"Sexist" Obama Speech Writer

Oh how hilarious is it to see the bull dyke feminists and Women's Studies Professors getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that Obama's speech writer "groped" a CARDBOARD CUTOUT of Hillary.

Here's what the chic's and mangina's at California's NOW wrote on their website:

Obama Administration: Feminist or Sexist?

Although Clinton's team has laughed it off, there needs to be a public apology from Favreau at the very least, including a statement recognizing why his actions were sexist and wrong. Ideally, we'd see a resignation from Favreau, or a commitment to attend a training on preventing sexual harassment.

Interestingly enough, Hillary's official response via her Senior Advisor was actually sane and shows a sense of humor...

Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.

"Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon's obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application," he said in an e-mail.

Rush Limbaugh once described feminism as: Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

We can add that "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women with absolutley no sense of humor, the ability to harass and punish any male that dares to commit the thought-crime of sexism."

Crimes of Flirtation

While commuting to work this morning, I was reading the daily paper and came across today's installment of "Dear Abby," entitled Amorous Salesman Delivers Pitch Uncomfortably Close.

This letter, and Abby's answer, offers an example of the attitudes of our feminist influenced society in terms of male/female roles, expectations and what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

There was a time when women were taught by their elder female family members about the facts of life, and that all girls grew up knowing that when they reached maturity, men would be approaching them as suitors, and most were taught how to politely, firmly and clearly reject unwanted male attention. If a particular male was unusually persistent, the ladies male family members usually got involved to ensure he got the message that his attentions were not wanted.

My how things have changed.

DEAR ABBY: Once a month, a trade representative I'll call "Bob" visits our office and flirts with me. I try to keep him at a distance, but he always tries to move close to me and changes his voice to be soft and seductive. Last month he told me I "smelled good," although I wasn't wearing anything fragrant. I assured him it was the eucalyptus incense behind him.

Abby, Bob comes on so strong it scares me. I had my chair backed up all the way against my computer desk. I decided that the next time he came in I would make sure I had a co-worker close by. But when I did, he didn't act the same way. I have a feeling he won't act up again until we're alone.

I loathe the idea of being alone with him in a room. I hesitate to ask a male co-worker to step in because I don't want to appear weak. What should I do to get Bob to back off? -- HAD IT IN BEAUFORT, S.C.

Here's the key phrase: Abby, Bob comes on so strong it scares me.

This is perfectly indicative of just how confused and corrupted the relationship between the genders have become since the ascendancy of the feminist paradigm in today's society.

The feminists have spent decades now pushing for 'equality' in the workplace. To put women shoulder-to-shoulder with the men in the world of work. One of the means of accomplishing this has been to promulgate a state of mass confusion in gender roles and what is and is not appropriate behavior.

The answer to this confusion, of course, has been to basically criminalize natural, normal male behavior.

Note, the most threatening thing this guy did in this letter writer's description, was to DARE to tell her she smelt good, and to try to get close to her and have conversation.

Oh the horror!

Even more troubling however, was Abby's response:

DEAR HAD IT: If you haven't already done so, document what has gone on each time Bob has come into your office. Frankly, he sounds more than a little bit creepy.

Which part was "more than a little creepy?" Trying to move in closely and softening his voice to talk to her? Complimenting her on her scent?

When he comes on to you again, tell him directly and clearly (and loudly) that he is making you uncomfortable, and if he doesn't stop immediately, you will report him to your boss. And if he tries anything again, follow through.

In other words, this man is a potential RAPIST! Don't forget to yell FIRE!, kick him in the balls, and run screaming from your office! That would CERTAINLY ensure he NEVER commits the horrible crime of flirting with you ever again! He should be fired, arrested, charged with sexual harrassment and thrown into jail! Registered on the sex offenders list for life!

It is your boss's responsibility to provide you with a harassment-free work environment, and if that doesn't happen, your state labor board or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be notified.

Ah yes, the STATE is RESPONSIBLE that no woman ever has to feel SCARED that a man she does not find attractive in any way, dares to try to flirt and compliment her!

Same-Sex "Marriage"

While I've posted before how I think the political controversy regarding Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) is really insignificant when you actually look at the biggest threat to the institution of marriage (i.e. no fault divorce and the feminist cultural paradigm), that does not mean I believe marriage should be "re-defined."

I believe that no matter how well meaning, loving, nurturing or nice a single parent, or two same-sex parents can be, or that same-sex or single parents CAN AND DO the best job they possibly can given their respective situations...

...they simply CANNOT provide the primary function of child-rearing that a man and a woman married couple CAN - which is role modeling the behavior of interacting, living and co-existing with a member of the opposite sex for the basic purposes of genetic reproduction and nurturing of the next generation so that they too can mature and reproduce and nurture the genetic line, ensuring genetic survival.

These intrinsic traits of a traditional marriage- based family are in many respects the subconscious programming of the children to give them the tools to form their own lasting lifetime bonds with members of the opposite gender so they can continue to perpetuate the cycle of propagating the species.

No amount of conscious action, behavior or teaching can overcome what is lost in this subconscious programming of intrinsic, human relational behavior between the symmetrical and complementary elements of the human experience - the male and the female psyche.

Here is the ugly truths of reality on this matter...and no amount of beautiful lies or politically correct dogma can change:

Two women simply cannot provide the proper example for a young boy on how to be an adult man.

Two women cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young girl to learn how to successfully live with a male mate as a man and woman can.

Two men cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young boy to learn how to successfully live with a female mate as a man and woman can.

And no matter how much self-regard, or how much recognition we heap upon single-parents as the ultimate martyr worthy of self-respect in today's society, I say to you all that while single parents can try to do the best they can, you cannot "replace" or "substitute" a person's father or mother.

If they are not there for your child, they are missing out on having that masculine or feminine influence combined with the natural genetic bond of paternal or maternal relations that are key in their psychological and behavioral development.

Tell yourself all the pretty lies you need to to justify the choices you've made in your life, but in the end, YOU do not pay the price for YOUR choices...it is your children that pay it.

Pair-bonding of opposite genders is based on the biological necessity of creating an environment for the human species to thrive and survive.

From a completely dispassionate, scientific perspective, is not a fact that homosexuality is a biological dead-end?

Somehow, this FACT has become politically incorrect, hateful and bigoted to point out.

And this is why I don't view this movement to re-define "marriage" as an issue of "civil rights."

Marriage is an institution designed to create families to raise the next generation of offspring who in turn perpetuate that cycle by entering the institution themselves when they reach maturity.

Saying a Same Sex couple is 'married' is like saying the Blue Sky is Yellow.

No amount of calling me a bigot, or hateful or whatever is going to change the facts of the matter.

Call it yellow all you want, it's still Blue.

Getting the State to recognize that the sky is Yellow doesn't change the fact that it is still Blue.

Marriage was NEVER about "two loving people sharing their lives."

It was always about what's best for THE CHILDREN.

Somehow, this has been forgotten. Thanks to feminism, birth control, abortion, and a societal "revolution" in attitudes and morays, sex has been detached from procreation, and the very "definition" of marriage has been altered.

Pointing out that the definition has been altered is not in my mind adequate justification for further altering that definition.