Archive for the 'Politics' Category

American boobs used as political football, part 472

Published by Jill on November 19, 2009. 92 Comments

Regular readers know that, news-wise, CNN confuses me, and that I have all but kicked the NPR habit (it seems fantastic, but El Rancho Deluxe gets only one radio station, and it only plays one song: that Red Hot Chili Peppers slow dance where the dude yodels in that weird accent about how he doesn’t ever wanna feel like he did that day), with the happy result that pop culture’s gnarly substrate — urgently breaking news — rarely filters down to the lab here at Spinster HQ until a week or two after everyone else has moved on to the next closeted gay Republican outing. This programming suits me and my eccentric recluse lifestyle perfectly. Seriously, must I know about every deranged serial killer’s murderous rampage? One deranged serial killer is very like another. Once a person has apprehended that serial killers serially kill, the philosophical implications may be considered grasped; reviewing a continuous stream evidence of the phenomenon is not only unnecessary, it’s prurient.

But, out of the loop though I be, even I have heard about this no-mammograms-until-you’re-fifty malarkey, and it probably won’t blow your lobe to hear that it blew my lobe. The report made particularly gikky reading in view of the recent Stupak craptacity. America just feels like taking a big old televised crap on women’s basic health care this week, I guess. If, after reviewing the stunning and sweeping misogynist antics our government has pulled over the past couple of weeks, a person could stand up and announce with a straight face that patriarchy doesn’t exist, he’d have to be a complete imbecile.

I allude to the absurd recommendations, released Monday by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, concerning the age at which women should begin queuing up at the old mammogram machine. They used to say 40. But now they say 50, and only every other year.

Check this out: the “harms outweigh the benefits.” Not just for under-fifty mammograms, but for over 75 mammograms, and — this one really kills me — breast self-examinations!

Wha?

That’s right, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force says women shouldn’t be taught to touch their own boobs. The harm outweighs the benefits!

The dreadful harm from which they seek to protect us?

Anxiety.

Anxiety is bad for ladies. Worse, apparently, than blowing off the timely diagnosis of life-threatening illness.

Anxiety! Are they fucking kidding me? Does the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force think women pass their days carefree, lounging on puffy clouds of pink velvet laundry eating Boston cream pie-flavored Yoplait? For fuck’s sake, I don’t know a single woman whose lobes aren’t fucking soaking in anxiety just as a matter of course. I slurp down a couple of Ativans every morning with my Bloody Mary or I can’t leave the house. Anxiety is pie for women. It’s death that tends to slow us down a little.

Here’s an anecdote. One time I came down with breast cancer myself. I had the impertinence to come down with it at the age of 46. How did I know I had cancer? I happened to be giving myself one of those harmful self-exams and found a tumor the size of Guam up in that mug, that’s how. Did I subsequently experience anxiety? Hell yeah, I did. Do I prefer anxiety to death? Hell yeah, I do.

Of course, nobody really gives a crap whether women suffer anxiety. That’s just a lot of smoke up your ass. If they did give a crap, they’d make rape illegal or something. What they’re really so concerned about is that mammography can have false positives, which means expensive biopsies that insurance doesn’t want to pay for. But for crying out loud. Wouldn’t you rather have a biopsy that turned out to be unnecessary, than not have a biopsy that turned out to be necessary?

If I’d followed the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force Recommendations, I would be dead. Dead, dead, dead. As it was, I was pretty fucking sick.

So I’d like to shove my entire 46-year-old malignant tumor up the U.S Preventative Services Task Force’s entire ass.

Note: mammography is stunningly imperfect. It’s only useful in detecting cancer that’s already there. Which is to say, it’s a cure-based tactic. This makes it vastly inferior to preventative measures — vaccines, elimination of environmental carcinogens, etc — that might preclude cancer in the first place. Also, mammography is, as are all cure-based measures, useless for women who can’t afford subsequent treatment.

You know what else? Everyone should have access to free genetic testing to determine whether they have the breast cancer mutation. If you’ve got the mutation, your chances of tumoring out before age 50 are, like, 80%. Currently that test costs like 4 grand, and good luck getting your insurance company to cough up for it.

Posted in Crazy sexy cancer, Men Hate You, Politics, The Spinster's Finger on the Pulse of Today and The megatheocorporatocracy. Bite me, Chad.

Same stupak, different day

Published by Jill on November 15, 2009. 67 Comments

Stupak

I Blame the Patriarchy marches to the beat of a different news cycle, so this may be ancient history to you, but,

Stupak!

I propose that “stupak” be incorporated into common usage as a verb meaning “to ensure political victory by means of screwing women over bigtime.”

My mind is not boggled that the health care “reform” bill passed the House only because it contains an amendment (the aforementioned Stupak amendment) that would make it illegal for private insurance companies to offer abortion coverage, even when women pay for it out-of-pocket, if those women are also receiving federal insurance dough. It isn’t the least bit surprising that 64 Democrats voted for the bill [view the lip-curling list of politicians who hate you], and that 12 of those were women. It’s scarcely a blip on the Patri-O-Meter that Nancy Collaborator Pelosi was described by HuffPo last week as “triumphant,” and that Barack Godbag Apologist Obama looks forward to signing the bill into law.

Why am I not surprised?

I’ll tell you why.

Patriarchy is a big, boily ass lounging on two fundamental butt-cheeks, without which cheeks it would develop abscesses and go septic and die. Those two butt-cheeks are: sex-based dominance, sex-based submission, and the rapeability of women. OK, three butt-cheeks. Dominance, submission, the rapeability of women, and an almost fanatical devotion to compulsory pregnancy. Four. Four butt-cheeks. Although dominance and submission, as two sides of the same thong, should really only count as one cheek. So make that three cheeks total. Although when you think about it, since the rapeability of women and compulsory pregnancy are merely the practical applications of domination ideology, they’re all really pretty much the same thing. So, for the sake of clarity, let’s just say there is one big honkin butt — the state ownership of women — lolling in a louche manner upon the two cheeks: the rapeability of women, and compulsory pregnancy.

What I’m getting at is this: my lack of surprise at this Stupak shit proceeds from irrefutable evidence that state ownership of women is among the most beloved of our violent culture’s violent traditions. Social conservatives appear to believe that God made patriarchy in his own image, and that he will withdraw his complimentary concierge services and cancel Christmas, NASCAR, and life everlasting if the state stops oppressing women for even one second. So-called progressives just want uninterrupted access to pussy.

Also, people just plain like oppressing women.

That’s why, as part of the ongoing effort to keep women rapeable, rapists are generously protected by the law. Convictions are a joke. They are such a joke that 60% of victims never bother to report their assaults. They are such a joke that at least 20,000 rape kits are sitting around untested in various crime labs across the country. According to RAINN, only 6 percent of rapists ever see the inside of the hoosegow.

“Somehow all we can do is take the statement from the victim. Take the statement from the alleged perpetrator and then throw up our hands because they are saying conflicting things,” quoth this U Mass rape scholar.

If people genuinely wanted to see the end of rape, which they don’t, they’d rescind the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women, replacing it with the following: if a woman says she was raped, she was raped. If that’s your DNA, Chad old boy, you’re a rapist. That’s it. The end. “Throwing up our hands” would be discontinued as a law enforcement technique.

So you know that stipulation in the Stupak amendment which would except pregnancies resulting from rape? Happily for fans of the status quo, since 94% of those will never be proven as rapes, denial of access to abortion can continue to oppress all but the wealthiest women.

Although our violence-loving society sort of pretends to pooh-pooh rape, it thinks nothing of claiming state ownership of women’s personal internal organs. Everybody’s fucking ecstatic about this health care “reform” bill. It’s “answering the call of history.” Which history, as usual, calls for women to take it up the butt and like it.

Posted in Compulsory pregnancy, Men Hate You, Oppression Culture, Politics, Rape Culture, The Spinster's Finger on the Pulse of Today, The Spinster's Finger on the Pulse of Yesterday and Women hate you. Bite me, Chad.

Spinster aunt recommends non-sucky blog

Published by Jill on September 16, 2009. 36 Comments

Autoharpophilia

Yesterday morning, as I clawed my way out from under a pile of various retrievers and leaped from the TempurPedic with my customary yelp, a brilliant thought occurred to me. I said to myself, “Jill,” I said, “what you need is an autoharp!”

Now, I probably don’t need to tell you that all the autoharp shops here in Cottonmouth County closed sometime around 1886. No problem! I just turn on my computer, press a few buttons, and in a few hours my new autoharp arrives at my gate via Autoharp Airlift Express Dot Com!

The internet. Replete with jackasses, but occasionally useful.

Internet usefulness is not constrained to its facilitation of the union of spinster aunts and stringed folk instruments they have no idea how to play. Today, for example, I happened upon a well-written blog. It’s even a feminist blog. I happened upon it because its author, displaying a degree of discernment unusual in today’s feckless young blogger, paraphrased me using proper attribution, and the link showed up in my inbox.

I know, I know. It seems incredible. But I’m not exaggerating. Fannie’s Room is not junk.

Fannie’s post on one of those asshole dudes who believes that his important dudeliness qualifies him to lecture the feminists on the nature of feminism is very pleasant indeed. Fannie’s taste in asshole dudes is excellent; he’s quite a peach. Here’s what the guy has to say:

Western feminism is too bogged down in its own limitless self-regard, arguing ad nauseam about the evils of sexually stereotyping adverts, or why female bankers don’t get quite such enormous bonuses as their male equivalents, to care about anyone else. Least of all the millions of subjected women living in conditions they cannot begin to understand, although Jaycee Lee Dugard could probably give them a few pointers.

He can begin to understand millions of subjected women, though. Because he’s a dude! This also entitles him to the view that Western feminists are doing it wrong! We’re so obssessed with sexist TV shows that we’ve never heard of honor killings, or if we have, we have nevertheless failed utterly in persuading assholes like himself of the validity of feminist ideology; it’s the job of Western feminists to “save Muslim women,” yadda yadda, you’ve heard it all before.

Anyway, Fannie offers an engaging analysis of his argument. Here’s an excerpt:

From those who have the privilege of being considered default human beings who are privy to the One and Only Objective Worldview, feminists often receive quite the schizophrenic message. On the one hand, feminists aren’t worth listening to because all they do is whine and ruin everybody’s fun. But on the other hand, they should use their incredible powers of indoctrination to work on More Important Issues.

But worse than this mixed message, is the fact that non-feminist advisors to feminism are often so very wrong about what feminism is and is not. Perhaps placing a primacy on their own “objective” worldview, they assume that their ignorance about what feminists do, care about, and strive towards is an accurate reflection of reality.

It’s usually not.

Precisely! Few things blow my lobe worse than dudes who simultaneously denigrate feminism as useless crap and accuse its ideologues of wielding demonic power over the masses. I get these feminists-suck-at-feminism guys all the time. They got no argument, because they don’t know what feminism is; they just hate women.

Also, I credit Fannie with hipping me to what everyone else has probably already forgotten about, it’s so last week. I allude to the pro Prop-8 California Assemblyman whose mic was on as he described to an interlocutor his revolting heterosexploits with one of his mistresses. Of his graphic bragging, Fannie remarks, “[E]w. That definitely just made me a little more gay.”

Seriously, did you see this shit? Hilarious! Fannie opines that active mics on politicians should be mandatory 24/7. Hilarious!

Almost as hilarious as me keeping society with an autoharp. I can sense your anxiety, but not to worry! As soon as it arrives I’ll post a video demonstrating the perfection of our union.

Posted in Blogulation, Knobjectivism, Mass Media, Men Hate You, Politics and Private Business of the Secret Feminist Society. Bite me, Chad.

Spinster aunt complains about Ted Kennedy

Published by Jill on September 3, 2009. 60 Comments

One of the reasons this spinster devotes fewer and fewer aunt-hours to reading blogs these days is the increasing likelihood that I will encounter something along the lines of “You call yourself a feminist? Shame on you for not writing about blahblahblah.” Whereupon the blogger in question writes sanctimoniously about blahblahblah. I fucking hate that shame-on-you tone. Who died and made you king of the blog topic deciders, Sanctimonious Blogger?

This week the cause celebre and object of feminist indifference is Mary Jo Kopechne, who, in 1969, famously suffocated to death after having been abandoned in a submerged car by the recent Senator Ted Kennedy, who was perhaps a bit tipsy at the time.

“[E]ven the feminist blogs are not mentioning her. Yes, as if she never existed indeed!” says DaisyDeadhead, giving herself a little pat on the head.

DaisyDeadhead is pissed about how popular Ted Kennedy is lately, now that he’s dead. He’s so nationally beloved and so perfectly deceased that it is, she says, “considered ‘rude’ to mention [Kopechne's] suspicious and untimely death.”

DaisyDeadhead is right about me, at least. I have completely omitted to write about Mary Jo Kopechne’s suspicious and untimely death. I haven’t even thought about Kopechne in years and years. Hell, I had already tuned out the incessant chatter covering Kennedy’s princely week of national mourning and state funeralizing and sentimental eulogizing (if I hear the phrase “uncanny ability to reach across the aisle” one more time I’m gonna set fire to my own head). Another pink-faced old bloviating honky patriarch biting the dust is but a blip on the obstreperometer here at Spinster HQ. But Daisy’s got a point. When public figures croak around here the tendency to canonize’em and whitewash their not inconsiderable personal failings, especially when those failings are so perfectly in line with the evils we particularly abhor, can really chap the old hide.

It dawns on me, though, that the focus on Kopechne’s death has the untoward effect of historically footnoting her in terms of a dude. I know, I know, whaddya do? The dude in whose terms she is historically footnoted is a fucking dead Kennedy, bona fide American royalty whose considerable influence casts a fairly jumbo and luminous shadow. And had he not killed her, it is likely that nobody, not even DaisyDeadhead, would be writing about her now. One doesn’t write “Kopechne” without writing “Kennedy.” Peas and carrots.

Joyce Carol Oates authors a remarkable speculation in a recent Guardian article. It’s currently being bandied about in Femtown:

“[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?”

Unless one is insane, one is to think that that dude should have been tried for homicide, that’s what. Oates isn’t boostering for the guy, or suggesting that Kopechne’s murder was justified by her murderer’s subsequent good deeds. She’s just pointing out the unpleasant fact that patriarchal hegemony trumps justice, even as it pretends that justice is its highest moral purpose.

She kisses the master’s ass, though, by whitewashing this phenomenon as a “paradox” rather than calling it what it is: the logical conclusion of oppression culture.

Oh, those wacky men, and their lively tradition of perpetrating unspeakable criminal shit in private while simultaneously basking in the glory of their larger-than-life public service.

It is impossible to speculate what Mary Jo Kopechne, a woman with a promising career in politics, might have accomplished had she not been sacrificed for the political career of an ethically challenged, privileged white asshole. One thing’s for sure, though. She’s but one of millions of women whose invitation to life’s rich pageant turned out to be bogus.

I’m not one of those dorks who thinks that women should run the world and that if we did there would be peace and harmony and vegan tacos for everyone (No one should run the world. But that’s another post). I can barely imagine what human society would look like if women were merely accorded human status, but I tell you what. It sure as shit couldn’t be worse than this.

Posted in Bloodsport, Mass Media, Men Hate You, Oppression Culture, Politics, The Spinster's Finger on the Pulse of Yesterday and The megatheocorporatocracy. Bite me, Chad.

Spinster aunt has an appointment in town, so this is all the post you get

Published by Twisty on May 27, 2009. 25 Comments

Brown recluse spider
Venomous sicariid (male) enjoying its last heartwarming moments in the Spinster Araneae Compound. May 2009.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Tuesday that North Korea is “trying to test whether they can intimidate the international community” with an underground nuclear test and launching of short-range missiles.

Well, color me intimidated, Susan. Whenever crazy dictators start blowing up Hiroshima-class nukes just for the hell of it, it is a matter of policy with me to take to my bed with a wedge of triple cream Brie and pull the blanket up over my quavering lobe. That is, after I inventory the household stores of life-saving duct-tape, plastic sheeting, and flame-thrower fuel.

Also intimidating is the long, dead arm of justice in California. Little can be added to the discourse condemning the heterocentric hate now carved in the California state constitution, but I’ll say this: Repellent hatebags voted in that anti-gay initiative, and repellent authority figure hatebags upheld it. Well, what goes around comes around, Repellent Californian Hatebags. Sooner or later your bags will pop like fermented bottles of Odwalla Superfood, and you will die of something, but not before your kid comes out in a big pile of rainbow bumperstickers, birkenstocks, and mustachioed girlfriends who are all going to Michigan together in a Subaru.

Meanwhile, here’s hoping a family of brown recluse spiders moves into your liquor cabinets. Fucking knobs.

Posted in Heartwarming Nature Crap, Lobe-blowing, Oppression Culture and Politics. Bite me, Chad.

Cringe-of-the-day

Published by Twisty on May 26, 2009. 61 Comments

Picture Obama giving this patronizing hug to a dude Supreme.

Posted in Men Hate You, Politics and The Spinster's Finger on the Pulse of Today. Bite me, Chad.

Texas state rep needs reprogramming

Published by Twisty on April 13, 2009. 72 Comments

Texas State Rep. Betty Brown, racist tool

Texas State Rep. Betty Brown, racist tool

Not all Texans, I regret to say, are easygoing, progressive thinkers. State Representative Betty Brown, for example, is a tool.

Betty Brown just can’t wrap her brain around the fact that some certified 100% Texans have Asian names. This is because her brain has the philosophical sophistication of a Thomas Kinkade painting. Texans should have names like “Betty” or “Brown,” good, solid American names she can spell and pronounce. Asian names freak her out. People with these wacked-out foreign monikers should “make [them] more accessible.” Or so she told Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans giving testimony at the Lege on voter ID legislation.

Ramey Ko. That’s one crazy fucking inaccessible name.

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Ko’s “citizens” should make an effort to grasp how “difficult” their language is, and what an inconvenience they present to the real Americans here who are trying to run good, old-fashioned, discriminatory Caucasian elections. They should lose those bizarro names and get ones that Betty Brown can feel more comfortable with. Because, seriously, it’s bad enough that she has to put up with all these damned Spanish people speaking Mexican.

If it’s hard to imagine a white lady with pink lipstick and helmet hair uttering anything more bigoted and condescending than that, you don’t know Betty Brown!

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Listen, Ko, you and your kind are trouble. Can’t you see that if you just knuckle under to honky bigotry everyone will be happy?

[Xie xie, B.R.]

Posted in Austin, Lobe-blowing and Politics. Bite me, Chad.

Spinster aunt says “fuck this” and “fuck that”

Published by Twisty on April 9, 2009. 65 Comments

You can heave your sigh of relief; no BBC News chimp-biology-is-human-destiny post will be inflicted on you today. Not that every effort wasn’t made. But inexplicably, this morning’s Beeb feed was all full of non-ev-psych patriarchy stuff. The headlines all sounded like paperback bestsellers or Hollywood blockbusters. “Cyberspies infiltrate US power grid.” “How can pirates be stopped?” “Ugandan spy jailed for AIDS fraud.” Spies and pirates!

I did notice that the UK’s “top counter-terrorism officer” got sacked after he was photographed waving top-secret documents around on the street. I had a chuckle about that.

You know, the more I read about the zany antics of British politicians, the more they remind me of the Texas legislature.

The Texas lege, for those who have the misfortune of not being Texan, is widely regarded as the most ape-shit hilarious lege in the land.

But I digress.

Since the BBC couldn’t deliver the goods, I was forced to click on the next feed, the Huffington Post. Breaking news! “Hillary channels Michelle.” Apparently Clinton was spotted wearing a jaunty belt and flowery brooch, sending shockwaves throughout the galaxy. A few clicks later, it became clear that the Huffington Post employs legions of people to report with deadly seriousness — as though lives were at stake — on the personal appearance of political women. Check out this irrelevant admonishment:

When Oscar de la Renta lambasted Michelle Obama last week in Women’s Wear Daily for wearing a cardigan to meet Queen Elizabeth II – sniping, “You don’t go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater” — he betrayed a disdain for the First Lady’s sense of style that is at the heart of the fashion establishment’s criticism of her. [cite]

Fashion establishment? Mang, if I were running the feminist revolt, the first thing I’d hurl several thousand grenades at would be the Fashion Establishment. Racist, sexist, fascist, classist, consumerist, misogynist, and snobby; fashion’s just an ugly little package of old-world patriarchy wrapped up in overpriced taffeta made by indentured slaves in the Northern Mariana Islands. Who the fuck cares if Obama goes to Buckingham Palace in a sweater? Would it give the fucking Queen an aneurysm? Would it cause global warming? Would it throw the economy in the toilet? Think of the children!

Fuck that gasbag snob Oscar de la Renta, and fuck anyone who thinks his asinine occupation exhibits an iota of philosophic value. And while I’m at it, fuck the British monarchy, too.

Well, that about wraps it up. I’ve gotta go oppress some fire ants. I will be wearing what I would wear to Buckingham Palace: dirty breeches, rubber boots, and a crummy University of Texas baseball cap.

Posted in Mass Media, Patriarchy, my patriarchy and Politics. Bite me, Chad.

The power of porn

Published by Twisty on March 31, 2009. 35 Comments

The spinster aunt typically leads a quiet life, so naturally the sordid movie-viewing habits of British politicians ignites an enormous conflagration of interest here at HQ. When the sunny skies, cool breezes, and furry woodland creatures start to wear on the nerves, one turns to the Internet for titillating news from Parliament. Huff-Po doesn’t disappoint! The website says Home Secretary Jacqui Smith expensed pay-per-view “X-rated movies” consumed by her husband Richard Timney.

Busted! Smith was obliged to issue one of those meaningless politician apologies. She’s sorry she made an accounting error. Her spokewoman added helpfully, “X-rated is not the same as porn.”

Smith’s better half also issued one of those meaningless politician apologies. Timney’s sorry he embarrassed his wife and he’s sorry he erroneously put the naughty 10 quid on the taxpayers’ tab, but of course it was all a silly mistake.

Timney did not apologize for his interest in films featuring the graphic representation of rape, or even explain why, in addition to the porn, he found it necessary to watch “Ocean’s Thirteen” not just once, but twice.

Just once I’d like to see a prominent political figure hold a press conference and say “My husband is a slimy pornsick shitbag and I’m initiating dehitchment proceedings forthwith.” But no, they always make with the “X-rated is not the same as porn,” and “Dick and I just want to put all this behind us and get on with our lives” crap.

Of course, when a thing as idiotic as this makes international news, it can mean only two things. The political party to which the beleaguered personage belongs is throwing her under the bus, and/or the opposition is seeking to prove its moral superiority. How convenient for whoever is using Jacqui Smith as a political red herring that she married a slimy pornsick shitbag, and that pornography is a no-fail attention-grabber. From the Telegraph:

There was no sign of Mr Timney at the property today and the only notable activity was a visit from a glamour model sent by a tabloid newspaper to offer him a selection of pornography.

Posted in Politics, Rape Culture and The Entertainment Industrial Complex. Bite me, Chad.

Schmucknozzle of the Week: Hamid Karzai

Published by Twisty on March 31, 2009. 47 Comments

You know that zany, completely unfounded Unified Patriarchy Theory proposed by eccentric spinster aunts and certain other women who advocate flat shoes? The theory that defines patriarchy as a culture of domination composed of default humans (males) who maintain dominion over everyone and everything else, including a class of indentured sex receptacles (women)? The theory that further proposes that, not only does patriarchy exist, but it is experienced as oppression by the indentured sex receptacles?

Well, here’s another little piece of evidence to toss into the “Patriarchy Exists/ Sucks for Women” column.

As usual, some power-wielding dude is trading women for votes. This time it’s Afghan head cheese and ex-Bush henchman Hamid Karzai, who will gladly endure the suffering incurred by women whose husbands now have codified, legal carte blanche to rape them whenever the fancy strikes. In return for signing his great sacrifice into law, fundamentalist woman-raping hooligan godbags will vote for Friende Hamid come August.

In a massive blow for women’s rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman’s right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

Get a load of Article 132:

Article 132 requires women to obey their husband’s sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least “once every four nights” when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.

Here’s more from the Telegraph:

The law [...] is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor’s appointments with their husband’s permission.

This throwing-women-under-the-bus behavior is routine and universal. Liberal American dudes do it all the time. They love porn, think Camille Paglia is a feminist, and only support abortion rights because it distinguishes them politically from, and therefore makes them feel morally superior to, the “repugs.” Women never had it so good, according to Amerian liberal dudes. Discrimination and violence against women are “fringe issues.” What about the men!?! Take, for example, this randomly selected comment at the Liberal Dude Circle Jerk site, Daily Kos. The commenter is responding to a post on the Obama administration’s announcement of the new Throw’em A Bone Council on Women and Girls and Nuclear Families.

Men die sooner, have higher suicide rates, prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women yet receives a fraction of the funding, men make up the vast majority of combat deaths, suffer the most from overall violence, suffer the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries, and are falling further and further behind women in attending and graduating college. There are plenty of issues affecting men. So it would be nice to see a program of general social advancement, as opposed to another one just favoring group X.

Dudes are the core of humanity, women are “group X.” Afghan godbags want it written into law that it’s OK to rape a few members of group X? Who cares? That’s well within parameters set by the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women.

Fucking barbarians.

Thanks, Luisa H

Posted in Godbagism, Men Hate You, Politics, Rape Culture and The megatheocorporatocracy. Bite me, Chad.