Bill O’Reilly is a misogynistic moron

What’s new, right? Here’s what Bill had to say about the recent recommendation that birth control be subsidized:

“Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex. They’re not going to use birth control anyway.”


Yep. Women only get pregnant because they’re drunk sluts who don’t care about birth control.

…I don’t even have to say anything else, do I?

This is post 31 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

How to cure feminism

According to the purported manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, who recently confessed to being responsible for the Norway killings:

1. Limit the distribution of birth-control pills (contraceptive pills): Discourage the use of and prevent liberal distribution of contraceptive pills or equivalent prevention methods. The goal should be to make it considerably more difficult to obtain. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points but would degrade women’s rights.

2. Reform sex education: Reform the current sex education in our school institutions. This may involve limiting it or at least delaying sex education to a later age and discourage casual sex. Sex should only be encouraged within the boundaries of marriage. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points.


3. Making abortion illegal: A re-introduction of the ban on abortion should result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,1-0,2 points but would strip women of basic rights.


4. Women and education: Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.


Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor’s degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD.


He’s right. Want to control women? Reduce them to baby making machines.

(Side note: Why is it still okay for women to get PhDs? …Why am I trying to use logic to analyze something like this?)

The really scary part? While people while be eager to dismiss this as the crazed ravings of a madman, these are the exact tactics the religious right is using in the United States. And that’s a hell of a lot more than one person.

(Via Pharyngula)

This is post 28 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

“Men should have veto power over abortions; Women should be held criminally liable if they refuse”

Put on your rage hats, folks. This one’s a doozy.
Keith Ablow – psychiatrist, psychological thriller author, and Fox News personality – thinks that not only should men have veto power over abortions, but women who ignore said veto should be held criminally responsible. Why? Take it away, Keith.

I have limited the scope of my argument intentionally, in order to focus on what I consider to be a question that puts fairness front and center: If a man has participated in creating a new life and is fully willing to parent his child (independently, if necessary), why should he not have any control over whether that life is ended?

Because I man doesn’t have to carry said child for nine months. When we achieve the technology to remove a fetus and put it in a mechanical womb chamber, then we can have the discussion on paternal input.

We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.


Or maybe you should know if a woman is pro-choice or not before you stick your penis in her, and if it’s so goddamn important to you, then don’t stick your penis in her. A mindblowing proposal, I know.

Giving would-be fathers a lack of veto power over abortions is connected psychologically to the epidemic of absentee fathers in this country. We can’t, on the one hand, be credible in bemoaning the number of single mothers raising their children, while, on the other hand, giving men the clear message that bringing new lives to the planet is the exclusive domain, and under the exclusive control, of women.


Whether stated or not, the underlying message of withholding from men their proper rights to father the children they create is that they are not proper custodians, nor properly responsible, for their children.


The notion that there is no emotional injury done men by depriving them of decision-making power as to whether the children they father are aborted is naïve.


Just in my own practice of psychiatry, I have listened to dozens of men express lingering, sometimes intense, pain over abortions that proceeded either without their consent, or without them having spoken up about their desires to bring their children to term and parent them.


Should we really continue to give men the clear message that that they should deny, and that we have no regard for, their feelings about the unrealized lives of their potential sons and daughters?

Isn’t it interesting that we don’t generally even ask fathers how they are feeling in the days leading to abortions, nor in their aftermath? We don’t even ask how they are feeling in the aftermath of abortions of fetuses who have reached the second trimester, even if they have been seen by their fathers during ultrasound imaging. Aren’t we at risk of suggesting that we don’t much care how they feel?

Men haven’t been taught that they should consider the lives they help create as their responsibility from conception (other than providing financially for the child if born), but I believe those lives are their responsibility. And I believe that with that responsibility ought come certain rights.

Citation needed.

I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children.



Um, actually, the consequences aren’t unknown, because we have data from thousands of years of women not being able to have abortions. We’ve historically been nothing more than baby incubators, and that’s exactly what you want to return to. And you know what happens when women are forced to carry babies to term? They still try to get back alley abortions, and women die.


Adult humans dying. Kind of more important than emotional consequences or the abortion of some cells that don’t have feelings or memories or dreams.

And I am absolutely certain that no woman needs to become pregnant who wishes not to become pregnant. Women taking full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies would mean that no woman would face the prospect of being compelled to bring a child to term.


But men can’t take responsibility for their sexual activity by choosing to have sex with someone who’s anti-choice. Because that would restrict men’s ability to have sex freely, when this issue is really about punishing women who have sex.


Seriously, if this paragraph doesn’t illustrate that mindset, I don’t know what will. In what world do we live in that we force people to suffer through all negative consequences instead of trying to alleviate them when possible? If you go skiing, you know there’s a chance you might break your leg. If it happens do we scream “WELL YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE GONE SKIING, SUFFER THROUGH IT!”?


No, we let you go to the fucking doctor.

It’s time to give men their due as fathers—from the moment of conception. Allow men who want to be fathers, and who could be good parents, to compel the women they impregnate to bring their children to term.


Because a man’s feelings are more important than control over your own body. Hear that, ladies?

Look, I do think open communication is important in relationships, and that serious issues like abortion should at least be discussed before making a decision. That’s assuming a healthy relationship, and not cases of rape, incest, abuse, etc where the woman’s disclosure may put her at risk. But we can’t ignore the fact that there’s a biological difference here – women carry children, men do not. That’s why the final decision ultimately lands in the hands of the woman, even if it does cause some distress to men. There’s absolutely no reason to give a man veto power other than the patriarchal idea that men deserve control over women.

I wish I didn’t have to explain this, but anti-choice and anti-women sentiments are rapidly growing in the US. A fact more terrifying than any of this guy’s novels.

This is post 26 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Q&A Quickfire!

Blogathon is pretty much the one time a year I check my ancient formspring.me account. So here’s a quickfire answering some random questions from the last 12 months:

Have you ever played any Pen and Paper RPG’s if so, which?

I’ve played Dungeons & Dragons twice after my friends guilted me to no end. The first time was mainly spent drawing up character sheets for 4 hours. The second time two of the guys in the group spent the whole time trying to have their characters rape mine. IT WAS A BLAST!

Now you know why I only played D&D twice.

How do you sleep?


Actually, quite crappily. It usually takes me a long time to fall asleep, and I’ll wake up a couple of times every night. I used to sleep walk when I was a little kid, so maybe that has something to do with it.

How do you play on clue Plum, White, Green, Peacock, Scarlet, Mustard


Pfft, Scarlet, no question. Professor Plum if she’s taken. Yes, it totally matters.

Would you rather have sex with Ronald McDonald or the Kool-Aid man?


Oh god, terrifying clown or someone obnoxiously yelling “Oh yeeeaaaah” the whole time? ..Ronald McDonald. I can close my eyes; it’s harder to close my ears.

Custard cream or bourbon biscuit?

I don’t even know what either of these things are. Is this British? Is this like spotted dick? Heh heh heh, spotted dick.

finish this sentence “kids these days…”

…will in ten years be complaining about kids these days.

If you have any additional random mindless questions, feel free to leave them in the comments so I have something to blog about at 3am, haha.

This is post 22 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Today’s WTF Roundup

SPLC certified hate-group Mission America claims teacher unions are giving financial incentives for students to become gay. Because not only is homosexuality a choice, but the constant harassment and threats are worth the small chance that you get a tiny fraction of your college tuition paid!
Japan is cursed because the emperor had sex with a demon. Duh.

What is Dr. Marcus Bachmann a doctor in? Bigotry? Homophobia? Because it’s certainly not clinical psychology.

Speaking of scary Bachmanns, Michelle is now winning the polls in Iowa. …What.

In lighter news, remember that marriage pledge Bachmann (and Rick Santorum) signed that was full of homophobic bullshit and vowed to ban porn? It also suggested that blacks were better off back when they were slaves, but now they reworded it to not so sound mindbogglingly racist. See? Progress!!! No word on when they’ll remove the stupidity from the rest of the pledge.

Really? ಠ_ಠ

Rob Sherman is an atheist activist in Illinois most well known for trying to get “Under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance. He also just wrote a post that made me facepalm so hard that it’s going to leave a mark (emphasis mine):

The lovely Hooters Girls of Springfield, Illinois, provided Dawn and Rob Sherman with a free car wash, on Thursday, to thank us for asking the State Board of Education to not force school districts around the State to implement the unconstitutional Student Prayer Act “Moment of Silence” law. The girls had asked us what had brought us to Springfield. When I told them, they all said that they agreed with Dawn and me on that subject. They then offered to wash our car for free to demonstrate their appreciation, proving that there are certain rewards to this job that you just don’t get with every other line of work.

[…]Dawn and I went to the Springfield Hooters for lunch after making our presentation, that morning, at the June monthly meeting of the State Board of Education. I often eat at Hooters, either in Springfield or Bloomington, after conducting business at the Capitol. The food and service, at both locations, are always fabulous. Obviously, a sign of great management by Eric and Mike. The fact that the
food and service come with a generous helping of eye candy is merely a convenient and pleasant bonus.
Haley and Tara discuss strategy on how to wash a convertible while the top is down. Haley is the girl speaking to me. Tara is the girl with the big sponge. (What did you think I was going to say?)

That’s his high school daughter Dawn in the car with him.

Sometimes it just boggles my mind how atheist activists don’t realize that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t write a whole blog post about objectifying women.

70 year old man stoned to death for “homosexuality”

Disgusting:

“I killed a man,” Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman’s apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.

When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations.

Yet another example of the terrible hatred that’s found in the Bible, and what happens when it falls into the hands of the wrong people. The twisted thing is that anyone who claims to be a Biblical literalist and doesn’t do stuff like this is a hypocrite. Thankfully.