That’ll teach those oppressors!!

     

    I’ve got a better idea: Let’s treat women who have lots of sexual partners the same way we treat men who have lots of sexual partners. Is there a good reason why it should be any different?

     

    Women are still free to call them out for their slutty ways.  Why don’t they?

     

    Because people then call them “prudish bitches,” and high-five the guys for being all-American studs. Social stigma doesn’t really work when everyone else undermines the message.

  • blissed

    Yes, in a world where women apparently have no trouble finding lots and lots of male sex partners, and yet are shamed and derided as sluts for doing so.


    Um, has anyone considered tempering that entirely unnecessary “lots and lots” if the goal is actually to get more respect from good commitment-worthy men?  No?  Because women naively feel entitled to all the easy low hanging fruit now and the good man later without any resistance for past behavior. Nice.  Note that this entitlement view is absorbed from propaganda from the likes of Marcotte and Hanna Rosin and is not natural or beneficial.  

     

    Let’s treat women who have lots of sexual partners the same way we treat men who have lots of sexual partners. Is there a good reason why it should be any different?


    No, it should not be.  Then you arrive at a single standard.  Trouble is, the feminists are not your friend here.  They want that standard to be a promiscuous one for a number of reasons the strongest one being avoiding marriage in lieu of a career.  Then you arrive back at the current harem where women engage in hypergamy and gravitate to and share a few select males for sex and get burned by uncaring lechers.  


    Because people then call them “prudish bitches,”


    No one is going to call a woman anything when she is seeking a commitment minded man and eliminates player thugs from her list.  But she needs to be consistent – that is, she must have always avoided player thugs or the man she marries is going to be duped and that is not right.


    .

  • blissed

    The days of male birth control are coming and the same logic will certainly apply but I will not demand (then or now) that long-standing religious institutions and their beliefs be bent to the Will of the State. Moreover, in the interest of promoting affordability of insurance coverage, I don’t think its evil to suggest that the market should be allowed offer some plans that do not cover certain “lifestyle” items such as contraceptives, or viagra, for that matter. 

  • prochoiceferret

     

    Um, has anyone considered tempering that entirely unnecessary “lots and lots” if the goal is actually to get more respect from good commitment-worthy men?  No?  Because women naively feel entitled to all the easy low hanging fruit now and the good man later without any resistance for past behavior. Nice.  Note that this entitlement view is absorbed from propaganda from the likes of Marcotte and Hanna Rosin and is not natural or beneficial.

     

     

    Um, has anyone considered tempering that entirely unnecessary “lots and lots” if the goal is actually to get more respect from good commitment-worthy women?  No?  Because men naively feel entitled to all the easy low hanging fruit now and the good woman later without any resistance for past behavior. Nice.  Note that this entitlement view is absorbed from propaganda from the likes of Maxim and Tucker Max and is not natural or beneficial.

     

    No, it should not be.  Then you arrive at a single standard.  Trouble is, the feminists are not your friend here.  They want that standard to be a promiscuous one for a number of reasons the strongest one being avoiding marriage in lieu of a career.

     

    Yes, because marriage is a career-killer. That’s why most of the powerful men and women in our society are bachelors.

     

    Then you arrive back at the current harem where women engage in hypergamy and gravitate to and share a few select males for sex and get burned by uncaring lechers.

     

    You think about harems a lot, don’t you?

     

    No one is going to call a woman anything when she is seeking a commitment minded man and eliminates player thugs from her list.  But she needs to be consistent -

     

    Too bad you’re not willing to hold men to that same standard.

  • jennifer-starr

    I suspect that he’s probably one of those men who likes to fantasize about Mail Order Asian Brides or other similar nonsense. 

  • blissed

     Because mennaively feel entitled to all the easy low hanging fruit “


    Of course.  But women can get laid by just saying yes.  So they often do.  And the numbers rack up as they share the same small set of men.  The result is three groups each with a different sexual standard – the small group of very high-number men, a much larger group of women with high numbers and all other men who now and then got lucky.  Its all good, all smooth, no problem.  But years later that large group of men may not be so quick to commit to women who are suddenly giving them attention.  They are from two very different sexual cultures by the time she wants something “more”

  • prochoiceferret

    Of course.  But women can get laid by just saying yes.

     

    Really? And whose fault is that?

     

    So they often do.  And the numbers rack up as they share the same small set of men.

     

    These men are rather passive individuals, aren’t they? They are “shared” by women, while the women “get laid” (and “often do” so). Are you sure you’re talking about male human beings, with a will and agency of their own, and not vibrators?

     

    But years later that large group of men may not be so quick to commit to women who are suddenly giving them attention.  They are from two very different sexual cultures by the time she wants something “more”

     

    Patriarchy: When a sexually-experienced woman who is interested in a meaningful and monogamous relationship with you is a bad thing.

  • blissed

    And whose fault is that?


    No fault.  Its an “ease” gap and therefore a numbers gap and that is the root cause of the so-called “two standards”


    male human beings, with a will and agency of their own


    Ah yes, and they take full advantage of lemurs marching to the beat of Marcott’s orders: go forth and hook up


    Patriarchy: When a sexually-experienced woman who is interested in a meaningful and monogamous relationship with you is a bad thing.


    Patriarchy: when men acutually have true agency and choice regarding who they prefer to commit to for ANY reason they so deem because all others will finally mind their own business about such decisions.  Therefore, men will never get their patriarchy in peace amongst all the cackling 


    Women scorned: When a sexually-experienced woman who is interested in a meaningful and monogamous relationship with you is a bad thing.

    .




  • give-em-hell-mary

    “small group of very high-number men, a much larger group of women with high numbers”

    You have deliberately dishonestly switched who has the high conquest numbers!  The majority of men have always and still way outnumber the majority of American women in their conquest numbers.  That’s because you men teach each other convincing lies that trick commitment-oriented women into giving you a chance, and when they do, you call them conceited sluts for believing your lies!  But your real complaint is with God for not giving you 72 Kim Khardasian virgins to make a harem orgy tape with.  The truth is you don’t deserve even one Kim, and you’re too misogynist, stingy and unfaithful to make yourself into worthy caring man.

  • ljean8080

    if you are not  married or in a relationship then what you do and who you do it with is no one’s business.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “Patriarchy: when men acutually have true agency and choice regarding who they prefer to commit to for ANY reason they so deem because all others will finally mind their own business about such decisions.  Therefore, men will never get their patriarchy in peace amongst all the cackling Women scorned”

    So you’re livid that feminists and their male supporters have successfully criminalized pedophilia and somewhat destigmatized single adult women who show their love before snagging wedding vows.  You’re mad that you can’t have a harem of ten-year-olds in this country.

  • ljean8080

    ,men I’VE known were great guys

  • blissed

    …sex with children is really on your mind

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “They want that standard to be a promiscuous one for a number of reasons the strongest one being avoiding marriage in lieu of a career.  Then you arrive back at the current harem where women engage in hypergamy and gravitate to and share a few select males for sex and get burned by uncaring lechers….

    “No one is going to call a woman anything when she is seeking a commitment minded man and eliminates player thugs from her list.  But she needs to be consistent – that is, she must have always avoided player thugs or the man she marries is going to be duped and that is not right.”

    I don’t know any feminists seeking promiscuity and career over marriage.  I know a zillion female classmates and co-workers who fell for “nice” average male classmates and co-workers who lied to them, cheated on them and dumped them for anyone slightly prettier.  You assume all American women line up for celebrity jerks, but that is not most women or feminists in particular.  I’ve met hundreds of average, homely and aging men in Kansas, Philly and DC and they all told me they were saving themselves and their $20 bar tabs for teenage supermodels.  I never chose a career over marriage, but I knew I needed a salary to save for enough plastic surgery to get a few dates.  Most women have sisters, mothers and aunts dumped for younger women, so they pursue careers as Plan B.  Why do you hate us for making do wiith Plan B?

    I have always sought commitment-minded men and avoided obvious lecher thugs, but “nice” men still dub me an aging, ugly scold, and if they notice my high heels, then I’m a slut also.  You assume that all women who aren’t ten-year-old sex slaves in Afghanistan are sluts.

  • blissed

    conquest numbers


    Um, women don’t have conquests.  They don’t need to


    The majority of men have always and still way outnumber the majority of American women in their conquest numbers.


    Apex fallacy regarding men.  The group that exercises its greatest ease and access privilege will have greater numbers


  • give-em-hell-mary

    I grew up disfigured by my anti-abortion mom, was publicly shunned by all male relatives, and still get bullied by male strangers for being imperfect.  My only “boyfriend” dumped me years ago after he “partied” with Congressional staffers at a notorious Bangkok child brothel.  Never assume religious anti-abortion men have your best interests in mind.

  • blissed

    …when you make such blasphemous statements - 

     

    I don’t know any feminists seeking promiscuity and career over marriage.

  • pixiesaurusrex

    I love when misogynist dudes try to convince themselves that really, no one is having more sex than they are, because they must be the epitome of manly men, and women quiver at their feet.

    I’m so glad I have so many more options than women did a few generations ago. 

  • arekushieru

    And I will not demand that the Will of the State be bent to the WHIMS of the religious fundamentalists.  It’s so funny that you keep proving our point. One standard for the religious, another entirely for the State that GOVERNS US. 

     

    Btw, I am a Christian.  And this is WHY I am a Christian.  I follow the teachings of Jesus, not pedophile priests and bishops. 

     

    I should have guessed how much of a double standard you would hold others to just by this comment alone: I don’t think its evil to suggest that the market should be allowed offer some plans that do not cover certain “lifestyle” items such as contraceptives, or viagra, for that matter; after all, women are the ones who experience real consequences when their contraceptive coverage is witheld, and, thus, leave people wondering why they then have to seek an abortion.  Men would simply have to reconcile themselves with a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction and realize that healthcare shouldn’t be required to fix their egos.

     

    If you don’t think it’s evil to suggest that the market should be allowed to offer some plans that do not cover contraceptives, I don’t think it’s evil to suggest that the market should be allowed to offer some plans that do not cover pregnancy care.  But, you would disagree, I’m sure. Because this isn’t about coverage of ‘lifestyle’ items, it’s about controlling women, and what better way to do that than with pregnancy???

     

    Pregnancy, after all, is NOT simply a ‘lifestyle’ option.  And that you belittle the very real consequences of pregnancy in this way, just underscores your misogyny, even more, nothing else.

  • arekushieru

    Nope, the only sex on her mind is free and consensual sex.  The one that’s on your mind is where all men get all the free sex they want without being shamed and women being considered sluts and whores for daring to accept sex with men, which you believe is eliminating the patriarchy.  However,. that’s exactly how the patriarchy is defined by reputable organizations (‘other’ than yourself, of course). Can you see why one would think YOU are the one who is talking about having sex with ten-year-olds, now.

     

  • arekushieru

    “Apex fallacy regarding men.  The group that exercises its greatest ease and access privilege will have greater numbers”  Which is… drum roll… the MENNNZZZ!  You really are an idiot.

  • maiac

    You: “OMG, how on earth can a social structure and cultural system impose constraint and/or compulsion on an individual? That’s like, totally impossible!!!”

    Me: Srsly? Are you this dumb?

     

  • squirrely-girl

    Houses of worship are exempt from these mandates. 

     

    As to the premise of your argument (no one should be told what to do)… I think perhaps you might be better suited for citizenship in a country like Somalia… I hear the total anarchy is fantastic this time of year…

  • squirrely-girl

    Here I was thinking it was about preventative health care being covered without copay… 

  • squirrely-girl

    Only if one’s beliefs about marriage are hinged on the number of people with whom one sleeps…

  • arekushieru

    Because they don’t.  WE’RE trying to create a world where they can do BOTH, without having to worry about insults, harassment, threats and rape being tossed at them. DERP.

     

  • arekushieru

    Do you say the same to men who aren’t seeking commitment-minded women?  No, of course not.  The only one spouting blasphemy, here, is you.

  • arekushieru

    And it’s people like you who call the men studs because they DID make the TINIEST bit of effort.  SERIOUSLY.  But, if women expend ANY kind of effort, they’re considered ‘sluts’, ‘whores’. DO try to keep up.

    Also, men, if you don’t want to marry a ‘slut’, avoid marrying one.  Iow, not advice I’ve seen you target at men.  Yup, the double standard IS indeed strong in this one.