Yeah, right.

So, we recently got the kids a DVD copy of Mary Poppins.  They've watched it four times in the week we've had it.

And I?  I have been reminded of one of the songs I forgot.  And, while it didn't make an impression on me when I saw it as a child, it sets my teeth on edge now.


"Our daughters' daughters will adore us/And they'll sing in grateful chorus/Well done, Sister Suffragette."

I do not say well done.  I am in the fourth generation from the setting (early 1900s), and the work of the suffragettes has been twisted and perverted to the point that it actively harms women.  It goes without saying that modern feminism harms men and children--anyone with half a brain can see that.

Yes, I'm saying it: giving women the vote has led pretty much directly to the majority of the problems we're facing.  Most women are not capable of putting aside their own, immediate self-interest, and looking at long-term consequences facing the country of the decisions they make in the voting booth now.  Those wonderful promises of the government stepping up and giving them things?  Yeah, that's taking money out of their great-grandchildren's mouths.  That's taking jobs away from their grandchildren.  All to give them something now, something they'd likely have if they'd stayed of the cock carousel, and gotten married to a good man before having kids.

Oh, wait--I forgot.  Feminism doesn't believe that there's such a thing as a good man.  It's all about the woman, and how she feels now. Feminism doesn't seem to give a shit about the individual woman, only the money and the voting power that comes with identity politics.  Feminism caters to the spoiled child that even the best of us have to fight against, the one that wants what they want, right NOW, and damn the consequences.

This has led directly to the rise of the no-fault divorce, boys who aren't taught what it is to be a good man by their fathers (because Mama got a restraining order to get the most she could out of the divorce), and to the rise of the welfare/foodstamps/have another baby to get more class of losers who are hovering just barely below the number of productive, working Americans. 

Well done, Sister Suffragette. 

Would I give up my vote if we could reverse things?  In a heartbeat.   Would it fix things?  Probably not, or at least, not immediately.

But shit would stop getting so much worse so fast.

Damn skippy.

No, really?

It takes someone who has no understanding of how hormones work to make the claim that casual sex doesn't have any long-term repercussions to the individuals involved. 

During sex, and especially during orgasm, the hormone oxytocin is released, which prompts emotional bonding.  This happens in both sexes, but is especially pronounced in women.  There are theories that this was an evolutionary developments in humans that resulted in the creation of the stable family unit, which gave offspring a better chance to survive and thrive. 

Casual sex prompts the forming, then breaking, of bonding with partners.  Repeated bonding with different partners dulls the individuals' response to the hormone, which leads to difficulty with creating and maintaining a relationship.

It also causes depression and anxiety in young women. 

Even if the participant manages to avoid STDs and unplanned pregnancy, casual sex is harmful.  Always. 

Any claim otherwise is an attack on young people in general, and young women in particular. 

Ironic, isn't it, that it's the radical feminists pushing casual sex on young women?

And what signal would that be?

That the United States is weak and ripe for an attack? 

That's the signal that the idea of a woman in the Oval Office who isn't a secretary sends to me.  No matter who it is.  Because women can't make up their damn minds.

Don't believe me?  How many women have been attacked because they couldn't make up their damn minds over whether or not they were in an iffy situation?

If it's not an inability to make up their minds, it's making bad decisions.  Look at how many women claim that they're date raped.  Even if two-thirds of them were fully consenting at the time, they obviously realized it was a bad decision after the fact.

Then again, judging by our abusive relationships with nations run by enemy ideologies, we've been a nation run by women for a very long time.

Not a woman

Transsexuals may be female between the ears.  They may get the gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, breast implants, and grow their hair out long.  They may look like women on the outside, but their basic body structure is male.  They have more physical strength, particularly in their upper body.

They are not women where it counts when it comes to women's sports.  They will outplay and outdo any real women. 

They are men.  If they can't hack it playing with the boys, they shouldn't take their ball and go play with the girls, no matter if they would have rather been one. 

Gabrielle Ludwig, I wish you the best in finding peace and happiness in your life.  But you shouldn't be permitted to play basketball with the other girls.  You're going to outdo them because you aren't one in the very fibers of your muscles. 

19th amendment fail...

"For First Time, Women Voters Overruled Men in Nov. Election."

For the first time, entitlements and the desire for a surrogate husband to take care of everything for them overruled rationality. 

We need to remove the right to vote from everyone relying on a welfare check.  It's a national conflict of interest to permit them to vote. 

And, since most people on welfare are single moms....

Who's projecting?

If I were projecting my sex life on my views of other people, everyone would be having fantastic sex.  No, I'm not socially conservative, for the most part, but I am politically and fiscally conservative.  (I guess that makes me more libertarian.)

Then again, I don't think most NAMBLA members are social, political, or fiscal conservatives.  Makes me wonder exactly who this person knows that has "crappy sex lives, or they have really forced, coerced, nasty, you know, children, animals, what-have-you, people that they won’t recognize legitimate citizen status for."

Okay...here's a simple solution.

If a man thinks he's a woman, dresses like a woman, and is attracted to men, by all means, let him use the women's restroom.  Chances are, if he keeps his fat mouth shut, nobody will notice that that individual fixing their lipstick at the mirror over the sink has an outie instead of an innie. 

If a man dresses as a woman, claims to feel like a woman, and is looking down women's shirts (or otherwise ogling them or demonstrating sexual interest), he's not a trannie, he's a pervert, and needs a beat down.  Go ahead and let him use the women's restroom.  If we think he's creepy, we'll administer the beating.

Shining examples of manhood, there.

Why are we allies with Pakistan, again?  Seems they're as bad as every other Islamofascist nation over there.  Now, they have clerics calling on the faithful to attack women with cell phones with acid.  Oh, and can't forget the call to kidnap foreign aid workers and forcibly marry them to goat-fucking camel-felating ass-in-the-air-for-their-livestocks'-convenience bipedal cockroaches that call themselves Muslim men. 

Can we move all of the world's Muslims into the middle of somewhere with absolutely no natural resources--say, the middle of the Sahara?  Then hire the Germans to build a fence around the new Muslim world?  Their engineering skills they demonstrate in building cars could probably contain the virus long enough for it to kill itself off for lack of a better host.

I'd call for sending Mexicans over to do the job cheaper, but it seems they're too busy killing each other off over who is working for which drug cartel.

The life of a helpless twat

The Obama campaign has a slideshow following the life of a (please, dear God, let this be) fictional woman named Julia.  The slideshow is supposed to demonstrate how much better life would be for women under another reign term under Obama. 

It starts at three, with how Head Start gets small children ready for school, and how Obama is committed to helping every three year old get ahead like that, while evil Romney would cut funding for Head Start programs.

Okay, couple things with this: headstart is neither necessary nor useful for long, if at all, in a home with two parents, where Mom or Dad stays home (or has family nearby to help out), where Mom and Dad both value and emphasize the value of hard work and education, and where Mom and Dad both read (both for fun and to the kids).  I understand that not every home has two parents (strike one against the kids' wellbeing), not every family is willing to make the sacrifice in crap for Mom (or Dad) to stay home and care for/teach the kids (strike two), and not every family values education and literacy (strike three--they're out).  However, even then, it's been demonstrated that headstart/preschool benefits don't last past third grade.

Next, we move to age seventeen, where it touts Obama's expensive, Race to the Top boondoggle, and how this allows poor, helpless Julia to take the classes she needs to get into college.  And evil Romney wants to cut funding for this, too!

Race to the Top, like every other top-down program imposed on the peons at the bottom, does not work.  The only thing it does is encourage teachers to cheat on the exams, and teach students how to cheat, and that it's okay to cheat.  They do this to get more funding for their school.  Cutting funding (and the program) isn't going to damage chances to get into college.  And even if it does damage some school districts, there is nothing saying that Julia is so f***ing helpless and stupid that she can't possibly get into college without someone wiping her nose for her.  There's also nothing saying that Julia's parents can't/won't/don't love her enough to move to a better school district.

Then, Julia is eighteen, and about to enter college!  But if the evil Romney is elected, she can't go to college, because there's no way she can pay for it herself!  Not without the government funding that Romney  would cut!!!

Yet more proof that her parents didn't really love her enough to care about her future.  Odysseus and I have started college savings accounts for both kids already.  By the time they get to the age where they're ready to go to college (or trade school, if that's what they prefer), they'll have the money to pay cash for it, without relying on the government.

Then, they bring Obamacare into it, when Julia is 22, and needs surgery--don'cha know that under Obamacare, she's still covered under Mom's insurance ('cause Dad still doesn't seem to be in the picture)?

Umm...22 year olds were still covered under parental insurance plans before Obamacare extended childhood to 26.  All the kid had to do was still be in college.  I think it actually went all the way to 23--insurers assumed that kids would be done with college and in the work world (and buying their own insurance) after four years, and adjusted ages accordingly, even for those born after the cutoff date for entry into any given year of school (i.e., six in kindergarten, and nineteen graduating high school, instead of five and eighteen).  Dumb assumption.  Because this stupid bint is still in college until she's 25.  Here's hoping she's at least got an MA, MS, or an MBA at this point. 

At least they assume she won't sink into occupidiocy, even though she's a helpless twat by their books: at 25, she's depicted as graduating, and about to start paying on her student loans.  And only Obama can keep the interest (and her payments) low enough for her to afford--the evil Romney would cut government spending there, too!

And, at least she got a real degree as a web designer to help her get a job. 

Next, Julia is 27, and somehow unable to afford the $30/month that birth control pills would cost, because only Obama can keep her from getting pregnant--the evil Romney won't make her employer pay for a luxury item. 

At 31, she's pregnant (again, no mention of a father for her baby, nor a husband to be a helpmeet to her), and only Obama can make sure she has a healthy pregnancy.  The evil Romney will abolish free medical care!!!

I've had two babies.  I paid cash for prenatal care and for delivery on both.  That wasn't cheap, I'll admit, but it also was less expensive than using insurance, and Odysseus and I had planned and saved for that eventuality.  With they way poor, silly, stupid Julia has been going along, I'd strongly suspect she doesn't know that she needs to plan for the future, and indeed, may have gotten pregnant because she didn't know how to prevent it--both birth control and condoms do have a small failure rate, when used correctly.

At 37, Julia's son will be entering public schools, which under Obama, have great facilities and teachers, but the evil Romney would cut the funding!!!

Except...somehow, education standards are sinking, despite having more money and more money thrown at the problem.  If Julia had a brain in her head and loved her son, she'd either have him in private school, or would be homeschooling him (assuming it's still legal at this point).

It goes on--at 42, she's starting her own business with loans offered by the Obama administration, which Romney would cut; at 65, she's starting on Medicaid (which might not be there with Romney--but won't with Obama, either); at 67, she's starting Social Security, which will pay for all her needs, and which Romney would abolish just because he's evil like that!!

Besides the obvious stupidity of, I don't know, ignoring that the money for all of this just isn't there, what scares the bat-shit out of me is that a) there actually are people out there to whom this sounds attractive, and b) Obama's been in fucking power for 64 years by the end of it.

I note there is nothing similar for John.  Why, because the Obamas don't care if he makes it or not, or because they assume he can make it without help because he's not a woman?

Now, that right there is what real men do.

I mean, those stupid, uppity women come from somewhere...doesn't it just make sense that they come from girls that learned how to read, write, and keep a household budget?

At least the black culture, here in America, mainly keeps it to ostracizing black kids that want better for themselves than the ghetto.  That's about the only thing I can say for it: it's better than the Muslim culture that poisons little girls that just want to go to school.

I'd ask where the noisy feminists are, but we already know they're too busy attacking stay-at-home moms for setting women's issues back a hundred years.

More moral?

I feel kind of sorry for this particular scientist who's come to the deeply erroneous conclusion that women are more moral than men.  They aren't.  Not really.  Try, instead, more concerned with appearances. 

Because, trust me: if women didn't care what their neighbors thought of them, they'd be sneakier, more ruthless, and far more self-involved than men.

Kipling knew that in 1911.  It's no less true today than when he wrote about it. 

So...what she's saying is that stay-at-home moms are lazy mooches that don't do anything.

I'd like to challenge Hillary Rosen to a week taking care of two toddlers, a household, and a husband.  I'd be willing to bet she folds in twenty-four hours.

Let's see.  On a good day, my pixie wakes up at 5:30, demanding an early-morning nurse, and goes back down in half an hour or so.  On a good day, the imp sleeps 'till 8:00.  On a good day, I can go back to bed for a while, and wake up feeling refreshed.

On a bad day, the pixie doesn't go back down, and wakes her brother up.  And then I'm trying to keep two sleepy, cranky kids from fighting long enough to get solid food down both kids, and long enough to get the pixie to be willing to go down for a nap. 

On a good day, the kids will watch morning children's programming on PBS, and give me time to drink my coffee, and surf the news sites and blogs 'till about 10:00.  On a bad one, they're alternately fighting over toys and hanging off of my elbows.

On a good day, I get my coffee drank, and go on into the kitchen to put up dishes, and start trying to figure out what to feed all of us for the day.  On a bad one, I slip past the kids, they notice, and scream at the kitchen gate until I give up and sit back down--at which point, they go back to fighting with each other, completely ignoring me unless I try to start picking up and putting away. 

On a good day, they let me know without tantrums that they're ready for lunch, and wolf down whatever I put in front of them, while making minimal mess.

Needless to say, good days at mealtimes are few and far between.  Usually, they hate sitting down to eat, and whine and fuss the entire time they pick at their food--lunch usually takes about an hour for the imp to eat half a dozen pizza rolls (or equivalent amount of other food).  The pixie sometimes isn't any better.  

After lunch, I fight with them to get them both down.  The pixie nurses and goes right down, but the imp goes through "Pee pee?  Read?  Sing?  Rock?  Mama kiss?  Daddy kiss?"  Putting the imp down takes half of the pixie's naptime.  I rarely have the energy to do much beyond stare at the ceiling while the kids are sleeping (and I can't manage to fall asleep, myself). 

After their nap, the pixie begs to watch The Muppet Show.  And the imp keeps sleeping, which limits how much housework I can get done.  On a good day, the imp wakes up happy, and wants to play with his baby sister in his room. On a bad day, he wakes up crankier than he was when he went down for a nap.

Bedtime rituals start with supper--that takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half, usually with them farting around, and I take advantage of that time to get the day's accumulated dishes and kitchen mess cleaned up.  Then, the imp sits on the potty chair ("Mama!  Pee pee come out penis!  Toop come out hole in butt!"), then they get their bath.  Then they watch The Lion King--the pixie likes the first three or four songs--the pixie nurses down, then I rock the imp for a few minutes.  Often, he'll wait until I'm just about to put him under the covers to ask to go to the bathroom again.  Then he reminds me that, since he went, he gets candy.  Then he wants to brush his teeth.  Then he wants me to rock and sing some more.  Then he asks for "Daddy kiss?"  (Often, Daddy's at work, so I promise I'll send Daddy in to cover him back up before Daddy goes to bed.)  Bedtime rituals take between four and five hours. 

After the kids go to bed, I finish whatever housework tasks I can quietly enough to not wake the pixie.

The FlyLady stuff works so well because fifteen minutes is usually all I can sneak into the housework at a time. 

Even without my classes, both the ones I teach, and the ones for which I'm a teacher's assistant, my days are too full for a job outside the home.  Actually, I think a job outside the home would be far less exhausting, sometimes.

"Never worked a day in her life," my ass.  More like "betrayed the feminist ideal by choosing a traditional role that didn't come with a paycheck."   

Lysistrata only works if your men want to sleep with you.

I think these Liberal 'Ladies' Who Lunch will find out the painful way that there is absolutely no way that their attempt to reenact the classic Greek comedy will have the results they're hoping for.  Basically, they're throwing a tantrum on the same level as a toddler's "I'll hold my breath until you give me what I want!" 

Let me speak to the men possibly (though unlikely) involved...if she'll cut you off because she doesn't want to pay for her own contraception, she might cut you off for any reason.  Or no reason.  Think about it.  Do you really want to stay with someone who's willing to cut off her own nose to spite her face like that?  Believe it or not, most women enjoy it as much as men do...if the man involved is at all considerate. 

To the so-called "ladies" of the group: go ahead.  If any of you actually are dating men, go ahead and cut 'em off.  A week won't make a difference to them.  Yeah, maybe they're not getting to enter your "holiest of holies" (actually, "dustiest of dusty" places might be a better term, since I doubt you actually have a boyfriend that's willing to f*ck you, anyway), but that doesn't mean they won't be able to gratify themselves.  All they need is, as Odysseus said, a good, fast internet connection. 


Go ahead.  Drive whatever man is willing to put up with your shit away.  I'm sure he'll discover that there are still women out there that won't demand he hand his balls over as the price of entry.  And many of them are in the opposing political camp, and better-looking anyway.

And I think your idea that men can be controlled as simply as a video game is really sexist and insulting, both to men and women. 

Speaking as a woman...

...this is why I hate so many other women.

Pieces like this get written, then guys react like this, and feminist scholars, women who couldn't attract (and keep) a man if her life depended on it, and Democrat women (but I repeat myself) get all butt-hurt and scream "sexist!"

When I was in grad school (back in early '04), I wound up forgetting the lunch I'd packed on the counter at our apartment, about a ten minute walk from my office.  It was winter, in northern Kansas, and cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.  And, because of the cold and damp (18" of snow and ice that kept accumulating because it kept snowing and didn't get out of the tweens for highs for a fraggin' month), an old sports injury had me hobbling around on a cane like an eighty-five year old woman. 

And I knew I had forgotten my lunch.  And I was resigned to going hungry until Odysseus came to pick me up for the day, around 5:30, after my class on how to teach class which didn't teach me anything about teaching--just about the theory of teaching. 

Then, he called me after my class let out, told me to meet him at the door.  I made it up the hall and up the elevator about the same time he ran in the building's back door.  He kissed me, told me to have a great day, and handed me my lunch.

One of my classmates/colleagues was standing nearby.  She'd just gone through a nasty divorce, and her eyes were watering with her mouth hanging open.  "Why can't I find a guy like that?" she asked.

I don't recall what I said, but I remember thinking, "because you have to let them keep their damn balls if you want them to act like a man, you dumb lefty bint." 

Another instance had me heading back to the department, enjoying one of the first days my knee wasn't killing me in six months--no armload of books and papers, just a single folder tucked under my arm.  Another of my female colleagues was juggling a double armload that she was trying to keep tucked between her forearms and her chin, and trying to open a pair of double doors at the same time.  Two sets of them--kind of like an airlock for cold weather.

Two of my male colleagues/classmates were standing nearby, watching and smoking.  Then I waved at one of them--a pretty good friend, at that point--and he nudged the other one.  The two of them dropped their cigarettes and jumped to open both sets of doors.

My female colleague was just inside the second set.  She'd not managed to not lose everything she was carrying, so she was sitting in the middle of a snowstorm of freshman composition papers.  "Why didn't they open the door for me?" she asked, staring pointedly at my single folder.

Since she was also directly in charge of the graduate teaching assistants, I just shrugged helplessly, and didn't say anything.  But, not two days earlier, I'd seen her snap both young men's heads off for doing for her what they'd just done for me.  

Horowitz wrote a screed about angry, immature boy-men, then was shocked that the gender she spent an entire book dissing struck back.  Of course, she brushed it off as just an example of exactly what she was talking about, but I don't think she realizes that a real adult holds a real job (not as a research academic in the sheltered workshops that major research universities have become--much to the detriment of the rest of higher education's reputation), and tend to vote with their wallet. 

Real adults understand that talking smack against half the population might well endear you to some of the other half, but will more than likely offend anyone with a brain in their head and an ounce of maturity.

Horowitz needs to put on her big-girl panties and deal with the fact that it's the fault of academics like her that most of a generation of men have been turned into either metrosexuals with bigger pussies than women, or woman-hating misogynists that would rather pay a woman to go away after he's done with her than get into a relationship. 

My last advice to women who read feminist theory like it's the truth handed down from God on high: Get off the drama-llama before you break its back.  If you can't find a man that meets your unrealistic standards, it's your own damn fault.

Aw, hell.

Michelle, did you have to live down to the stereotype that women (and Christians) are stupid and emotional in such a spectacular manner? Joking or not, this is worse than your hysterical shrilling about Perry and Gardasil.

She just lost my vote. Not that, once Cain announced that he'd be running, she had it in the first place.

Aren’t you just the cutest little smug bug? Yes, you are!

I don't know if this guy is serious or trying to be funny. If he's trying to be funny, he's failing. Badly. What he's succeeding at is being offensively sexist to a person who doesn't typically notice sexism. His comments on female membership in the NRA (specifically, why women aren't a visible chunk of the NRA's membership) are sexist, misogynistic, and explains why he's probably still asking his mom to explain to him why he's still single while she cleans his apartment in her basement.

I am a gun owner. I am a gun enthusiast. I am a woman. I am a wife. I am a mother. Oddly enough, I'm also a college English professor.

Here are some money quotes from sexist dude:

But it seems that many preconceived notions must be overcome before the National Rifle Association attracts more women to its annual convention. Right now, it's about as popular among women as fly fishing competitions, cigar tasting events and public executions.

Hello, sexist dude—just because something may not be popular with most women doesn't mean that all women don't like that something. Next thing I know, you'll be commenting on how all women would rather have a day at the spa than at the range! Oh, wait: you did.

Its offerings at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center will include a ladies-only seminar teaching them how to become pistol instructors.

To most women, such a seminar probably wouldn't have the same appeal as, say, a holistic facial at the day spa. But providing people with relaxed, radiant faces isn't part of the NRA's mission.

And:

• Spending several hundred dollars on a serviceable handgun might leave them without enough money to get the full treatment at that next visit to the day spa.
  

Personally, spending a day at the range does leave me with a relaxed and radiant (if dirty) face. I have never been to a spa, and I am not trusting enough to allow a stranger to put their hands all over me while I'm vulnerable, so I likely will never go to a spa, either. Not my thing. I'd rather spend that money on ammo and go meditate to the sound of a .45 punching many holes very close together in the middle of an eight inch circle.

And if a woman is spending a day at the spa to find a man, she's looking at the wrong place. She'd be more likely to find one that wouldn't spend more time in the morning getting ready than she does if she looked at the range.

• Carrying a gun in a small purse would leave less room for more important items, such as lipstick or compact.
  

I have room in my purse for a change of clothes for each of the kids, diapers, wipes, snacks, wallet, checkbooks, etc. I do have a dedicated pocket for my gun, when I have to carry it in my purse, but I'd far prefer to carry concealed on my actual person. Purses can be snatched (though an army surplus multi-purpose digicam courier bag repurposed into a diaper bag is less likely to be). If I were to carry a small purse, I'd have to also carry a diaper bag, and futzing with both bags would make me more vulnerable to having the smaller one (the purse) yanked out of my hands. If my gun is in my purse, my attacker would have it. If it's on my person, it's a) not taking up room in my purse, and b) available to keep said attacker from taking my lipstick compact spare magazine and wallet.

• The baggy clothing required to successfully conceal most holsters would make them appear frumpy.
  

Actually, the best concealment I've found is a pair of well-fitting blue jeans, a tank top, and a blazer, with the holster tucked down the waistband. The way I carry, I don't look frumpy—I look classy—and no one is ever going to know I'm carrying unless, like me, they can add line of clothes + way individual is walking + keeping their dominant hand free + not letting suspicious characters get behind them and come up with "there's a gun there." Not without patting me down looking for it. (And if someone is patting me down looking for a gun, they'd better be arresting me.)

• Gunpowder residue might stain the new Karen Scott blouse they just bought at Macy's.
  

Gunpowder residue doesn't stain. Duh. If he had ever fired a gun, and/or done his own laundry, he'd know that.

• The gunpowder smell when the weapon is fired could totally overwhelm the Chanel they're wearing.
  

If a woman is wearing Chanel, they're trying to impress other women. Or metrosexuals who probably use even more expensive fragrance, so wouldn't be impressed by Chanel, anyway. No, gunpowder and Hoppe's No. 9 is a far more potent man bait than the most expensive perfume.

• Most firearm accessories come only in one boring color: black.
  

What is he, stupid? Black goes with everything. No, give me a plain black gun over shiny stainless with pearl grips any day. And don't even get me started about the accessorizing that can be done by changing 1911 grips.

• Target practice earplugs simply aren't sexy.
  

Neither is being a rape victim. (Personally, my other half finds me taking the time to learn to protect myself quite sexy.)

I could go into just why this guy must be so stupid because he's a man, but I like men in general, and don't want to insult them by implying that he is one.

Well, somebody got a bad translation of Lawrence.

I think this Iranian cleric has been reading something he shouldn't: his ideas about extramarital affairs causing earthquakes makes me think of D. H. Lawrence's "pornographic" novel Lady Chatterley's Lover.

I don't think I've read many other instances where the female orgasm was referred to in such terms.

Baby-rapers can fuck off.

Especially religious baby-rapers. This is revolting. A thirteen year old girl in Yemen was given in marriage to an adult, probably raped on her wedding night, and killed by her husband. No, it wasn't murder. It was because of the consummation: she suffered a rupture in her sex organs and bled to death.

And, apparently, "child brides" are extremely common in Yemen.

News flash, retards: little girls are not sized to take adult men. Of course they're going to rupture and die.

Yemeni Islamic males can fuck off and die. May their camels knock them down and sodomize them so that they can understand just how bad they've hurt the little girls they've married and raped. May they then be tied down, ass up and naked, in a prison for sexual deviants with abnormally large penises and repeatedly raped until they have a rupture that causes them to bleed to death. May their arrival in hell be gleefully met by a thousand demons with penises the size of their camels', just to keep things familiar.

And, just to make sure I'm not accused of racism, may Tony Alamo and Warren Jeffs suffer the same fate.

Since the FFOT has kind of gone on hiatus, I decided to post some of what I would have said there, here. If anyone is reading, and has a gripe, take it away in the comments.

...and sometimes, modern feminism does good things.

I hope the pharmaceuticals company being sued loses. I hope it fires the creep that created the hostile environment. 5,600 women are in on the lawsuit. That indicates that there is a problem beyond just a hysterical female with a hate on for all males. So does the first witness's testimony.

You don't advise an employee to get an abortion, no matter what gender you are.