Tag Archives: feminism

Jabberwonky – August 25th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, August 25th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: Everyone’s talking about race now, probably because of the anniversary coming up this week of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s historical speech. So, what has really driven most of the race-baiting, and how is this serving the agenda of the liberals? Also, how do women fit in this equation? Also, we are getting closer to another anniversary – 9/11. There has been much talk about the Million Muslim March, and counter-protests seem to be sprouting up all over. How should conservatives be reacting to all of this? Listen tonight to find out.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

ZoNATION: Hillary-ous Feminism

zonationhillaryprez

Think Hillary Clinton should be considered a hero by feminists? Alfonzo Rachel certainly doesn’t, and for the big reasons that most liberals seem to ignore. What is so empowering about a woman that “stands by her man” in spite of his publicly humiliating her with his extra-marital dalliances while literally in the Oval Office? But, like all the other hypocrisies that the left hold dear, no doubt they will stand by their Hillary.

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Vote-Democrat_02

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

The Left’s Continuing War on Women

war on women

New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin attend a news conference in New YorkHuma Abedin learned from a young age that as a woman, she’s a second class citizen. Her value is not equal to that of a man, therefore she must tolerate whatever painful, humiliating or otherwise unpleasant treatment the man in her life decides to unleash upon her. Not only must she tolerate it, she must accept it as her due. She must not question it, fight it, or be seen to be upset by it.

Many people are wondering why she is standing by her philandering, pervert of a husband, Anthony Weiner. Some assume she’s taking notes from another “feminist”, Hillary Clinton, who’s also accepted second class status in favor of her powerful husband and that is probably true to a certain degree. But there is a far more sinister reason. Not only is Abedin a practicing Muslim, she was raised by a mother who is an ardent defender of Sharia Law, supporter of female genital mutilation, and a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a Muslim Brotherhood women’s group.

In addition, Abedin’s mother Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is the longtime chairwoman of the International Islamic Committee for Women and Children (IICWC) which calls for, among other things, decriminalizing female genital mutilation, child marriage, polygamy for men, and child abuse. They also seek to disallow women from registering their newborns for a birth certificate by themselves because, according to Sharia Law, a child’s lineage belongs strictly to the father.

Huma Abedin has not actively participated in such blatant anti-woman advocacy, but neither has she distanced herself from it. For that matter, neither has her “feminist” mentor Hillary Clinton. During Clinton’s trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Secretary of State visited and spoke at the Islamic college of Dar El-Hekma along with Huma, where Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin was a vice-dean and one of its founders.

While it’s unlikely that Huma is as big a fan of Sharia Law as her mother, there is no doubt these destructive and dangerous beliefs have heavily influenced her worldview, both personally and politically. While the left pretends women having to buy their own birth control is a “war on women”, the real war is being waged by those who don’t vehemently denounce the despicable behavior of men like Weiner and the mindset of women who are coerced by a perverted religion to embrace it.

NYC “Feminists” Demand the Right Not to be Seen as Sex Objects. By Going Topless.

boobs baby

boobs babyIt’s possible that “progressives” have weekly meetings to decide what action they can take to simultaneously shock the rational sensibilities of thinking people and even further divorce themselves from reality. And it’s becoming more and more clear these meetings are taking place in New York City, the “progressive” mecca.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy and laughable lack of self awareness, “feminists” have decided the best way to achieve “equal rights” (that they refuse to understand they already have) and not be seen as “sex objects” is to parade around topless in public. After all, men do it! It’s only fair! And according to low functioning “progressive” leftists, fairness is not only a real concept, but also something we can legislate. So don’t you dare demand anyone behave with a shred of common decency because, dammit, women have the right to be naked in public. It’s all about feelings, folks. And these women are having a crisis of emotion over the tyranny of t-shirts.

New York City police officers have been instructed not to arrest women who’ve chosen to bare it all from the waist up in public, but have instead been told to disperse any crowds that may form around said topless women, even though crowds shouldn’t form because “progressives” are telling us that boobs in your face on Madison Avenue are totally normal because shut up, Woman Hater.

Proponents shriek this is a good step toward eliminating “unconstitutional gender discrimination”, proclaiming little more than the fact that they’ve never bothered to read the Constitution. In their defense though, when would they have time to educate themselves on our actual rights as Americans when they’re so busy creating “rights” they wish we had? Reality is hard, and oftentimes unfair. Is no one thinking of the female nipple’s self esteem?

There’s even a group of women who’ve banded together to organize protests in favor of lewdness and indecency and they’ve managed to summon the audacity to compare it to the right to vote. They call themselves “Go Topless” (creativity is hard) and they fancy themselves modern day suffragettes, but this time they’re marching for a much nobler cause than votes. They’ve decided that a woman’s value should be placed on her sexuality, that she’s no more than the sum of her parts. Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be so proud.

I’m a fan of equality and I’m a fan of boobs. I have both. I’ve used both to my advantage. But, and call me old fashioned if you wish, if modern “feminists” have decided that my having to wear a shirt in public means I’m a victim of a patriarchal society, I will happily embrace that “oppression”. Because fairness.

When Did Success Become Anathema to Feminists?

Screen Shot 2013-03-10 at 12.30.07 AM

We live in a two income household nation, and the days of men being the sole breadwinners are dying.  Women are the majority of wage earners, and if the trends continue, they’ll become the main income earners by 2030.  So, women have made massive strides in the socio-economic landscape, and that’s a good thing.  However, when it comes to successful women, feminists can’t stand them.

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer are the newest victims of feminist wrath.  It’s because they go against the norm.  Hanna Rosin aptly noted that Mayer’s critics “believe in collective action,” and anyone that deviates from what the feminist establishment thinks is punished.  Hence, why conservative women are vilified without mercy, despite that fact that some have attained positions of power within male-dominated fields, particularly in politics.  In the world of media, feminist antipathy is no different.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

The strange idea that women who are successful must represent all women, or somehow be like all women, is both totally absurd and completely prevalent. How could someone in the position of Sandberg or Mayer live exactly like most women in America? Mayer attracted criticism for taking too short a maternity leave and for saying her baby is easy, because women with any sort of success or advantage are supposed to be self-deprecating. They are supposed to complain or evoke the terribleness of their lives, so that other women will not be threatened, to diffuse the powerful and frightening competitive instinct. This is an expectation most of us pick up in middle school, but the fact that it persists and lives on in the blogosphere and newspaper columns among grownup critics and pundits is shameful.

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

Dear Left: Conservatives Will Discuss Gun Control When the Left Agrees to Discuss Abortion Control

ban rifles1 pound baby

 

 

How many anti-gun leftists screaming for gun control would have supported the abortions of the 20 Newtown, Connecticut children had their parents chose abortion when those children were in the womb? Millions of leftists, including many screaming for gun bans.  Yet, when children are murdered by-way-of guns, leftists whore out every media camera, grabbing front and center attention to demonstrate tearful horror over the loss of innocent lives. Innocent lives leftists consider a hindrance to women when the innocents are in the womb.

So to leftists demanding more gun control discussions with legislators and citizens, let’s have that gun control discussion when you leftists are willing to talk about abortion control.

The left’s favorite protest next to capitalism and abortion on demand is gun control. Considering how fervently anti-death penalty and anti-Second Amendment the left is, it’s quite an oxymoron on their part to support killing children in the womb while mourning children who have been murdered by a monstrous gunman.

Let’s not forget the majority of these gun-ban pushers, horrified by a lunatic’s mass murder of children, would protest for that gunman’s life had he not killed himself and faced the death penalty.

death penalty makes us all killers

 

 

Of course this is a hopeless argument against useless idiots.  If given the choice to save pregnant women or puppies standing before firing squads, the left would throw themselves on top of the doomed puppies. To hell with our nation’s future and our Constitution’s preservation, unborn children and guns hinder our lives!

Conservatives across the spectrum can try to hold abortion control discussions, but we know the left will have none of it: Abortion is necessary to a woman’s sexual liberty, abortion is not murder, guns are, because guns kill! Abortion simply makes life-style problems go away.

Despite gun violence arguments and the Brady Campaign’s  claim that citizen gun mortality is higher than all U.S. wars combined, America has more abortion deaths per year than gun deaths.  But comparing civilian gun deaths to over 300 years of wars involving Americans is a political ploy to outlaw all guns.  Everyone knows wars incurs death; that’s why war is called war. Correlating armed civilians with war insinuates armed citizens are at war with other citizens. That is false. But don’t ever call abortion a war on children; you might offend women crusading for their freedom from that combat known as motherhood!

 

abortion not legal debate

 

If the left wants to discuss their hatred of guns, the right is justified in discussing its abhorrence toward taking the lives of unborn, as well as presenting those statistics.

According to National Right To Life, the CDC reports:

After dropping 25% from a high of over 1.6 million [abortions] in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million a year.

 

Still, the abortion rate is high.

 The CDC reports: 

In 2009 [alone], 784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births.

 

The overall total of abortions in America to date:

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.

 

Abortion rates may have dropped, but the numbers are still astronomical compared to gun deaths.

But leftist will never admit abortion is a war on unborn children.

 

gun to unborn baby

 

Gun deaths in 2009—intentional and accidental combined—totaled:“31,347, Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2” CDC tracking has shown that firearm-related deaths—homicide, suicide or accidental—have declined each year.

The University of Pennsylvania Wharton College facilitates the anti-gun beliefs by claiming:

The US remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms of life expectancy…[and] the elimination of all firearm deaths in the US would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers.

 

Sorry academics, but had 54,559,615 Americans not been aborted, America would have a higher life expectancy today.

This is not making light of gun deaths. All death is tragic. But leftists view high abortion rates as a woman’s entitlement (unborn children lack rights until born and a gunman puts a gun to their heads) to control her own body and gun ownership the ultimate threat to society. That perspective is two-faced. How is killing unborn children, our nation’s future, just, but guns are deadly? Wouldn’t it be correct to say abortion is deadly because that is the procedure’s intention, and guns are only deadly when used to commit harm or fired accidentally?

Leftists disagree. Preventing abortion is a “War on Women.” Abortion is necessary for population control and freeing women from sexual impediments. Gun control and bans, however, are necessary for government to control citizen’s lives, conduct, religious, social, and political views.

If you cannot defend yourself from tyranny, then you are forced to become its servant.

Still, if Americans are to have gun control debates, leftists must allow conservative views on abortion. If leftists are hell-bent on abolishing the Second Amendment, conservatives have every right to discuss petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and placing abortion back in individual state hands.

If states have rights to impose stringent laws on guns, individual states should be given back their rights to decide whether or not citizens want abortion legal.

The mere suggestion of that discussion would go over like the Atomic Bomb on Japan.

Never mind the fact radically leftist California, New York and Massachusetts would never outlaw abortion and women seeking sexual freedom could turn their vacuumed sovereignty into a vacation package. Forget it, abortion is not allowed on the control discussion table.

No matter how hard commonsense argues with the left, guns will always be deemed violent weapons and abortion will always be considered a necessary means to end the domination of women’s bodies by unwanted children, those same women show compassion for, if children are murdered by an insane gunman.

There are two sides to life and death issues.  If one side is allowed to have a debate on gun deaths, the other side deserves the right to bring up abortion deaths. After all, it is only “fair” to “share” our individual ideas.

The War on Women: Faceless Casualties at the Frontlines of the Right-Wing’s Evil Crusade

gazarally11

By Vanessa M. Kyllove, embedded girlilla journalist with the Feminists for Freedom brigade, second battalion, reporting from America’s frontlines for Gender Neutrality Journal.

It has been a long, joyless 342 days since the hard right announced its crusade to eradicate womyn’s rights and to throw civilization back into the dark ages. The Wellsley college campanile sounded shrill in the frigid wintry air at ten a.m. – a harsh reminder of the places in the world where freedom does not ring.

Awakening in the hostile sunlight, I logged into my Facebook. Hysterical reports had flooded into my inbox of a Socon conspiracy to protest neonatal infanticide at Planned Parenthood headquarters at high noon. The revelation jolted me more than any mocha half-caf cappuccino. Here was a spur to action that instantly shook off the hangover of those strawberry wine coolers I drank last night. So I threw on my rainbow leg warmers and laced up my combat boots. Time to return to the grisly profession of war.

My blackberry was abuzz with nervous Tweets about the potential implications of ending late term abortions and infanticide. Would life go on as we know it? How would womyn cope with the knowledge that a lady could not whimsically spread her legs and then snuff out the unfortunate results of the tryst later? If we radical feminists gave the frothing-at-the-mouth “pro-life”sociopaths late-term abortions, or heaven forbid, neonatal infanticide, the next thing you know it’s the return of the malleus maleficarum and the Salem witch trials. Not on my watch.

Strolling out onto the campus courtyard, my sisters were already congregated and ready for action. I was the tallest of the group, and sensitive to the impressions of my sisters, I strove not to flaunt my lithe, lanky body and brown flaxen hair, which I kept tucked in a bun under my Che-style beret. My lengthy army green field jacket also guaranteed no wandering predatory masculine eyes could take in my feminine assets.

As I approached on the white paved walkway, I encountered a stocky girl of the athletic type dressed in a gray Wellsley sweatshirt and black stretch pants, taking in the cool mist of the evaporating dew and the warm scent of the radiant morning sun. It was Becky, my best gal pal. She was wielding a sign “Stay Out of My Womb!” while our nerdy, whip-smart friend Sandra, a diminutive red-haired girl of modest persuasion, had taken up the plight of the condomless with her custom T-shirt “Fluck You, Where’s Our Condoms?!”

We assembled at the pavilion with the Structural Feminist Society and countenanced our plan of attack. Social conservatives were not to be trifled with, having been raised on red meat and possibly harboring communicable diseases like rabies. We imagined the best tactic would be to yell as piercingly as we could, repeating the same chants over and over until we got our way.

“What about… racists, sexists, homophobes, leave those abortion docs alone?” Sandra meekly proffered to the group of seventeen college girls and the Gender Studies professor Ms. Shwarthely.

“What does that have to do with abortion and reproductive rights?” I asked, slightly confused.

“Yes, exactly,” Ms. Shwarthely muttered dryly, a wry smile creasing on her thin, pursed lips.

After forming en masse, we stridently took to the streets, armed only with our witty placards and a ray of hope. What we were fighting for was a more just world for all of us. And we would be damned if some redneck, teabagging socons were going to take away our right to partial birth abortion or neonatal infanticide.

The clack of heavy black Sketchers pounded on the pavement like an advancing army. Seventeen raucous warriors fighting for the cause of all adult womyn ready to do battle with our worst of enemies – the ignorant right-wing reactionary.

The Planned Parenthood office was a flurry of activity, as dozens of white, middle-aged, trailer park trash had gathered on the sidewalk, carrying Bibles and other mysogynistic hate literature. Horribly graphic pictures of healthy infants shocked and stirred us to engage.

“Sisters, let’s mobilize!” Ms. Shwarthely yelled through a bull-horn. The short-haired, bespectacled professor led the charge to the head of the protest group, a priest who was mumbling some Bible verses. She got right in his face.

“What do you think you’re doing here?” she bellowed in righteous fury. “Protesting abortion? Neonatal infanticide? What business of yours is this?”

“Why…” the idiotic preacher splurted out, “I just think it’s morally wrong…”

“Morally wrong?” Ms. Swarthely howled magnificently. “Why these…” she wrapped her hand against a placard bearing an image of a fetus “…are just blobs of protoplasm, inconsequential bits of matter, and it is up to we womyn to decide if they live or die!”

“But…” the bumbling fool struggled to make out, “Don’t you see that all life is precious?”

“Precious? Precious?!? How many children will starve to feed this drain on society that you would like to see the light of day? Womyn, enough! Time to chant!”

Our voices raised to the sky, we chanted in unison. Our hymn flooded over our enemies gloriously, more potently than any Christian choir. One suburban WASP female burst into tears because of our stirring chorus. I gave my friend Becky a high-five and took out my camera phone. My friends would not believe the ridiculous teabagging rednecks who dared to mess with our girl power.

An hour of our brigade, nicknamed “Task Force Vagina,” chanting “racist, bigot, homophobe” wore down our adversaries. At last, bittersweet victory. One of the hateful hillbillies yelled, “You are all going to hell!”- only proving they were a bunch of crazy hatemongers. Then finally, the coup de grâce.  The invariable “baby killer!” meme was uttered. I caught it all on my camera phone, which brought an irresistible grin to my face. But Sandra was visibly upset.

“Hey, lady!” she cried. “I don’t like being called names!”

This was unacceptable. One of my sisters had been emotionally wounded in combat. I folded up my cellphone and rushed to comfort my wounded comrade by putting my arm around her shoulder. Just then, a womyn showed up to enter the clinic, bravely making her way through the crowd of contorted faces. Meekly, shuffling her way through, she lifted her eyes only to parse the meaning of the confrontation. Her expression was grave.

Awkwardly, I smiled at the young black woman with a reassuring look on my face that communicated ‘just ignore the signs.’ The obviously lonely and afraid girl seemed to pluck up for a moment and then returned to her grim state after she walked by.

Why was this world so cruel? What good were all these protests if a womyn like her was forced to bear the curse of an unwanted child, and left no choice but to terminate it? If only the world were one collective, sharing all, no one would go without want, no one would go hungry, and no one would be shamed for the unavoidable results of free love…

“Hey, you!” a ferocious masculine shout snapped me back to attention. “Whores of Babylon!”

Back to the fray. Back to the cause of fighting for womyn everywhere.

The above is satire. It is a fictionalized account intended to elucidate certain ideas and principles by taking them to absurd lengths. It is not intended to be taken literally.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and BeatObamaPac, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.