“Please, Daddy Government, may I have some more condoms and Pills?”
How debasing to have to ask Government for a handout to engage in the most intimate of sexual relations? This gives lie to the idea that Progressives and Feminists want Big Government out of their bedrooms. Nay, they are inviting them in! After all, if Government cannot make those evil companies and churches give me a pregnancy and STD experience, well, I need to beg some more.
It used to be “hear me ROAR”, right? Sandra Fluke and those supporting her, while thinking they are using their outside voices, are really whimpering: “please provide for my needs”. Strong, independent, able to provide for themselves and the ability to compete equally against men? Wasn’t that the original point of feminism – the Matriarchy rising above Patriarchal society?
But isn’t this just a whole charade with Sandra Flake? You have this “reproductive justice” advocate, picking a religious Law school deliberately to be an agent provocateur to get free stuff KNOWING that it was against their theology – but perhaps this is not their ” moment in the sun”she and her fellow travelers think it is? Maybe, is the “full circle” moment? From Oppressed to Freedom to Oppression, for if you have to beg for stuff from Government for a roll in the hay, you are not free. Dependency is never free – not even from the Progressive “Freedom from Want”, for as Communism /Socialism has shown us, The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen. Given the backdrop of a $16 Trillion debt, it is clear that their selfishness to assuage their urges have addled any financial sense they have. It is the ME generation on steriods – you MUST give to me, even as I prostrate myself to Government.
Good going, dudettes – you swapped one Master for another – happy now? Or do you even realize it?
Reduced to begging. Does that make the Feminists the “useful idiots” of Progressives who are ALL about central control, who do not trust citizens with their own freedom, and who must be dancing in the halls thinking “hey, we got another group dependent on us!” Who are all about taking away our precious Liberty and go back to the Oppression that reigned over most before the Declaration of Independence, all in the name of Equality (like the French Revolution worked out well) ).
Definition: Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.
Alternative Def: A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been “taken back” to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one’s personal liberties, and the right to control one’s own sexuality.
Definition: 7. type of male (generally) who starts out using a devilish charm on a female of their choosing. They then act caring yet eventually create other romantic involvements with other females. They typically lie quite often, not only about their other relationships, but about themselves, their daily lives, and false promises. The male will try to manage the several relationships but is basically only it them to get some sort of sexual pleasure…
Playa, colloquial spelling of “player”. Translation: “I’m moving on when the test comes out positive.” In both cases, the “hook up” generation are screwing each other – and themselves. Also, Skip’s definition: “taken back” – a redefinition of the English language to reduce the use of the word “shame” in attempting to justify bad behavior.
As one could figure out from here, I’m rather not impressed with the Lefty Progressives and Sandra Fluke. Now, I’m old school, but I think both sluts (a gal that sleeps around) and playas (guys that do the same) are on the same moral plane as the street gutter. They do not think much of their partner (really, the sexual object at hand) nor of themselves and studies show it hurts later relationship building. But that “gutter mentality”‘s the problem – thus far, whole art and science of Progressivism is to reduce our levels of morality to ourselves and (voluntarily) those around us by the soft, crooning Siren voice of “let Daddy Government take care of all that for you”. As Steve pointed out in a comment on his post here:
If, in 1965, during Griswold v. Connecticut, if you told people that the nature of that decision would one day lead to live birth abortion, people would have said you were mad. But you would have been right. This is no different.
The modus operandi of Progressivism is to incrementally remove any vestige of religious or traditional morality from the public square – the relationship to God first, spouse and family next, followed by everything else; traditional values of the nuclear family (Mom, Dad, kids), the personal responsibility to control oneself, hard work, delayed gratification, and the idea of what one earned, one kept. It used to be a given that individuals have a responsibility to their family in taking care of them and helping their extended family in bad times, and voluntarily, the same for friends, neighbors, and their community. And “rugged individuality” really meant being self-sufficient and not being a burden on anyone else. In fact, that old term “shame” had a practical use – to keep people from straying from social mores and then becoming financial leeches (not those that need a hand up but those that want the eternal hand out) – the “gimme crowd”.
Instead of reaching for better, however, behavior has been encouraged to be more and more libertine by the Dems – “you are ENTITLED, you DESERVE to act this way without shame!”. Those traditional values? Not so much – just do what feels good. Hey, screw up, no problem – GOVERNMENT is there to help you.
Just cede your God-given Right to us, and allow Government to give you “other rights” – like the “reproductive justice” of Government giving you your allotment for the Pill, condoms, abortifacients, sterilizations, or abortions. Real rights, inalienable Rights like religious freedom, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness?
We see that slow incrementalism of Progressivism no longer being bound by the Constitution. Did anyone in NH think that our Senator Jeanne Shaheen would first look to the Constitution as our bedrock Law when furthering this when she voted against Religious Freedom? All for the right to not have to be responsible for oneself.
Addendum – I have a tendency to “write long” (really Skip? Never noticed), so here’s a few other disjointed thoughts from around the blogosphere:
- From Cafe Hayek:
Perhaps you’re correct. But Mr. Limbaugh reacted to Ms. Fluke’s own violation of standards of civility. A truly civilized person doesn’t demand that other people pick up the bill for her contraception. A truly civilized person – especially one who can afford to be a full-time student at a prestigious law school – would refuse any invitation to publicly play the role of a victim wronged by being told to pay for her own pills or condoms. A truly civilized person does not hold in contempt other people for their resistance to being forced to subsidize his or her ‘lifestyle choices’ (whatever those choices might be).
When someone violates standards of civility – as Ms. Fluke has done by self-righteously (and, frankly, also rather incredibly) insisting that she and her fellow students are grievously harmed by the prospect of having to pay for their own contraception – she should not be surprised when other people violate such standards in response.
You bet – if you put yourself out into politics, you are subject to attack even as you attack others – that’s not being silenced, that IS the game. Rush called called Sandra Fluke a slut – and got pounded by the Politically Correct Left for it (even as the Left ignores that Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a slut and Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the C-word. Really, slut is worse than the C-word? And Maher is still on HBO?). Add to that what has been hurled at Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and the like? Do you see them whining about it?
- The Washington Post decries what Rush Limbaugh said with this:
to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing.
Fair enough; yet, when Jim Messina and the Obama Campaign hacks do the same to the private citizens, the Koch brothers, why won’t the Left at least have some semblance of consistency <insert laughter here>? Naw, not happening?
- Once again, we see the Left abusing the English language – morphing “access” to mean “you have to pay for her…and her….and her…and her”. Regardless of YOUR theology, OUR theology (masked as a political ideology) trumps yours.
- What the Obama Government has done, unlike any other Administration in the history of this country, has made the decision that Government can say what a church is – and isn’t. In effect, it has told people of faith that only that building called a church is a church – and that any and all of its ministries that take place outside of that church, be it a soup kitchen, a hospice, a thrift store, a hospital, drug and substance rehab ministry, or a training facility, is not a church.
You and Obama call those secular activities – what they are is the Christian heart of religious people moved to action. Ministries ARE part of the church – but for the first time, Government is decreeing what is and isn’t a church.
- In trying to get a definition of slut, I learned a new word: slattern
- Gosh, who can keep up – didn’t the “SlutWalk” movement make slut a good word (see “take back”, above)?
- “Fluke’s complaint was based on the fact that it was not covered for the use as a contraceptive, which would violate the Catholic church’s beliefs. ” Yeah, she had been deliberately picking a fight for the last three years by researching for a Catholic institution that didn’t cover contraceptives, and then telling them to change their theology to suit her. This was no innocent looking for a hand up.
- President Obama called Sandra Fluke to “encourage her“. I remember him making the quip that he didn’t want his kids punished with a kid:
“…I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”:
How does he square this circle? How can Obama teach his kids to have “morals”, yet “encourage” Fluke et al for diametrically opposed value of “on demand” government? Can’t have it both ways – and again, no consistency.
- Oh yeah, this is SUCH a great reason: “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception”. Are we supposed to accept that ANY action by Government is great simply because “it can save money”? Gee, less people – let’s look at the next step: what happens to Social Security when even LESS people are paying into it? Sounds like these nitwits.
- From The College Conservative: Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery: ”Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.” Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?
- NOW squeaks up:
The collusion of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has led to an open declaration of war on the women of this country. The bishops have long sought to enshrine into law those policies of the Catholic Church that subordinate women. And they don’t care how badly women get hurt in the process.
Ah yes, THE MEME! Once again, the morphing of the language: the simple fact that contraceptives should be paid for by those that use them is “a war on women”. I told this to my wife – BOY did she laugh! Or she did, at first – then did she get mad! “Who do these people think they are to demand ANYTHING from me?”
- And this over at The Corner:
Terry O’Neill, head of the National Organization for Women, says that the Catholic bishops are “demanding that the government step in and use the force and power and police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control because the bishops have failed.”
It is VERY telling that these FeminNazis (to deliberately use Rush’s name) will NOT acknowledge that none of that is true:
- The Bishops want Government to leave them alone
- The Bishops are not demanding the womyn stop using birth control. They are not asking the Government to do that either
- How have the Bishops failed?
What is actually happening is the exact opposite: NOW IS the one that is craving for Government to step in and force the Bishops (and other religious leaders) to do what NOW wants. Brazen – and can’t lie convincingly either.