It's days like this when I almost want to go Stephen Colbert on an article and pretend to support something absolutely ridiculous and make an equally ridiculous extremist case for my alleged view. To be entirely frank, I could do it with both sides in this case. I am speaking, of course, of the Indiana law which, amongst other things, has brought back the unfortunate saying that historically never was "Let them eat cake". The gays, of course. Because people are trying to keep the gays from eating cake? Well, not exactly. Because the gays are trying to turn bakers gay? No, not that either. The problem? We have businesses that want to act like 6 year olds and unfortunately, the gays are 5 1/2.
In a positively bizarre turn of events, the National Organization for Women has issued a statement in regards to Bill Maher's comments directed towards Sarah Palin. The controversy started when Bill Maher said the following on his show. “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’. I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats,..." Apparently, some on the right demanded that N.O.W. come to the defense of Sarah Palin, but they waited a few days before issuing this response.
1. Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so, but try to keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women.
Seriously? I knew that N.O.W. was perfectly comfortable putting men in their place, but who are they to tell women what to do? I suppose all of the barefoot and pregnant broads across the country will stop with this activity immediately now that the National Organization for Women has put them in their place. You heard them, ladies. Quit fighting amongst yourselves and get back in the kitchen.
Using body terms? So I'm guessing that "twat" is now an acceptable terminology for the vagina, just not for the woman it belongs to? So it would be okay for one to tell a woman to "Get her twat in gear", but not to "Get moving, twat". Duly noted. Wow, these broads over at N.O.W. are getting easier to get along with all the time.
It is apparently acceptable, however, to use this term in association with women that one does agree with politically. So, for example, if I were a fan of Hillary Clinton, I could say "Boy, that twat Hillary really showed Libya who the boss is, didn't she?"
Keep their sex out of it? I have to say I agree with the National Organization of Women. What does her being a woman have to do with anything? Why does one feel the need to point out the gender of the person they are talking about? We should all listen to the National Organization of Women, and stop feeling the need to identify people by their gender... i guess?
All of this having been said, the non-gender specific people over at the National Organization for Women went on to say this.
2. We're on to you, right-wingers:
a. You're trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women's bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc. Sorry, but we can't defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women's equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.
What? I don't mean to nit pick here, but that statement was like 70 words. How long did it take you broads to come up with that one? And as generic as it is, you don't have time to copy and paste that every day? I guess these chicks over there really worked hard on this statement, and are particularly proud of it. If so, in the time it took you to put your noodles together and structure paragraph 2, you could have re-posted paragraph 1 for the next 500 offenses. I'm just saying.
Reproductive rights attacks? Here is how N.O.W. defines their stance on "reproductive rights".
NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women.
Even if you don't intend to click that link, you should hover it and see that the destination at the now website is a folder called "abortion". Hey N.O.W., cut the crap, okay? Abortion is not reproduction, it is to stop accidental reproduction. While it is your right to lobby for abortion, and to help women obtain legal abortions, when you can't use the correct term for what you are doing, maybe you are in the wrong line of work?
Here we have a group that defines themselves as the national organization for people of a specific sex issuing a statement to tell others to keep a persons sex out of the discussion, and telling us that they are to busy fighting for a woman's right to reproduce, which they themselves define as stopping a current case of reproduction, to further defend women under attack in the future. And they wonder why some claim that they are in this only for liberal women?