A New Breed of Feminist
And the moral of the story is…

And the moral of the story is…

I can’t take you seriously…

I hate to be the one who strays from the point. I don’t believe in personally attacking someone when arguing for a cause.

Yet… I constantly see pro-lifers misspell words, use improper grammar, and misuse homonyms.

It really is hard to take someone seriously when they write, “Everyone has a write to life, abortions kill babys.” (*right*, *babies*)

I’ve also read, “They could of put it up for adoption.” (*could have*)

I once had someone explain to me that “A fertilized egg from a human being is scientifically defined as a human being, just as a fertilized egg from a cat is scientifically defined as a human.” - That one made me laugh. Obviously it was what he called “a mental slip” but I still think it would have been a good idea to double check what he wrote before he hit the send button.

My goal is not to ridicule them for petty reasons. However, I do tend to wonder how someone who seems to be incapable of double checking their writing for mistakes is capable of double checking the validity of any information they present in an argument. 

Just sayin’! ;)

(Side note: pro-lifers say pro-choicers are known for their personal attacks - yet, are they not the ones preaching that anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose is a bad person for “supporting murder”? That’s pretty personal. Can you say “hypocrite”?)

If you don’t deserve it, you shouldn’t have to take it.

Yes We Can.

If you don’t deserve it, you shouldn’t have to take it.


Yes We Can.

Freedom to worship as you wish, but you shall not force anyone to worship with you.

Freedom to express yourself, but you shall not force anyone to agree with you. 

Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but you shall not force anyone to bear life. (This would interfere with their liberty and rights.)

Side Note:

Amendment XIV (1868), Section 1: ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The constitution does not even address the rights of the unborn. 

Can We or Can We Not Have it All?

An article on recently highlighted Sheryl Sandberg’s (COO of Facebook and author of “Lean In”) hopes of starting a movement as well as the criticism she received from other outspoken women.

Critics believe Sandberg places too much of the responsibility on women who are already struggling to fulfill impossible demands, and too little on government and employers to provide better child care, more flexible jobs and other concrete gains.

"Ms. Sandberg’s chief critic has been Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton professor and former top State Department official, who published an Atlantic Magazine article titled ‘Why Women Can’t Have It All,’ last year arguing that feminism — and Ms. Sandberg — were holding women to unattainable standards for personal and professional success.”

"Ms. Sandberg ‘does what too many successful women before her have done: blaming other women for not trying hard enough,’ wrote Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, a consultant who works with companies to improve their gender balance. ‘Every resistant man on the planet will be able to quote her’ saying that women simply must become more ambitious, Ms. Cox continued. (Ms. Sandberg writes that she focuses on internal barriers because the external ones get more attention.)”

So what’s the verdict? Can we, or can we not have it all? They both have equally valid points - only they failed to realize (if not now then at the time of their writing) that they both must be addressed. 

This “glass ceiling” women struggle with is not just a figment of our imagination. Yet it’s not one of those things that men will chivalrously remove from our path. 

Sandberg is spot-on in saying women hold themselves back. We are raised in a society that still presents us with gender biased learning tools in even our earliest years. Most american households subconsciously raise girls to believe they are delicate damsels in distress who need some type of prince charming to rescue them. Everyday women depend on men to either help them, promote them, approve or make decisions for them; and if that doesn’t happen then they allow themselves to remain stuck. It is up to us to push for what we want. 

As for Slaughter’s statement; women do have it harder. We have to carry the children - men don’t. We deal with plenty of obstacles that men can’t even fathom dealing with. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t be just as successful in our careers. A child is produced by two people. Therefore, care for the child should be the responsibility of both. It is old fashioned to believe that the mother is solely responsible for the home while the father is responsible for the income - the basic idea is simple: share the work. As for single mother’s - their situation deserves a completely separate post. 

Cox’s statement implies that telling women that they aren’t trying hard enough is not exactly fair. The “glass ceiling” is “glass” because it’s not always obvious; we don’t always realize it’s there. It seems that it is even less obvious to most men. 

All of these things must be taken into consideration. It’s not necessarily a matter of which is more important or which should be addressed and dealt with first. We need to believe more in ourselves as individuals and as women in order to realize just how much we are in fact capable of; we need to enlighten each other in order to realize we are in fact constantly underestimated and cheated; and we need speak up and push harder for equal opportunity so that men have no choice but to give it to us. 



Read the NY Times article at:

She shouldn’t have worn that dress.

No. There is no justification. The focus should not be on what the victim did to “ask for it”.

Yet it happens all the time and it bestows unnecessary, unfair and undeserved feelings of guilt upon girls everywhere. 

It is NOT the victims fault. The way a girl or woman dresses, looks or “behaves” should NEVER be considered a personal invitation.


Is that so? Well then it can take its business elsewhere.

If you don’t like it, then you can find someone else to do your developing. Not in my body! Not if I didn’t agree to it, not if I’m not ready!image

Why should something that is not fully developed have rights that interfere with and overpower MY rights?

Pretty much. And according to religion, we’re all paying for her mistake - trusting a male snake.

Pretty much. And according to religion, we’re all paying for her mistake - trusting a male snake.

Women - and the Bible

Is this why women have struggled and battled for their rights and independence for so long? Was religion the start of it all?

Check out these segments taken from the Tanakh/Torah/Old Testament:

Eve’s punishment:

"Unto the woman He said, Multiplying, I will multiply thy affliction by the blood of thy virginity, and by thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bear children, and to thy husband shall be thy desire, and he will have rule over thee unto righteousness or unto sin."

Adam’s punishment:

"And thorns and thistles will it put forth and increase on account of thee, and thou shalt eat the herb which is on the face of the field. By the labour of thy hands thou shalt eat food, until thou turn again to the dust from which thou wast created: for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return; for from the dust it is to be that thou art to arise, to render judgment and reckoning for all that thou hast done, in the day of the great judgment.”

The snake’s punishment:

"Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou of all the cattle, and of all the beasts of the field: upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha."

To sum it up, they were all cast out of Eden.

Adam and the rest of mankind were made to work for their food until the day they die - and to spice it up God threw some thorns and thistles in the mix.

The snake was made to have no limbs and slither on the ground on its belly, shed his skin every seven years, eat dust, and have venom in his mouth with which he was to wound the children of the woman with whenever they broke the commandments of the law.

Eve was made to bleed out of her vagina, suffer by having kids, and be under her husbands rule regardless of whether he was steering her/them right or wrong.

-> Basically, according to the Old Testament Tanakh, the snake was the bad guy; but we are all paying for Adam and Eve giving into temptation. 

Pretty shitty deal, wouldn’t you say?