Michigan GOP Members Make Fun of Women by Pretending to Read Fashion Magazines


It’s understandable that Republicans chafe at the phrase “war on women.” Not because they aren’t waging it—widespread hostility in the ranks to reproductive rights, equal pay, and even anti-violence legislation shows they are—but because women are more than half of voters in this country, and the fear is that the branding will erode their already poor reputation with female voters. But somehow efforts to put forward a more woman-friendly face on conservative politicians, especially the white male ones, end up backfiring more often than succeeding.

Take, for instance, a recent head-scratchingly stupid stunt from three male Republican state legislators in Michigan:

Get it? They read “silly” fashion magazines and now they “understand” women!

The Michigan GOP has been getting a lot of heat from feminists in recent years because of its relentless attacks on reproductive rights, including a new law that bans health insurance plans from covering abortion and an incident during which a female legislator was punished for saying the word “vagina” during a debate over another bill restricting abortion. This is a group of men who think female sexuality is so terrible that it can’t even be mentioned directly in public and must be subject to punitive, misogynist governmental control. But hey, they read some fashion tips, so they “get” women now!

The gesture cannot be understood as anything but a contemptuous one. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with fashion magazines like Glamour or Bazaar. But reducing “understanding women” to fashion magazines is a blunt statement of contempt for women, assuming that women are fundamentally frivolous people who are too busy worrying about shoes to think about important issues like economics or their own health-care needs. “We’re too good to care about what silly little women think about our actions,” the picture suggests. “And to show it, we’re going to mock the very idea of trying to understand women.”

In response, Michigan Democrats sent out a tweet of female legislators reading bills with the caption:

The picture is a hilarious rebuttal, but I do have to nitpick the caption. “Real” women read both fashion magazines and bills—some do one, some do the other, and many do both. Women shouldn’t be expected to be serious people with no fun or hobbies in order to deserve respect. After all, men are allowed to have all sorts of “silly” interests—video games, sports fandom, fly fishing—and no one thinks the lesser of them for it.

But nitpick aside, the retort drove home the problem with the GOP’s original tweet and attempts by conservatives to appeal to women generally: Conservatives aren’t very appealing to women when they act put out by having to appeal to women. While the women in their lives probably titter indulgently when these male politicians act like it’s beneath them to have to bother to listen to women’s interests, voters who aren’t their direct relatives will probably be less patient with this blatantly sexist nonsense.

Not that it’s any great surprise that conservative politicians would display seething contempt for women’s intelligence, even (and perhaps especially) in their attempts to “appeal” to women. The policies that they’re pushing are based in a belief that women really shouldn’t be making our own decisions or living independently at all. Abortion restrictions and a refusal to support equal pay legislation are both based in this heteronormative idea that women are meant to be at home, firmly under male guidance, and definitely not out in the world making decisions for ourselves. So, of course, their idea of what a “woman” is can be summed up in a fashion magazine (or what they imagine a fashion magazine to be): Women aren’t meant to be doing the hard work of thinking and running the world, but are meant to be at home brushing their hair, abstaining from being movers and shakers in the world, and letting men control their sexuality.

The funny thing is that if these men bothered to read the magazines they were photographed with—which they did not, and probably think is beneath them, as they think any stereotypically woman-related thing is beneath them—they might have learned a thing or two and actually maybe got a bit closer to understanding the people they hold in so much contempt. While fashion magazines perpetuate some of the most sexist impulses in our society, particularly when it comes to holding women to impossible beauty standards, anyone who cracks one open and reads anything but the lipstick reviews would notice that these magazines quietly push the idea that women should be independent people who make their own money and have autonomy over their sexual decisions. The kind of readers that most of these magazines are trying to attract are young, single women who live independently and make their own money. They are unapologetically sexual and intend to date many men before settling down and getting married. These are the women whose freedom most upsets conservatives, who tend to treat independent, single women who have sex as the boogeyman, supposedly representing the downfall of a society that gives women the right to make their own choices.

These young, independent women are not frivolous bimbos who need to be brought under control through misogynist, sex-phobic legislation, as these conservative politicians are implying with their “cute” photograph. They are smart, engaged women who usually know a lot more than many politicians do about issues like reproductive rights. Sure, they like makeup and hairstyle tips, but they are also interested in things like stopping street harassment, forwarding the cause of international human rights, and honoring the legacy of Maya Angelou.

Above all, the picture shows exactly what these politicians don’t seem to understand about women: that they are complex people who have a variety of interests—you know, just like men—and they are not frivolous people because they sometimes like to relax by thinking about “frivolous” things. These men may think sneering at women’s magazines is a clever way to justify their belief that they can make women’s health decisions for them, but in reality all they demonstrated was how little they deserve to offer an opinion on women’s lives, much less have any say in how we run them.

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • fiona64

    Clearly these guys are taking their cue from Clint Eastwood, as Gunny Hiway, who read women’s magazines under the guise of “studying the enemy in order to outflank them.” It didn’t work for Clint Eastwood, either, fellas …

    • Kevin Schmidt

      They can’t see black people, but they sure do see young sexy women!

      • catseye

        But they sure as HECK don’t see those young women as actual people.

  • Nicko Thime

    Einstein.
    “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’ m not sure about the universe”.

    I offer the republicans in the above picture as Exhibit A.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Women’s fashion magazines objectify women, and brainwash women into thinking they must also objectify themselves with expensive makeup and the latest threads and colors that are in style.

  • kuvasz

    Smart-ass assholes. That’s what they are.

  • Eric Domejean

    The image of the guy reading an upside down magazine is pretty telling.

    • thedancingbag

      I’m still not convinced that this isn’t just how arrogant they are.

  • William Snell

    What kind of moron actually posts a picture like this, except as a joke? I suppose to the Republicans, it was a joke. Just not very funny to anyone else.

    • thedancingbag

      The problem is, it occurred to me, that they didn’t realize it was a joke, because they really are that sexist and arrogant. I don’t think they’re really that clever. I think they were being sincere.

      • William Snell

        They were trying to look sincere, and didn’t consciously mean it as a joke, which I find to be just sad. They seemed to really think that sitting there with fashion mags would make them look like they were taking women seriously. The problem is, when you don’t have any respect for a certain group, it’s really difficult to fake it. They are so far out of touch, they don’t even understand how to look like they’re in favor of women.

  • Riconui

    It’s a case I think I can make stick….. and here we have one more piece of evidence; conservatives are pathologically incapable of understanding irony.

  • Chris@Calif

    Hey GOP – I am a woman who never reads Glamour or Bazaar. I read Mother Jones, DimWits. Geez…

    • lady_black

      I find such magazines insipid and boring. I don’t read them, and I never have.

      • Chris@Calif

        Sounds like you don’t know what that Mother Jones magazine actually is, since you’ve never read one. ;-)

        • lady_black

          I’m a longtime MJ reader. Bazaar and Glamour, not so much.

          • Chris@Calif

            Oops, sorry, I totally misread your initial reply. Apologies.

          • catseye

            MJ rules; fashion rags drool.

    • purrtriarchy

      I read bazaar, vogue, Elle, allure and about 10 other art/fashion magazines.

      Should not say “read” however. I like the photography and the art/culture. The vapid fashion industry does have to be taken with a grain of salt however.

      I start every day reading RHRC, the Atlantic, MJ, alrernet, patheos, slate and salon.

  • ococoob

    These jerks laughing is despicable. Assholes.

  • Liber8gibp

    Don’t let them fool you. Republicans are only looking at the pictures, they already lost the ability to read or comprehend.

  • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

    Well it is not that rare with a scandal of a GOPer buying prostitutes, is it?

  • CJinPA

    “The gesture cannot be understood as anything but a contemptuous one.”
    Yes. People who use the term “War on Women” with a straight face deserve contempt. The 77% of Americans who refuse to identify themselves as “feminist” hold these tactics in contempt. Married women, who vote Republican, hold your divisive politics in contempt. Because it’s contemptible.

    • Jennifer Starr

      I don’t think you used the word contempt enough.

      • CJinPA

        That’s contemptible.

    • lady_black

      There’s something wrong with women who vote republican. Married or not.

      • CJinPA

        You can’t really believe that. There are only two major parties. You’re smearing something like 20 million American women. Can’t you just say you disagree with them?

        • lady_black

          No. I really think there’s something wrong with them. They are exactly like chickens, voting for KFC.

          • CJinPA

            Do you ever wonder if it’s healthy to think that so many women around you are mentally ill? Do you not have Republican women in your family or friends or workplace? Do you know any? Is it all about reproduction or female solidarity? What if a woman differs from Democrats on foreign policy or national defense, or immigration or spending or government power or education? I know you’re being somewhat flip, but I’m fascinated to actually find someone who admits to thinking in such narrow terms.

          • lady_black

            I didn’t say “mentally ill.” This has nothing to do with mental illness. I’d characterize it more as a type of brainwashing. Why on earth would (or even “should”) women on the right come out against their own gender in such shocking and ridiculous ways? Not necessarily about reproductive rights, but in general, such as claiming that women don’t want or need equal pay? First, that isn’t even true. But it’s like they want other women to believe it’s true. Or Phyllis Schlafly making ridiculous claims like women won’t find husbands if they make equal pay. It’s sort of a delusion, but I wouldn’t call it mental illness, just delusional. First delusion is thinking that getting married is the be-all and end-all of life for women, then thinking that making more money would somehow have any effect on the ability to get married. See, the thing is, Schlafly doesn’t really believe the things she says. She just wants other women to believe it. I’d say there’s definitely something wrong there. Wouldn’t you?

          • CJinPA

            lady black, trust me, if you asked 10 Republican women under 50 who Phyllis Schlafly is, 7 would not know, and the 3 who did would think she’s dead. Let’s keep it in the 21st century please.
            Funny thing about questioning the mental capabilities of people you never met: If I told a Republican woman that feminists go around saying “Republican women don’t want equal pay,” she would say you folks must be delusional. Of course they want equal pay. The reason they don’t join the feminist campaign for equal pay is that they already get paid equally and they don’t want to be a part of mass lying. Everyone knows women are paid equally for equal work when they have equal experience and equal education. The claim has been debunked. It’s just a matter of who is willing to lie. Democrats lie to get votes and power; feminists groups lie because it serves the purpose of their relentless, rage-fueled gender war. (Every self-described feminist is NOT filled with hate, but those who make it a full time job certainly are.)
            Why can’t women vote Republican for the same reason men do? They see the danger of unchecked growth of government wealth and power. They’d like to keep more of their income to care for their family, rather than give it to the government to take care of someone who doesn’t deserve it? Or they support tough anti-crime measures or a strong military or local control of schools, etc. You may not agree with any of those stances, but why can a man hold them but if a women chooses that she’s a traitor to the cause – your cause – ? Where does a woman turn if those are the issues she supports? Your answer seems to be: ‘Nowhere. It’s wrong to support those things.’ Correct me if I’m wrong, but you either believe that, or you believe a woman must vote on “women’s issues” alone (“women’s issues as defined by feminists.)

          • lady_black

            Your fact-free post is duly noted. I actually don’t believe most men have good reasons to vote republican either. Two kinds of people vote republican (at least in today’s republican environment). Rich or stupid. I’m old enough to remember voting for another republican party, the one that stood for the rights and dignity of women. Title X was a Nixon-era republican plan to assist low-income women with family planning needs. Unfortunately, Nixon was the last real GOP president. From the time of Reagan until now, the GOP has gradually become filled with religious nuts who have been only too happy to be used to further the interests of the uber-wealthy. Now you have Tea Party problems as well. The ones who sought power by riding the tiger have found themselves inside the tiger. Good luck with that. I happen to believe that the ones who don’t “deserve” support are those who don’t actually need support. That would be the wealthy and the corporations.

          • CJinPA

            The only fact you needed to learn is that there are decent, intelligent people who don’t think like you. I won’t call you delusional. I’ll just say it seems to be impossible for you to get your mind around that. People who can’t accept that decent people can disagree with them are ideologues. Or extremists. Fundamentalists, even.
            At least you admitted your disdain for women who think differently than you has nothing to do with the welfare of women and everything to do with good old fashion politics.

          • lady_black

            To the contrary, of course I agree that there are decent and intelligent people who disagree with me. The difference is that I don’t attempt to make them live by my rules. For example, a woman who doesn’t believe in contraception or abortion never need use either. I have nothing against these people living their lives as they please. But they don’t get any say in my decisions that will definitely differ from theirs.

          • CJinPA

            OK. So it’s back to being about birth control and abortion – neither of which are in danger of ever going away.

          • lady_black

            No. That goes for everything. Nobody will dictate to me.

          • CJinPA

            Fair enough. Republican politicians shouldn’t dictate to you, and Democratic politicians shouldn’t dictate to me. Let’s keep all the dictates in check.

          • cjvg

            And what are democrats dictating to you?

          • CJinPA

            That I have to take a portion of my paycheck and spend it not on my family but on the single parent down the street who didn’t make the same sacrifices that my wife and I did. That I have to help pay for the birth control of an upper income law student. That I have to give up my health plan. That my kids’ school can’t fire bad teachers. Oh there’s a bunch. Let’s agree to no dictates across the board.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, really? Tell that to the women in Texas and New Brunswick (which is in CANADA, btw) where the abortion clinics recently closed. Access to abortion for THEM (which is CERTAINLY about abortion) disappeared for THEM, didn’t it?

            And what is this about there being no War On Women because abortion and contraceptive rights are not going away? That’s a very US-centric view, btw. So where is your concern for women in the majority of nations where abortion rights AND birth control are being taken away, NOW???

          • CJinPA

            Abortion and birth control are not going away. Stop being silly. Politicians are getting you scared so you’ll vote for them.
            As for the rest of the world, you’re making the point I’ve made several times here. There are plenty of non-Western countries were actual oppression is taking place. Not the pretend oppression of entitled Western feminists, but real oppression. Right now a girl in Pakistan fears acid will be thrown on face. But she has to compete with a US feminists screaming, “NO LOOK AT ME. RAPE CULTURE OVER HERE!” Pathetic.

          • cjvg

            Well then why are republicans playing into that by trying to legislate way access and use of contraception.
            Are you in all seriousness and with a straight face claiming republicans do not really mean those laws to pass, they are only doing that to help bring out the female vote for democrats?

          • lady_black

            In other words, we have no right to complain because somewhere, a woman is being treated worse. Is that about right? Well if women in Pakistan fear having acid thrown in their face, they need to learn the Cast Iron Skillet doctrine. As in, 99.9% of wife abusers have never been clocked in the head with a cast iron skillet while sleeping. Having that happen would change their perspective on abusing women. The ones who were thinking about it would learn from the experiences of those who had done it and suffered the consequences. Women in Pakistan hold their fates in their own hands, they just don’t realize it yet.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, don’t EVER fucking tell me, again, that I know LESS about what’s going on in my country than you, someone who does NOT live in my country, do. I have FAMILY and FRIENDS in that province who tell me the SAME thing. That women are already aware that they will soon have no way access an abortion at the hospitals rather than the clinic. And that’s from the knowledge of their FINANCIAL and TRAVEL resources and expenses, not from fucking big government. Or are you some big government conspirator?

            No, you focused on a US-CENTRIC view to explain away something without ever referring to people in non-Western countries. It’s pretty typical of people like yourself to trot out the examples when it’s convenient but ignore them when they’re not. And even your US-Centric view apparently wasn’t representative of the whole Western Hemisphere. Oops.

            Again with the patronizing, gaslighting comments? Thanks for proving that we are RIGHT, not WRONG.

          • CJinPA

            Listen, I’ve been patient with your bursts of obscenity but try to control your emotions please. I feel just as strongly as you; I just don’t feel the need to demonstrate it.

            I have idea what country you’re talking about. Yes, this discussion was about a handful of US politicians. It is U.S.-centric. My point remains: birth control and abortion are not going away in the U.S. Period. Further, the mantle of victimhood desperately sought by U.S. feminists is pathetic when compared to women who actually oppressed in other parts of the world. I’m not sure if your not getting what I am saying, or if you are simply looking for a reason to be offended, but those are two reasonable points and they remain my position.

          • purrtriarchy

            Unless they are poor, rural, or live in Texas. Then they can’t get an abortion, unless they order pills online or buy mifestiprone from a flea market.

          • CJinPA

            It seems my response to you was deleted for some reason, so I’ll try again: your use of obscenities does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it. I feel just as strongly as you about this, but I don’t demonstrate it with such behavior. I have no idea what “your” country is, nor do I care. You are either misreading my posts, or deliberately misrepresenting what I write, so I will be crystal clear: Western women are not oppressed. Real oppression can be found in non-western countries.
            That is not a controversial observation. It is 100% factual and completely rational to anyone except feminists.

          • lady_black

            Once again. The oppression of women in Western civilization is not even remotely minimized by the fact that women in certain other cultures are oppressed more. Your use of the term “real oppression” sounds an awful lot like “legitimate rape.” It puts forth the dual repugnancies that 1) women do not have any rights to claim oppression because you do not agree, and that 2) of course your opinion is the ultimate arbitration of whether or not oppression is real, rather than the actual experiences of actual women. You are here to derail, and to deride welfare as enabling women “not to have to live with the biological fathers of their children” without any comment on why they *should* have to live with them. You assume that as a universal truth. I’m here to tell you it isn’t. Mere biological relation doesn’t make a good parent. The world is full of biological parents who have no real business raising a kitten, much less a human being. So you take that “biology ought to be destiny” meme, and stick it someplace, ok? You can tell it to the Marines, cause the Army ain’t hearing it.

          • CJinPA

            I don’t think the reality of life in the West for women in 2014 meets the standard definition of “oppression.” Further, I think the influence of feminists on politics and culture is much greater than their number.
            Further, I believe that what started as a women’s rights movement to end women’s dependence on men for life’s necessities morphed into a feminist movement in which women are encouraged to raise children without fathers. This has been a disaster for children, schools and society – everyone but feminists. Of course there are individual cases of good and bad parents of all kinds – but, statistically, children to better with their moms and dads. That’s not an opinion. I make these points simply to remind you that the feminist movement was not, despite what so many of you think, the first movement in the history of movements to have no downside. They all do. Liberated women are the legacy of the women’s movement. At-risk children are the legacy of the feminist movement.

          • purrtriarchy

            Oh please.

            You are arguing that women and children stay with abusive, deadbeat men because, somehow, this is better for the kids

            Women and children are better off alone vs with a loser father. And the opposite is true – a single parent dad is better off raising the kids on his own than staying with a deadbeat woman. Abusive relationships never work out for ANYONE.

          • CJinPA

            Please stop misrepresenting what I write. Look up a few posts for “Everyone can agree that it’s better that women don’t have to remain in abusive marriages; and that women don’t have to be financially dependent on men…”
            I meant that. I’ve seen what happens to women who are totally dependent on a man. So I don’t ‘argue’ for what you said. I said we’re up to 40% out of wedlock births and climbing. Those aren’t all the result of guys suddenly becoming abusive in the period between impregnating a woman and birth time. These are choices being made that are harmful to children and society. We don’t have to go back to the bad old days to simply admit the truth.

          • lady_black

            It doesn’t matter whether they suddenly became abusive, or were always abusive. Classic abusers often become abusive when a pregnancy happens because they believe they have trapped a woman. In many ways, they have. One doesn’t need to feel obligated to compound a mistake (becoming pregnant) with a second mistake (marrying someone you otherwise wouldn’t marry.) This is of dubious benefit to children.

          • CJinPA

            This is what I’m calling b.s. on. More women are becoming single moms by design. Period. Not by accident. Not as a result of abuse. Both of those scenarios occur, but the numbers are so great now, it’s clearly by calculation. Because they want kids but not a husband. Great for them, horrible for kids and society. Feminists brought this about and could change it if they wanted to.

          • purrtriarchy

            Or maybe, just maybe, the real answer is more nuanced than that. Perhaps it comes down to economics, and culture as a whole:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/why-poor-women-dont-wait-for-marriage-to-give-birth/372890/

            Read that. It offers another perspective on the issue instead of blindly pointing fingers at the ‘EBUL FEMINISTS’

            An interesting point from one of the commenters:


            “”
            The less-educated mothers also tended to have their children
            younger. Women with B.A.s were most likely to have children at age 29 or 30, while those with high-school degrees had them at 22.””

            That observation was the basis of Economist Gary Becker’s An Economic Analysis of Fertility. He noticed that in the 19th century richer women tended to have kids younger and more frequently than poor women. In the 20th century that reversed, poor women tended to have kids earlier and in larger quantities than wealthier women. His paper addressed this issue.

            The answer dealt with opportunity costs. In the 19th century the loss of a poor farm woman’s work while raising kids was a large setback to the family. Since few richer women worked they could have kids. However in the 20th century the richer women went to work so their economic contribution to the family was much greater so they couldn’t take time off. Poor women could because their economic contribution was so low.This and a few other papers made up the basis of his Nobel Prize in Economics ..

            And if it’s all the fault of feminism, then explain why, as this article points out, Europe does not seem to have this issue? Europe is full of feminists, even more radical than the feminists here! So, why isn’t Europe suffering from loads of out of wedlock births? It should be worse there, no?

            And another interesting tidbit: out of wedlock births are quite common in Brazil and other developing countries – to low income women and girls. Brazil and these other countries are not a bastion of feminism, that is for sure. They are still mostly patriarchal. Yet single parent moms are on the rise. Explain that one? Oh, and, one study even demonstrated that in poverty stricken areas, with a scarcity of men, young women will often choose to reproduce at a young age, and do it alone!

            So, maybe, just maybe, it’s more complicated than the ‘feminists want to destroy the world’ bullshit that you keep spouting because you are incapable of nuanced thought.

          • CJinPA

            OK. I’m responding to commenter posting another commenter’s response to a web article. Alrighty then…let’s see:

            * Women who finished school at age 22 had kids later than women who finished school at age 18. Who saw that coming? “Those with high school degrees had them (babies) at 22.” Or, their senior year in high school. So women not on a track for college married their high school sweetheart who is also not on a track to college. And they had kids. And they care for them and love them. Nuance?

            * “why isn’t Europe suffering from loads of out of wedlock births?” Uh, they are. The same stats, poverty, crime, poor schools are over-represented by fatherless children in Europe. The key difference is that European children are much more likely to live with their parents – out of wedlock stats are different over there, they are more likely to cohabit.

            * You say, ‘out of wedlock births are common to poor women Brazil, without U.S. feminist influence; and they are common to poor women in the U.S., with U.S. feminist influence.’ They do it in Brazil for the same reason they do it here: they can. So why is it a good idea for U.S. women to emulate poor women in Brazil again?

          • purrtriarchy

            Awww. It all went over your head. Because you can’t stop tilting at evil straw feminists.

          • lady_black

            They are more likely to cohabit here, too. Or at least to co-parent. Unmarried means exactly that. It means unmarried, whether by death, divorce or never married. It doesn’t mean the same as “unpartnered.”

          • CJinPA

            Never-married FAR outnumbers divorced and widows.

          • lady_black

            It DOESN’T MEAN “un-partnered.” And you’re wrong. Most single moms are divorced.

          • CJinPA

            Nope, There are way more never-married moms, and growing.
            http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/145/almost-half-of-children-in-single-mother-homes-live-with-never-married-mothers
            It’s depressing that so many feminists don’t know or care about the culture they’ve created. It’s not about divorcing an abusive husband. It’s about choosing to deny children a father.

          • lady_black

            Does “never married mom” actually mean she will never marry? Or that she hasn’t married yet? Either way, it’s none of your business.

          • lady_black

            Sorry, but I have NEVER seen that happen. At least not by design. She may not want a husband, but she does want a father for her children. More often, what I have seen is guys skipping off, stating “It ain’t mine.” Having been a single mom (by divorce) I can say two things for certain. 1) Being a single parent (mother or father) is tough work, and nothing is “wonderful” about it, but it can be done successfully. 2) My son was definitely better off without his father in his life, and I was also definitely better off without him.

          • CJinPA

            Again, single moms by divorce are not the issue. I trust your #1 and #2 points.

            But if you’re understanding of this issue (and therefore of feminism itself) is just “what I have seen” then I’m going to have to ask you to look at the data. And you just restated my point: They don’t want to live with the father, but they want the father’s child.

            That is precisely my point, lady-black. “She may not want a husband, but she does want a father for her children.” As you said, they all have “fathers.” What they are denied is “Dads.”

            This has hurt children more than any other cultural or political development of the last half century.

            If you plan to have children knowing you can’t commit to living with the children’s other parent, you are making a conscious choice.

          • lady_black

            Right. And I did that too. I was never married to my daughter’s father. He was an OK dad (and he was a “dad” not just a father) but I wasn’t interested in living with the man, nor marrying him.

          • CJinPA

            But you didn’t chose to have a baby with him, right? That’s the difference.

          • lady_black

            WELL OF COURSE I chose to have a baby with him. Some problem with your reading comprehension? I could have had an abortion, so yes, I guess I did decide to have a baby with him. I knew I wouldn’t marry him though. It wouldn’t have worked out.

          • CJinPA

            I mean, did you choose to get pregnant with him? When I refer to women choosing to be single parents, that’s what I mean.

          • fiona64

            Because they want kids but not a husband. Great for them, horrible for kids and society.

            Citations needed.

          • purrtriarchy

            Citations needed.

            You are *assuming* that out of wedlock births are up because of nasty evil destructive feminism. You are assuming that feminism has to be the *only* factor here.

            Prove it. Prove your assertions. That its alllllllll the fault of feminism.

          • CJinPA

            No, it’s the fault of cultural changes. Feminists obviously drove the cultural changes of the last 40 years as they pertain to men, women and families. ‘Twasn’t bricklayers.
            Feel free to list other cultural factors. As long as you acknowledge that such births are up and that it’s been bad for kids and society, that’s fine.

          • purrtriarchy

            Sorry, not proof. I want citations.

          • CJinPA

            [Secret Tip: Ask for “evidence.” Not “proof.” Few claims can cite proof (including yours right now) but evidence can be cited….]

          • purrtriarchy

            So I take this non answer as a sign that you are talking out of your ass?

          • CJinPA

            Really? You need proof that earth revolves around the sun, too?
            Feminist Slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Cute. Very popular. Do you agree with it, even when children are involved? Unless you say, NO, there’s your proof.

          • purrtriarchy

            Keep talking out of your ass. You’re doing great!

          • CJinPA

            And there’s your proof.

          • lady_black

            Think about the slogan you have just cited. Does a woman “need” a man? No she does not need one. A woman might desire a life partner. It might be a man. But it need not be a man. Stop being so misogynistic and hetero-centric. I don’t feel a need to defend that. That’s just how it is, and how it always has been.

          • CJinPA

            And that’s my point. The slogan is correct: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” A woman does not NEED a man. Unless she wants to start a family. At which point she’s a tuna that voluntarily signed up for the Tour de France.

            A woman doesn’t need a man, but children need a father.

          • lady_black

            No they don’t. They need a sperm donor. I don’t think you’re going to see a whole lot of lesbian couples marrying men because they want children. They can, however, have and raise children together, and they do a fine job. So do gay male couples.

          • fiona64

            A woman does not NEED a man. Unless she wants to start a family. At
            which point she’s a tuna that voluntarily signed up for the Tour de
            France.

            Nope; she can use an anonymous donor.

            And your anti-female slur (“tuna”) is duly noted.

          • CJinPA

            LOL! It never crossed my mind. But it did yours. Is “tuna” the slur or reference to any fish?

          • fiona64

            Of course it never ‘crossed your mind,” dimwit; you don’t think sexism exists. Let me help you with this unfortunate gap in your education: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fish&defid=621379

          • CJinPA

            Wait, do you ALSO not know that feminists coined the term “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Honestly, it never crossed my mind that Gloria Steinem was anti-female.

          • fiona64

            Don’t try to be clever, little boy; you clearly lack the capacity.

            You were the one who said that women were “tunas entering the Tour de France” the minute they decided they wanted to have a child.

            You are clearly an angry little man who is ticked off that there are women who are unimpressed by you. I rather imagine that this happens to you with alarming frequency, so I suggest that you learn to live with the disappointment.

          • CJinPA

            You said the fish reference was anti-female. The fish reference was coined by a feminist. Your willful ignorance makes babies cry.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually it was Australian educator Irina Dunn who coined the phrase when she was a student at the University of Sydney, back in 1970–Steinem gave her the credit when she was asked. Not to be nitpicky, but weren’t you the one who told someone to ‘come into the 21st Century’ when they brought up Phyllis Schlafly?

          • CJinPA

            I salute your Googling prowess. I didn’t say Steinem coined it, but she popularized it. (There is zero chance the person I addressed it to knows who Irina Dunn is.The point stands: A feminist coined the term a poster now thinks is anti-female.) And it is generally accepted as the slogan for era of feminism I was referring to. The one that brought about the cultural changes, good and bad. That’s what makes it relevant in a way a Schlafly reference is not. The slogan is disastrous when applied to a woman with children.

          • fiona64

            Secret tip: When someone says they want a citation, they are asking for evidence.

            Dumbass.

          • CJinPA

            Evidence that feminists led the cultural change that led to skyrocketing out of wedlock births? Um, that would be that whole ‘Women don’t need men’ philosophy. Somehow that resulted in an explosion of fatherless children. Go figure.
            (And why I am the only one who doesn’t have to resort to juvenile taunts?)

          • purrtriarchy

            I don’t care if you got three babies;

            You can work the stick in my Mercedes

          • fiona64

            So, you don’t have any evidence whatsoever?

            That’s pretty much what I thought.

            If you don’t want to be called out as a dumbass, stop acting like one. It’s pretty easy.

          • lady_black

            You can blame “the feminists” until the cows come home. It doesn’t prove anything. Girls got pregnant outside marriage when my great grandmother was a young woman. In fact, she was one of them! The only difference was the options were more limited then. My great grandmother promptly got married, told everyone it was “a tumor” and gave birth to a “premature” baby. Check your own family tree, and I bet quite a few “preemies” shake out of those branches. Or girls who went away to “visit a sick aunt out west” someplace.

          • CJinPA

            Stop assuming you are the only one with a story, or that having the best story makes a difference as to what is best… Every family has examples of births outside of marriage. I know I do. That is what I am trying to point out: Having a child outside marriage is not new. Treating it as good for the child is new. Does that make sense to you?

            It’s not good for the child, or society. How do we discourage what hurts children without “blaming the mother” ..?

          • cjvg

            “How do we discourage what hurts children without “blaming the mother” ..?

            Well you could stop with consistently and unceasingly trying to do just that.
            Or you could stop pretending that men have absolutely nothing to do with their own actions, especially when those actions cause a pregnancy
            Or you could stop pretending that women are the ones who should be blamed for the voluntary made choices of legally adult men

          • CJinPA

            So what should the message be, because whatever we’re saying now isn’t working. “Don’t have children if you’re not married?” “Don’t make a baby if you aren’t both committed?” What should the message be?

          • lady_black

            MYOFB. That’s the right message.

          • CJinPA

            MYOFB is traditionally not what Americans do when children are being put at risk.

          • lady_black

            Children are not being put at risk, simply because you say they are. At risk of what, exactly? If you know of any children being put at risk, please call child protective services. Don’t be surprised if they laugh at you when you tell them a single parent home puts children at risk.

          • CJinPA

            Please. I mean the traditional definition of “at-risk child.” I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It means that, statistically, they are at greater risk for living in poverty, struggling in school, engaging in crime, being abused or being abusive, etc. The cultural change that feminists brought is creating more at risk children. We don’t say MYOFB to that.

          • lady_black

            Yes. actually you DO say MYOFB to that. Clearly “at risk” in your mind means whatever you subjectively wish it to mean. That’s a red flag MYOB situation. If you can help, be helpful. Otherwise BUTT OUT.

          • CJinPA

            Wrong. It’s not my definition. Surely you’ve heard the term at-risk children. What did you think it meant?

            Here’s how the U.S. Census Bureau defines “at-risk”
            children:

            The analysis shows that, while a majority (54%) of
            school-age children has no significant risk factors, a significant minority does. A far larger proportion of children has experienced a familial risk factor (36%) than a personal one (18%). The single most common personal risk factor is being retained in school, while the most common familial factor is not living with both parents.

            https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0052/twps0052.html

            The National Center for Education Statistics lists
            the following factors that lead to an “at-risk” label for students:

            *low socioeconomic status

            *living in a single-parent home

            *changing schools at non-traditional times

            *below-average grades in middle school

            *being held back in school through grade retention

            *having older siblings who left high school before completion

            * negative peer pressure

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-risk_students

            I consider myself very helpful. I am telling the truth. I’ll defend the right of every woman to make these choices. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have an obligation to note the facts. While there are many exceptions, overall, single parenthood produces more at-risk children than their should be. I

          • lady_black

            Yeah right. It’s none of your damn business how much money another family makes, how many parents are in the home, whether they are held back in school, or don’t finish, or have siblings that don’t finish. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. At risk of WHAT, exactly? If it’s something real, call child protective services. If it’s something potential, MYOFB.

          • CJinPA

            “In the past few years, research on the well-being of the population has expanded to include the concept of ‘at-risk’ conditions. Generally, these conditions are thought to be characteristics of the individual, or situations of the context they are a part of, that are believed to create higher likelihoods of undesirable life outcomes (e.g., completing high school, avoiding premarital births), or to impact overall quality of life.”

            None of my business? Single parents need more taxpayer help than other parents. I have to spend less on my own family to support people who make selfish choices. My kids have to go to schools with kids more apt to misbehave. My family has to live with the higher crime propensity of fatherless children. I wish it was none of my business. The problem is, when women chooses to raise a child without a husband, she’s more likely, statistically, to need help, so I become the husband. This affects me and my family every day. From a financial standpoint to a quality of life standpoint it affects my family. And how it affects schools. And communities. And my country. I didn’t ask for it to be my business, but it is.

          • fiona64

            The problem is, when women chooses to raise a child without a husband,
            she’s more likely, statistically, to need help, so I become the husband.

            You’re being issued another wife? Really? Wow. Do you live in Colorado City?

          • fiona64

            CJ’s definition of children at risk appears to be “there is no macho man there to beat the crap out of them.”

          • lady_black

            The only person saying I’m claiming “I’m the only one with a story” is YOU. I said very plainly that it’s somewhere in YOUR family and likely most families. I’m saying very plainly that it need not be bad for the child. If she doesn’t want the father involved, TRUST ME there’s a reason for that. Now we’re finished here. Go away, and take your pompous attitude with you. You’re nobody.

          • CJinPA

            The problem is not divorced parents, it’s the majority of single parents – the ones who never married. I didn’t come here to anger you or derail anything. I wanted to give you all a chance to respond to one of the 77% of Americans who reject the “feminist label.” To offer a thoughtful rebuttal. The fact that you and other posters have shown you blindly support every facet of the feminist movement, regardless of how much it has hurt children, says it all.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, forgive me if I don’t believe you that 77% of all Americans don’t believe that men and women are equals. That’s feminism. Whether one accepts the label or not. My husband is a feminist. I’ll bet if you asked him, he would tell you he wasn’t. But he definitely is. Those who “reject” feminism do not know the meaning of the word. If you’re a feminist, you believe your daughters ought to have the same choices as their sons, and that’s what a feminist is. My mother and grandmother were feminists before feminism was cool. They raised me to be a feminist too.

          • CJinPA

            Actually, the same poll that said only 20% of Americans call themselves feminists showed that more than 80% think women and men should be equal. So it’s not that they oppose equality, it’s that they don’t buy that modern feminists are driven by care for equality. Too much ‘crying wolf.’ Look at the “outrage” we’re supposed to feel over a few politicians making light of feminist criticism by reading magazines aimed at women. It’s the same reason most Americans value racial equality but reject people like Al Sharpton, who advertises himself as a champion of equality. They just don’t take feminists seriously.

          • fiona64

            And we have. We’ve called you out on your MRA bullshit.

          • fiona64

            I didn’t come here to anger you or derail anything.

            Excuse me, CJ, but your pants are on fire.

          • cjvg

            The only thing that has occurred is that these girls and women are no longer hidden and treated as a shameful secret. That is the only reason it is more visible now, not because there are more of them.
            Before they were hidden and secretly adopted out, unexpected much much much younger little “sisters” or “brothers” or quickly married off
            At least now these women have the choice to keep their children if they want to without them and their children being publicly and loudly shamed and denied normal social opportunities.
            So when are men going to keep it in their pants and take responsibility and pay for their kids if they don’t, I’m still waiting on you the self proclaimed “expert” of equality to lay some blame at men’s feet? Are you aware that 50% of the blame for EVERY pregnancy lays with the man. And you know what is even worse those men do not even take responsibility and care enough to help raise that child and stay involved or even pay child support to keep their child out of poverty?

          • CJinPA

            “The only thing that has occurred is that these girls and women are no longer hidden and treated as a shameful secret. That is the only reason it is more visible now, not because there are more of them.”
            You think there are not more out of wedlock births in the U.S. each year? That the number hasn’t gone up over the last 40 years??

          • lady_black

            Yes, because there are more PEOPLE than 40 years ago. The highest decade of rate of teen pregnancy was the 1950s. Not surprising, since there were no effective contraceptives.

          • CJinPA

            I didn’t say teen pregnancy. I said out of wedlock births. Most of those teen pregnancies in the 1950s were either within marriage, or led to marriage. Are you saying you think the percentage of births that are out of wedlock did not go up? Why would you even comment on this when it’s clear you’ve never given it 2 minutes of thought or research?

          • lady_black

            Back then, options were limited. How many would have been within marriage if society didn’t pressure them into marriage? That’s the difference now. Nobody pressures them to marry, and I think maybe that’s a GOOD thing. The marriages rarely work out when they are caused by pregnancy.

          • CJinPA

            Those marriages lasted plenty long back then. You’re right, probably not all of them should have lasted that long. And it’s better that women have options. But many of them were long and happy marriages. Still, I would not be in favor of entering into a hopeless marriage. Anyway, those were actual accidental pregnancies. I’m not talking about them.

          • fiona64

            The percentage rate has not changed one iota. Raw numbers? Sure … because the population is larger.

            But don’t bother with any critical thinking; it might get in the way of your MRA nonsense.

          • CJinPA

            What I admire most about you, fiona64, is not that you are simply ignorant about this topic, but that you don’t let stop you from being condescending at the same time.
            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf
            Look at Figure 1. Look at the sharp, steady rise in both percentage and raw numbers. The percentage changed many iotas.

          • fiona64

            From your link (you know, the words instead of the pictures):

            The historic increases in nonmarital childbearing result from many factors, including substantial delays in marriage beginning with the baby-boom generation and changes in sexual activity,
            contraceptive effectiveness and use, and abortion (1,2,10–12). Many infants are also born to couples in cohabiting relationships:
            According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG),
            about 40% of recent nonmarital births were to cohabiting women
            (10). In addition, there have been attitudinal changes. The societal disapproval that unmarried mothers faced at one time has diminished sharply (13). With the availability of more detailed birth data for 2007 from the vital statistics system and new data from the 2006–2008 NSFG, it will be possible to monitor current trends in the behaviors and attitudes that affect fertility patterns for unmarried women and the health outcomes for their babies.

            See, you need to actually *read* and reach the conclusion. Just because someone is unmarried does not mean there is only one parent around … and it’s none of your damned business anyway.

          • purrtriarchy

            ALL OF THE ABOVE IS THE FAULT OF FEMINISM

            EVEN POVERTY

            AND WAR

            FUCKING FEMINISTS

            ANGRY KITTEHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

          • CJinPA

            You made a claim that was breathtakingly wrong. Try to preserve some dignity and don’t compound the error.

          • CJinPA

            “Just because someone is unmarried does not mean there is only one parent around.”

            Even though 60% are indeed single parent, and even though they say “couples in cohabiting relationships” and intentionally not, “parents” so some of those will be single-parent with someone else/boyfriend, etc…. and even though they’re recorded as having been cohabiting only at the time of birth — right before the stress of living with a newborn begins…

            …You’re going with this: The out of wedlock birth rate (that you underestimated by about 4,000%) is not what it appears to be, because there so many parents cohabiting? The percentage of kids living with two unmarried parents is 4%. So, yeah, when someone is listed as an unmarried parent, there is usually only one parent around.

            http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

            I like your moxie. Confronted with the reality that you were completely unaware of how drastically families broke down during rise of feminism, you went with this.

          • cjvg

            Nice to see that you consider men who impregnate women as completely innocent of any and all responsibility.

            Are you really that convinced that men who are by all accounts legally competent adults are incapable of controlling themselves and or using birth control during sex.?

            During all these statements you have never once made even the tiniest noise that men are 50% responsible for every single pregnancy that ever occurred. I guess all these out of wedlock pregnancies are immaculate!

          • CJinPA

            But I’m not targeting the individual woman or man involved in an individual act. I’m targeting the cultural change that made out of wedlock births, once rare, so common. And made deadbeat dads, once rare, so common. I blame the “Dads aren’t necessary” theme spread by feminists.

          • lady_black

            I have already told you that out-of-wedlock births and deadbeat parents are neither new nor rare, and they were NEVER rare. Which puts feminism clearly out of the realm of blame. Get it through your thick head. Feminism can’t exist without fathers doing their part.

          • CJinPA

            lady_black, you are wrong. Staggeringly wrong. So wrong that I don’t think you’ll admit it when I show you how wrong your are.

            Look at Figure 1 and watch it go from “rare” to “not rare”:

            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

            Then please read this:

            http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births

          • fiona64

            I blame the “Dads aren’t necessary” theme spread by feminists.

            Citation needed.

          • CJinPA

            So you admit it is necessary for women to live with the fathers of their children, for the benefit of the children? If you answer No, you can cite yourself!

          • fiona64

            You need to learn about the straw man fallacy. Hint: you’re doing it when you try to put words in my mouth.

            You don’t have any citations to prove that there is any such thing as a “dads aren’t necessary” theme, whether put forth by feminists or not. You just have your big, dumb MRA mouth flapping.

            So, either put up or shut up, LoserinPA.

          • CJinPA

            The fact that you can’t write “Dads are necessary” is not lost on anyone.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think that when possible, a dad should be involved and support his children. But I don’t think that a couple should be forced to marry or stay together if children are the only reason–husband and wife both feel trapped, resentful, and often take it out on the children. I’ve seen marriages like this growing up and the effect it has on the children. It’s not good.

          • CJinPA

            Agreed.

          • fiona64

            Still no citation, I see.

            Not that I’m surprised.

            Now, why don’t you go color while the adults talk?

          • fiona64

            No, they’re the result of men just walking away. Don’t try to put it on women, buddy; it won’t work.

          • CJinPA

            Right. The women thought these were father material right up until the time they walked away. A total shocker. Please. The out of wedlock birthrate in African American communities is 70%. You’re saying they were all duped? 70%, all tricked?

          • fiona64

            The out of wedlock birthrate in African American communities is 70%

            Citation needed.

            And you’re still trying to blame women for men walking away .. and for being impoverished … and for having difficulties accessing affordable, reliable contraception … and for not kissing your tukkus.

          • CJinPA

            Citation shouldn’t be needed. Before I take the time to show you what you should already know, tell me: Do you challenge the 70% or not? Because if you don’t, I’m not wasting my time. If you won’t say yes or know, I’ll know….

          • fiona64

            Citation shouldn’t be needed

            And yet, it is. You keep making these statements as though they are self-evident assertions of fact … when they are anything but. In fact, every citation you have provided has demonstrated that your position is most politely stated as inaccurate.

            At this point, it is abundantly clear that you’re just making shit up.

          • CJinPA

            You didn’t know the percentage of out of wedlock births skyrocketed with the rise of modern feminism.
            You didn’t know the vast majority of American women reject feminism.
            And now you don’t know that 70% of African American births are out of wedlock. This is exactly the collective ignorance needed to defend what modern feminism has done to children and communities. Because if you knew the 70% figure, you’d know that’s too much for such births to be an accident, or women duped by a lying man. Or poverty, since Medicaid covers birth control. It has to be a choice, at least in most cases. And that undermines modern feminism and your defense of it.

          • fiona64

            Wow. So much flapping of your gums … and still not a single citation as requested. And do you know why that is? Because you are 100 percent incorrect … as demonstrated by an actual reading of the cites you did provide — and as I explained to you in the smallest words I could possibly muster.

            What a boring little man you are. Be gone.

          • cjvg

            However the reality of life in the West for women in 2014 does not meets the standard definition of EQUAL treatment either, but does not seem to bother you
            Besides what a strange convoluted attempt at redefining oppression as non oppression because it does not “meet” your arbitrary and completely subjective “standards”. All forms of oppression, even if it is not severe enough in your opinion, is still considered oppression, that is why it is called that now isn’t it!

          • CJinPA

            Equal treatment is very important to me. There’s equal treatment under the law, which is relatively easy to measure, and equal treatment in culture, which is more complicated. I was raised to treat women equally and support the notion of equality. My mom was the first teacher in her school to insist on being called “Ms.” I had three sisters whose lives depended on equality. I have a wife and daughter who had better be treated equally. Equality is important to me.
            When I see a feminist claim of inequality, it’s almost always bogus. The outrage is silly and manufactured, such as the photo that kicked off this comment thread.

          • fiona64

            I don’t think

            You could have stopped right there. It’s the only even remotely accurate statement in your post.

          • fiona64

            Western women are not oppressed.

            Which must explain why we have equal pay for equal work, and no politicians are ever involved in trying to limit our access to a full range of health care.

            Oh, wait …

          • CJinPA

            You are paid equally. Buy your own condoms.

          • fiona64

            Right. Women are paid equally. That’s why we make 76 cents on the dollar compared to men. http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html . And you wonder why we think you’re a dumbass? A woman doing the same work as a man is going to make 25 percent less than he does, based on the most recently available figures (posted at the link).

            I’m married and monogamous … and have a tubal ligation. Condoms are not necessary in my life. However, when I was single, I did buy my own condoms … because lazy ass-hats like you couldn’t be bothered to do so.

            Pro-tip: just because no woman in her right mind doesn’t want to f*** you doesn’t mean a woman doesn’t want to f*** someone else.

          • CJinPA

            Chill out. Don’t be so crude.
            Everyone knows pay claim has been debunked. Once you adjust for time on the job (women often take time off to raise children) the gap pretty much goes away.

          • Arekushieru

            More gaslighting behaviour and tone-policing? Wow, just keep proving how right WE are.

          • cjvg

            So you are serious about the fact that NO WOMEN IN THE US can ever complain about sexism, harassment, or rape culture until we have gotten to the same point as women in Pakistan?!

            Is this your sole argument for your claim that feminism and women’s rights are no longer in need of defense in the US? So as long as womens rights have not degenerate down to having acid thrown in their face, they are not allowed to bring up any inequalities at all. I think you just have proven the acceptance and normalization of oppression (as long as it does not go as far as acid mutilation) all by your lonesome

            You are just to ignorant and deliberately and ridiculously dumb to waste any more time on.

          • fiona64

            Don’t be a dumbfuck. I know, it’ll be hard for you.

            If a given woman cannot access contraception, or abortion, it has GONE AWAY for her.

          • CJinPA

            LOL. That one woman who lives 500 miles away from the drug store and condoms that cost less than a McDonalds Happy Meal.

          • fiona64

            All forms of contraception have known failure rates, dumbass — condoms in particular. And some women (and men) are allergic to latex. You need to educate yourself on a whole slew of things.

            You don’t know half of what you think you do, little boy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m assuming that you give this same speech to Conservative Christians who like to claim persecution if someone says ‘Happy Holidays’ to them instead of ‘Merry Christmas’? Now that’s pretend oppression for you.

          • CJinPA

            I don’t hear that one much anymore. I don’t watch Fox News so that may be the reason. Yes it’s overblown.

          • cjvg

            Politics that determine the welfare of women, but nice try anyway

          • CJinPA

            Politics does determine the welfare of women, more today than ever in the history of the U.S. But not the politics that are keeping women from their birth control pills. Feminism has created whole communities of households in which the “empowered” woman chose to raise children without having to live with the children’s father. Feminists created a new class of women dependent on politicians for life’s basic necessities: food, shelter, medicine. This probably was not the intent, and I don’t think equal rights for women had to be achieved at this cost, but the politicians are grateful for the tens of millions of dependent women that feminism provided.

          • cjvg

            Very nice, except Feminist are the one who ceaselessly and actively promote freely available contraception. Feminists are the ones who consistently argue that contraception (all forms) should be covered by health insurance.

            And then there is the fact that contraception prevents pregnancy and birth, which means feminist most certainly did not cause women to have children. In fact feminist stress getting an education and waiting until you are financially stable to have children.

            The only thing that feminist do promote is leaving abusive situations, even if he is the father of the children. Are you against that?

            Poverty created a class of people dependent on welfare, however only 2% of our national budget goes to the welfare you are talking about. Not exactly an earth shattering number!

            Before feminism EVERY woman was dependent, on a man or the state for to provide since they were uneducated and had no credit or property in their name.

          • CJinPA

            Please. It’s 2014. The 40% and climbing out of wedlock birth rate is not the result of lack of access to birth control. (And doesn’t anyone use condoms anymore? They cost less than a Happy Meal.) What we have today is choice. It’s culture. And feminists own it.
            Everyone can agree that it’s better that women don’t have to remain in abusive marriages; and that women don’t have to be financially dependent on men. I don’t think anyone thought so many women would use the change so simply forgo having a second parent in the home. Turns out it’s a great deal for her, horrible for the children. The most common variable in the life of an at-risk child, even before poverty, is the number of parents.
            Actually, I didn’t even include welfare in my point. That direct cash assistance is in addition to housing, food, and health care. And even that is a tiny fraction of the cost to society. The absence of a second biological parent is also the leading indicator that a child will struggle in school, commit crime and abuse drugs. And, amazingly, it seems if you remove a second income-earner from the home, you get less income. And more poverty. Go figure.
            I don’t want to hear any false choice: Either women are forced to stay in abusive relationships, or generations of children have to grow up in single parent homes. You imply the choice is between at-risk women or at-risk children, and, sorry kids, women come first. I think that’s balderdash.

          • lady_black

            Of course women come first, and by that notion, their children will also benefit. There’s nothing special about managing to impregnate someone. There’s nothing redeeming about being a second income. And as I told my ex-husband, if he didn’t want to be a father, I would find someone who does. And I proceeded to do so. Cry me a river.

          • CJinPA

            “Of course women come first…” The stats say that, no, the warm glow of a woman’s self-fulfillment does not replace a second income, or a second set of hands to help a child with homework, or a male role model, or a father’s love. It just doesn’t. And I’m not talking about divorce. I’m talking about the conscious choice to bring a child into the world without a father. I can’t think of a more selfish act, or one more harmful to children within the bounds of the law.

          • purrtriarchy

            So you are arguing in favour of abortion then?

          • CJinPA

            Well, we had more out of wedlock births after abortion became a right than before, so, I don’t see that as the answer. We also more such births as birth control became more available. There’s not pill or procedure for this. It’s the result of a cultural change championed by feminists.

          • purrtriarchy

            Prove it.

          • CJinPA

            Um, you don’t know that out of wedlock births went up after Roe v Wade?

          • purrtriarchy

            So?

            Why RvW? Why not when women got the vote? Joined the workforce?

            That isn’t proof of anything, cuppycake.

          • lady_black

            You could just as easily claim out of wedlock births went up after the Vietnam war. Or they went up after the British (music) invasion. Or after the Nixon presidency. Or after I bought this little tiger statue I keep on my desk to use as a paperweight. You can’t lay the blame for an increase in out-of-wedlock on any of those things, and you can’t lay the blame on Roe, or the advent of modern contraception either.

          • CJinPA

            What? I’m not the one attributing out of wedlock births to access to abortion. I was responding the suggestion that the lack of access caused the rise. Pay attention!

          • fiona64

            Citation still needed.

          • CJinPA

            You need me to show you that those births went up after 1973? You don’t know that, yet you actually feel confident commenting about this?

          • fiona64

            So, you don’t have a citation?

            Quelle surprise.

          • fiona64

            Citation needed.

          • lady_black

            Everyone has a father. Not all fathers deserve to be in the lives of their children.

          • CJinPA

            Sorry to ask but I thought you said you never married the father of your daughter. Is he different from the ex-husband and the man who came after?

          • lady_black

            Yep. I had a daughter between my marriage and my re-marriage. The relationship didn’t work out. He was a half-decent father, when he was sober. And he had a lot of support from his parents in being a half-decent father. At least he paid his support and took interest in his daughter.

          • cjvg

            How cute how you completely ignore the FACT that feminists very actively and very obviously promote to NOT have children until after women have obtained an education and are financially stable!

            So how do you square that with feminism is responsible for uneducated, financially unstable and unprepared women and high school girls being the majority of those who are unmarried mothers?

            This the complete opposite of what feminism teaches.

            The other women who are unmarried mothers are in general those who are divorced, which means those kids actually have fathers.
            The fact that many of those fathers do not care enough to be and stay involved is NOT the fault of the mothers, no that falling of their responsibilities lays solely and completely on the shoulders of these dead beat dads!!!!

            So please DO explain why social trends that are the complete and utter opposite of what feminism teaches must naturally be the fault of feminism

          • CJinPA

            I’m not talking about divorce or “gender bias” so why did you just use up 95% of the Internet pasting a lecture on divorce and “gender bias”..?

            Feminists “promote” not having children until after women have obtained an education and are financially stable? You also promoted the current system in which ‘education and financially stable’ means a high school education and steady government check. Why won’t you promote “Don’t be a single parent if you can avoid it”…? Why is that so hard? Because it implies that fathers are needed to raise healthy children, and that doesn’t square with modern feminism, which is all out war, all the time.

            “The other women who are unmarried mothers are in general those who are divorced, which means those kids actually have fathers.”
            Look at this graph. Look at the arrow for children living in ‘never married’ homes and the arrow for those living in divorced homes.

            http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/145/almost-half-of-children-in-single-mother-homes-live-with-never-married-mothers
            Feminists aren’t the only ones to blame for this cultural shift. But they top the list. One way I know they’re responsible is that you can’t find one who will look at that chart and say, “That’s a problem.”

          • fiona64

            You also promoted the current system in which ‘education and financially
            stable’ means a high school education and steady government check.

            Citation needed.

            Because it implies that fathers are needed to raise healthy children,
            and that doesn’t square with modern feminism, which is all out war, all
            the time.

            Nonsense. The truth is that two involved parents, regardless of gender, makes for better outcomes.

            But your MRA bullshit is duly noted.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t want to hear any false choice: Either women are forced to stay in abusive relationships, or generations of children have to grow up in single parent homes. You imply the choice is between at-risk women or at-risk children, and, sorry kids, women come first.

            Actually, kids are much better off in a single parent home than in an abusive home situation. My cousin and her children are much better off on their own than with their abusive father.

          • CJinPA

            False choice. Of course your cousin and her kids are better off. I’m glad she had that option. (I just said that above.) But I’m not talking about divorce, which is a fraction of single parent homes. I’m talking about those choosing to have children out of wedlock. They’re not fleeing abusive relationships.

          • Arekushieru

            No, the one who thinks in narrow terms is YOU. After all, we are not the ones who support women who don’t do as they say. Oops.

          • fiona64

            CJ is here spreading his anti-woman nonsense as well? Ugh.

            He wants us to know that there is no such thing as rape culture in the US, BTW …

          • lady_black

            He’s an idiot if he believes that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Then he’s delusional.

          • cjvg

            Funny, I just told my husband (one of these loud voiced American men) and he is laughing his butt of. He says he is going to use it on his next annual boys get together.

    • Diagoras

      Not all married women vote Republican. Some of us actually vote the way we want without getting permission from our husbands first.

      • CJinPA

        Well, mee-ow. Do you REALLY not know any Republican women??

        • lady_black

          I do, and none of them are very bright. Sorry.

        • cjvg

          Sure, usually elderly women from the deep south.
          Nice ladies but not exactly concerned with reality.

          Here is one to really blow your mind, my husband (registered republican, retired special forces,retired doctor and business owner) usually asks me to write down who to vote for since he is fully aware I actually follow politics more then he does. He even (gasp, clutch your pearls and your smelling salts now) vote democrat or green party when I think they are better candidates

          • CJinPA

            Ah, you’re not just bigoted against people who don’t vote like you, you’re rocking some regional bigotry too.

            I won’t comment on your personal situation as that can be dangerous online. As long as he’s OK with that arrangement, I won’t picket outside your house to END THE MATRIARCHY! LET HIM CHOOSE!! I’ll just remind you that the world is a bit larger than your own personal orbit.

          • cjvg

            It is funny how hard you are trying to make everyone who actually values women and their opinions, into victims of oppression.
            Oh, and by the way, I’m from the south so naturally I mostly meet southern ladies. Also you forgot ageist, I’m an ageist because I said elderly

            It is matriarchy if a husband asks his wife for advise on something because he knows she actually is informed?

            I guess it is better if he votes while uninformed, right. Just imagine that, a man who listens to what his wife has to say about the stuff she stays educated on. No it is much better if a man does not listen to his wife and stays uninformed!

            Obviously someone like you who believes that a man can never ask a woman for advise and a man can not listen to his wife because then he is repressed, is a lost cause for reason.

            Really may ai remind you that the world is a bit larger than your own personal orbit., and it even has women in it!

      • lady_black

        This married woman will never vote republican, and neither will her husband.

    • Arekushieru

      There is no War on Women? Then you go on to uphold the very things that prove there is a War on Women? Wow. Logic escapes you doesn’t it? The women who refuse to identify themselves as feminist are taking advantage of the very things that feminism has PROVIDED them, after all. Case in point: Sarah Palin. Then, when you go on to say with a straight face that there is no war on women, that your own politics aren’t divisive, that you hold tactics that you use to defend your own tactics in contempt, is PURELY contemptible. But, we don’t see you saying the same thing to THOSE women as you are saying to feminists. No, YOU are the one who should be held in ‘contempt’.

      • CJinPA

        “War on Women” is an appalling, political term coined by politicians. For U.S. feminists to use it when there are women actually being stoned in other countries is unconscionable. Surely you can air your grievances without stooping to that. If not, it proves the weakness of your case.
        Our mothers and grandmothers who insisted on equal treatment would not dare associate themselves with today’s feminists. It is this generation of activists that needs to apologize for turning what was once a movement that held the moral high ground into a hate-fueled joke. Does it not strike you as odd that our mothers and grandmothers, who faced real obstacles not pretend ones, never stooped to screeching “War on Women!” like the entitled feminists of today do?
        I doubt you carry yourself in person as you do in forums like these. Think about the words you use.

        • lady_black

          The war for women’s rights was not fought by women being “nice.” Your history is revisionist if you believe it was. Many women picketed the White House, non-stop and were thrown into prison. When they went on hunger strikes, they were brutally force-fed. Another well-known weapon used against “uppity” women was having them declared insane and committed to asylums. Plenty of women were “screeching”, demonstrating, picketing, chaining themselves to fences and being mistreated for women to gain just the right to a vote. Women were denied property rights (the right to own property, earn one’s own living, hold bank accounts and credit in one’s own name) simply because they were married, due to coverture laws. This was in my lifetime. Along with the right to self-determination by the withholding of contraception and abortion. In MY LIFETIME. And I am by no means ancient. There are those who would love to take us back to those times, so excuse us if we “screech” it’s the very real memory of pain that was very real to actual women. It would be dangerous to take all our gains for granted, as though they will always be there even if we cease to fight for them.

          • CJinPA

            It’s the 21st century. Join us.

          • lady_black

            Yes, by all means forget everything that led there. You’re much easier to manipulate that way.

          • Arekushieru

            And it’s much easier to erode rights if there isn’t constant pushback against their erosion, and the easiest way to do so is to create a framework, just as we have been doing, around it.

            I see that CJ has fallen for the LIE that feminism is no longer needed, too.

          • cjvg

            Obviously you have not, so excuse her for reminding you!

          • fiona64

            You first, mister …

        • Arekushieru

          You DO realize that what you are saying is that women who are even better off than we are have no business complaining about their circumstances, either. Or that the women who find themselves being stoned, today, have no right to complain because there might be someone worse off than they are. Moral relativity much? I do not begrudge ANY woman their right to complain precisely BECAUSE I am feminist. I’m sorry, but my feminism includes ALL women, not just a narrow, paternalizing (which happens to be part of the oppressive patriarchy, btw) view of women that others women who are not us as needing to be ‘rescued’ and constant ‘victims’ even though they may not see themselves as such. Kthx.

          • fiona64

            It’s a man, baby …

        • cjvg

          Seriously, you should read some of the suffragette’s materials, they were positively “screeching” about how dishonest and how amoral it was to consider women to be a lesser human being then a man and therefore she could not be allowed to vote or hold property in her own name.

          Those grand mothers and mothers did not stop at achieving just the right to vote because their mothers did not have it, so that must be enough. No they went on to fight for ERA (which still has not passed), equal pay (which we still do not have), the right to not get raped by your husband (which is now a law), the right to achieve an education (which we now can) etc etc.

          And there is you trying to destroy and diminish what is achieved, and what still must be achieved. All while chastising a female for not being appropriately modest in her words and using nice female tone.

          The number of bills regulating and attempting to curb a woman’s reproductive rights and choices introduced just last year alone is telling. Especially when compared to the number of bills introduced regulating a mans reproductive rights. (small hint it is ZERO)

          Obviously as long as people like you are around the work is not nearly done.

          • CJinPA

            It’s a mistake to assume the Women’s Rights movement and the Feminist Movement are identical. They are not. The suffragettes were demanding basic human rights. T Feminists demand a reordering of society to meet their increasingly narrow political aims. And they need to generate a constant supply of new grievances There is a reason only 23% of Americans identify themselves as “feminists.” Suffragettes would not recognize modern feminists and would be disgusted with what feminist have done to families.

            I don’t need to defend school dress codes and modesty. (That’s one of those new feminist grievances that most people don’t have time for.) Nor do I consider a civil tone to be female or male. It’s a gender-neutral quality. Obviously, for self-described feminists, there is no such thing as gender-neutral anything: they define themselves, and the world, through gender. It provides the illusion of comforting order in a world that defies it.

            Birth control and abortion are not going away in the U.S. No one seriously believes they are. I’d like to see your evidence of the Vast Conspiracy to Take Away My Pill. How many actually simply prohibit making taxpayers pay for your pill? How many have a chance in hell of passing? They excite the anti-abortion and pro-abortion crowds, which is the intent. The rest of us focus on the real world.

          • No Tea

            “Feminists demand a reordering of society to meet their increasingly narrow political aims” I didn’t know the TEA Party was founded by feminists..

          • fiona64

            There is a reason only 23% of Americans identify themselves as “feminists.”

            Citation needed.

            Birth control and abortion are not going away in the U.S. No one
            seriously believes they are. I’d like to see your evidence of the Vast
            Conspiracy to Take Away My Pill.

            Read the fucking news some time. Oh, and learn about how health insurance is part of a compensation package, not “taxpayers paying for your pill.”

            The rest of us focus on the real world.

            You’re obviously male. For 51 percent of the population, this *is* the real world.

          • CJinPA

            You need another citation? Do you know any facts pertaining to the subject you’re commenting on? Any?
            Turns out, you caught me. I said “only 23% of Americans.” It’s actually only 23% of *women* and just 20% of Americans overall.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

            Seriously, you should know this.

          • fiona64

            When you’re the one making the affirmative assertion, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence, not just to expect us to believe you. I learned this in junior high school.

            Seriously, you should know this.

            From your own link: But asked if they believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals,” 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of
            Republicans.

            Given that feminism means that men and women are social, political and economic equals, it looks like you’re proven wrong by your own link.

            You MRA neanderthals need to go back to your caves.

          • CJinPA

            OK, so you now have realistic understanding of just how few women agree with you. (Here you were thinking it was a majority.)
            So, according to your desperate reading of it, *I* really am a feminist, because I believe that men and women should be equals. LOL. What it means is, no one is buying the feminist argument that women are oppressed. They ain’t buying your definition of what feminism means.

          • fiona64

            You know, pooky .. 82 percent is a whole lot more than just a simple majority.

          • CJinPA

            Yes. It’s big. And of that 82% who value equality, 80% want nothing to do with feminists. Because they know you’re not about equality.

          • fiona64

            And of that 82% who value equality, 80% want nothing to do with feminists.

            Nope, sorry, that’s not what your article says, Mr. MRALoser.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Taxpayers are not paying for our pills. We pay the premiums, remember? And the ‘screeching’ stuff gets old after a while. I’m civil as I know how to be and conservatives will still tell me that I’m ‘screeching’, ‘angry’ and ‘hysterical’. It gets real old after a while.

          • fiona64

            The only one I see screeching here is CJ, who appears to be angry that no one is impressed by him.

          • CJinPA

            I was referring to the pending legislation that will allegedly curb women’s rights. Many states have bills/laws prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. Anyway, when the government mandates a certain kind of insurance, typically the full cost is not passed on to limited number of folks who need it. It’s spread around by the insurance company.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thank you, I know how insurance works. But as I said, I work and pay my own premiums, so it gets pretty annoying when a guy tells me to ‘pay for my own’, when I already am. I don’t go up to the older men at my workplace and tell them to pay for their own impotence meds.

          • fiona64

            CJ is probably like that asshat Mr. Chris, who told us that Viagra was necessary, life-saving medication because a man who couldn’t get a woody might be depressed … but contraception wasn’t medication.

          • CJinPA

            Wasn’t being condescending. Just noting that insurance coverage mandated by government carry more costs than others. Obviously, if offering birth control coverage made financial sense, you wouldn’t need the government to force carriers to offer it. To my knowledge, impotence med coverage is not mandated, it just made sense to offer it because men would pay, and the number is quite lower than the number of women on the pill. And don’t forget, those guy meds benefit women too.

        • fiona64

          Oh, yes … and you’ve already told us that thee is no such thing as rape culture in our country … because others have it worse.

          Having our rights voted on again, as though we are still property under coverture law, is indeed a war on women. And that is what our mothers and grandmothers fought against.

          Your ignorance is absolutely breathtaking.

          Oh, and as for your tone policing? Fuck that.

      • fiona64

        CJ is an imbecile. Full stop.

  • No Tea

    Well. Obviously, Amanda, you read fashion mags, which are, sorry to disagree, silly. To say the least. And who says no one thinks the lesser of men that read idiotic magazines? Guns and Ammo? Motorcycle mags? Or GQ, to be more in line with women’s fashion mags. What a bunch of loser garbage. No. Real people don’t read loser mags, or watch Jerry Springer or Oprah or Duck Dynasty. I would be just as disappointed if Michelle read Cosmo as if Barack read GQ.

    • Arekushieru

      I guess you don’t realize that your attitude is not shared by the mainstream? Even if they don’t think of those who read the magazines as lesser, they don’t have the same attitudes about the magazines, themselves. Sorry.

    • purrtriarchy

      Fashion magazines = art and culture. Not silly.

      And I read fashion magazines, art magazines, culture magazines and add political and science to that list.

      Fuck you.

  • Arekushieru

    I think that’s what William meant. He said that they were trying to look sincere. Doesn’t mean that was their intent. :)

  • purrtriarchy

    Good post here. Should be read by the uninformed idiots posting on this thread…
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/06/i-have-a-son-too.html

  • Jennifer Starr

    Actually, it’s a very apt comparison–the ‘disgust’ is your problem, not hers.

  • lady_black

    Sounds like something I might say. Good for her. It needed to be said. Men need to worry about their own genitalia and stop practicing gynecology without a license. I’ve had it up to the gullet with these male gynoticians.

  • CJinPA

    You were a single parent and your kids did fine. That happens a lot. Like my sister.
    Before the women’s rights movement and the feminist movement, a lot of children with stuffy, chauvinistic dads and Stepford Wife moms did fine. That happened a lot. But society still went after those chauvinistic dads and mindlessly obedient wives, right? They didn’t judge them by the exceptions to the rule, they judged them by the rule. And when they saw it was wrong, they had the courage to say it was wrong.

    • lady_black

      It’s NOT wrong.

      • CJinPA

        The number of women choosing to raise fatherless children is wrong. Not because of circumstance, or divorce or abuse, but to chose it, it’s wrong. It’s too common. Period.

  • lady_black

    In response to your comment in moderation. Of course they believe abortion “isn’t a right women should have.” Who gives a fat rat’s ass what they “believe?” The fetus may well “have it’s own body.” That doesn’t translate into any right to MY body, or the body of any other woman who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy. It’s NOT a crime. They DO want to control the reproductive lives of women who are strangers to them. If they are against abortion, I suggest they never have one. We are not mob-ruled here in the USA. I couldn’t care less how many people are in favor of gestational slavery for women, or what their gender makeup is. We have a Constitution that says women are not slaves. I am NOT gullible. These are my OWN thoughts, and they were not “fed to me” by anyone. The subject of abortion was thrust into my life at the tender age of ten by family circumstances. I have seen nothing in the last 45 years that has changed my mind about the subject. And you are NOT “pro-choice.” I’ll thank you to keep your insults to yourself.

  • lady_black

    It matters a great deal what I believe. On the other hand, I couldn’t care LESS what a stranger believes. They don’t pay my bills. Their beliefs inform THEIR decisions. Their beliefs mean less than nothing to me. Abortion is NOT a crime, and the fact that they think it should be is irrelevant. When it was a crime, it didn’t stop women from seeking abortions. My mother had an abortion when it was still illegal. She would have died without it. If that’s “brain-washing” than so be it. I didn’t give a shit about the opinions of strangers 45 years ago and I still don’t. Now DEAL with that. I won’t tell you what you do or do not believe. I will tell you it’s irrelevant what you believe. YOU get to live by your beliefs, because I sure as hell will not live by what you believe.