Just the gentle sexism of bygone era: the wimmin’s will want to clean the pans if they can star at their reflections. or maybe like a bird, they will be baffled by the shiny object?
(Hat tip: Scissorhead Moeman)
Oh, that will win over women and the youth, who are nothing but marriage-hungry harridans.
Notice that the one thing never shown in this ad is… Florida’s own bat boy, Rick Scott. Methinks these retrograde women would flee from the showroom, screaming.
So Reince, once again I ask: How goes the rebranding?
Yup, once again the boys cannot control their impure thoughts and so the girls gotta quit dressing like sluts, but this story takes the Blue Ribbon at the county fair:
The assistant principal said they had the girls watch two clips from the movie “Pretty Woman” and compared their attire to the main character…who is a prostitute.
It also probably goes without saying (so I’ll say it anyway), anything anyone wears will be sexy to a hormonal boy. I also should add that teenage girls are sexual beings, too, and so when will a school tell a boy what to wear because it is distracting the girls?
And here’s our sermon for today, courtesy of Mark Driscoll the founder of Mars Hill Church, the mega church based in Seattle:
“Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while,” Driscoll wrote under the name William Wallace II in 2001. “Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.”
“Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home,” he continued. “But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not… And, if you look at a man it is quite obvious that what a homeless man does not need is another man without a home.”
So, women only exist as place for men to park their peens? And as for men? You are nothing more than your dick? On loan from God?
The local stories on people (men) escaping this church usually have one common thread: Mr. Driscoll seems to interfere with their relationships with the women in their lives. They have counseling sessions where they try to make men talk about their sexual experiences, they have to approve of who the men are dating, and get permission to marry. If the reports are true, it sounds like a very creepy way to maintain control over a flock of (probably low esteem) men. From what I understand, women are not part of congregation.
Also, too: note that Storyville Coffee Company is wholly owned by Mars Hill Church and it is where they do a lot of their recruiting.
We’ve talked about Mars Church’s Driscoll before. You may recall that he was at the center of gaming the NYTimes Best Seller list earlier this year. Y’all Qaeda is strong in this one.
Somewhere, ancient hate goblin pessary Phyllis Schlafly is smiling.
Holy Mary, Mother of Jeebus, what was Thom Tillis thinking:
Seven percent. A 7 percent pay raise. That’s what we passed this year for North Carolina teachers. That’s simple math. But math is lost on Sen. Hagan. She’s misleading you about me to hide her own partisan record. Kay Hagan votes with President Obama 96 percent of the time. She voted for $7 trillion in debt. That’s math too. And it’s the difference in this election.
Because, you know, the dames don’t unnerstan’ the maths, y’all.
It’s long been the position of this blog that there is a War on Women, and that it is a front in the larger War on Democracy being waged by the Xristian Xrazie Theocrats. Today, Tiger Beat on the Potomac (Thanks Charlie!) got their hands on a poll that sort of shows that Y’all Qaeda is truly loathed by women:
A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups — including one backed by Karl Rove — paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding female voters view the party as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past.”
Women are “barely receptive” to Republicans’ policies, and the party does “especially poorly” with women in the Northeast and Midwest, according to an internal Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report obtained by POLITICO…
…The report is blunt about the party’s problems. It says 49 percent of women view Republicans unfavorably, while just 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably.
…Female voters who care about the top four issues — the economy, health care, education and jobs — vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Most striking, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage with female voters who care about jobs and a 26 percent advantage when asked which party is willing to compromise. House Republicans say jobs and the economy are their top priorities.
Meh. The skirts, whatchya gonna do, boys?
The groups suggest a three-pronged approach to turning around their relationship with women. First, they suggest the GOP “neutralize the Democrats’” attack that Republicans don’t support fairness for women. They suggest Republican lawmakers criticize Democrats for “growing government programs that encourage dependency rather than opportunities to get ahead.” That message tested better than explaining that the GOP supports a number of policies that could help fairness for women.
So the old tactic of baffling the broads with bullshit, eh, and then attacking the Safety Net. Yeah, that’ll work.
Two policies former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promoted as a way to make inroads with middle-class women and families — charter schools and flexible work schedules — were actually the least popular policies among female voters.
Seriously, they thought that Gender Studies Scholar Iago was on to something? Cutting public education and cutting overtime pay were the way to women’s hearts? Why not just go through the chest, boys?
One bright spot is among married women. Married women without a college degree view Republicans favorably, the polling shows. Married women prefer a Republican over a Democrat, 48 percent to 38 percent.
So… If you keep ‘em dumb and married, you got them locked-in to vote for you! Say, that’s your policy goal anyway, so there’s the win-win solution!
I had to go look at Tiger Beat on the Potomac (When will I learn to keep the antifreeze jug nearby?):
“First of all, the gender of the justices in the Hobby Lobby majority is totally irrelevant,” Kelly said, pointing out that the justices who ruled in the majority for Roe v. Wade were also men. “Does Ms. Pelosi think those justices were ill-equipped to fairly decide that case? Or is it only when a judge disagrees with Ms. Pelosi that his gender is an issue.”
I think that there is a distinction to be made here, Kelly: when a group of one type of people acts to remove rights from a group of another type of people, then those types of identifiers becomes relevant; for instance, when the bigots stripped gay people of the right to be married in California, their sexual orientation was relevant.
But when one group of people expands rights to another group of people, then identifiers like gender is irrelevant. Do we even mention that LBJ was a white man when he lobbied for and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
She added, “If Speaker John Boehner made a similar comment about the female Supreme Court justices, Nancy Pelosi would be crying sexism — and that’s what she is guilty of here.”
And when we reach a day where five female SCOTUS Justices (praise Blog! that day will be great!) rule on mens’ contraception, we can talk, but until then this is hypothetical BS.
Look, Kelly is a trained lawyer and allegedly they have some sort of background in rhetoric and logic (or so I’m told), so this is really beneath her; I mean I’m just some dude in Seattle and I can take that argument to the ground. Sometimes she’s as close to a straight shooter on Fox as they get, but this is not one of those times.
Libs are still angry I pointed out religious liberty trumps their desire for employer subsidized consequence free sex. Poor dears.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) July 2, 2014
Consequence Free Sex (and more grammatically correct consequence-free sex) seems to be Wingnuttia’s new meme dujour. And let me add, that consequence-free sex is what men have enjoyed all along. No wonder they don’t want women to have it: it could mean careers, financial independence, and autonomy.
“[Alison Lundergan Grimes] runs on four things. She runs on some variation of: she’s young, she’s new, is a woman, and she’s not Mitch McConnell. That’s essentially what she’s got, in some form or fashion. And all those are true enough, and all of those, while they’re not substantive, they’re good enough to beat Mitch McConnell. […] The reality is I negate her only competitive advantages. She’s then forced to run against me by talking about issues, by talking about vision, by talking about life experience. And she really has none of the above on any of those fronts. She’s a nice enough person, I’ve met her on several occasions on the campaign trail, seems nice enough, but completely devoid of what it takes for us.
–Senate Candidate from Kentucky Matt Bevin mansplains his advantages over Alison Lundergan Grimes to us.
So Reince, gotta ask again, how’s that rebranding working for ya?