Here’s the thing, Republicans. Here’s the real reality of the situation:

Your side is the one trying to limit our access to birth control and abortion (a legal medical procedure).

Your politicians are the ones talking about how girls “rape easy,” and your sainted Ronald Reagan is the one who started the simultaneously racist, sexist and classist myth of the “welfare queen.”

Just this week, one of your own said he supported forcing women to give birth to a rapist’s baby, and your presidential candidate said he would not withdraw his support for him.

You’re the ones pushing the rumor that Obama’s mother was a porn star who gave birth in Kenya.

Your candidate slammed single mothers right in front of the first president ever born to one.

You’re the ones suggesting bills to cut aid to new mothers.

You’re the ones attempting to defund Planned Parenthoods across the country, which primarily serve young women.

You’re the ones voting down bills like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.

Oh, and you’re the ones trying to kill Obamacare, which insures millions of American women.

So you’ll have to excuse me if I can’t get my hackles raised over a double entendre about voting and sex. If my choice is between a candidate who lets a celebrity make a cutesy video about her first time and a candidate who will not withdraw his endorsement of a man who says rape babies are part of God’s plan, it’s pretty clear who to choose.

Republicans have been hopping on the “Oh, no! Obama mentioned something about vaginas” Sanctimony Pony every chance they get because even they aren’t dense enough not to realize their party platform is inherently anti-woman. They will do whatever they can in order to pivot the conversation away from “women’s bodies should be subservient to their husbands and fertilized eggs” — because they know that both lady parts and lady smarts tremble in fear at the idea of a Romney presidency. And with good reason. As far as I can tell, most Republican politicians actually do hate me and every other liberal woman out there.

As a young woman, my health, reproductive rights and livelihood are directly threatened by a Romney presidency.

Your team is the one waging the War on Women. Trying to get my feathers ruffled because an ad subliminally mentions sex isn’t going to make me forget that.

Face it, Republicans: You’re the ones who hate women (via current)

(via stfuconservatives)

Olympic Weightlifter’s Incredible Take-Down of Sexist Jerks: “We Don’t Lift Weights in Order to Look Hot”

meeglots:

Being able to lift 267 pounds is only one of the things that makes 18 year-old British Olympic weightlifter Zoe Smith tough. She can also swat down sexist Twitter trolls like they’re flies.

While Smith was preparing to set an Olympic record for Great Britainin the clean-and-jerk event, men (and some women) on Twitter were busy saying she wasn’t attractive enough, or that she was manly, or that there was something wrong with her body because she was so muscular.

So Smith took to her blog to respond:

[We] don’t lift weights in order to look hot, especially for the likes of men like that. What makes them think that we even WANT them to find us attractive? If you do, thanks very much, we’re flattered. But if you don’t, why do you really need to voice this opinion in the first place, andwhat makes you think we actually give a toss that you, personally, do not find us attractive? What do you want us to do? Shall we stop weightlifting, amend our diet in order to completely get rid of our ‘manly’ muscles, and become housewives in the sheer hope that one day you will look more favourably upon us and we might actually have a shot with you?!Cause you are clearly the kindest, most attractive type of man to grace the earth with your presence.

Oh but wait, you aren’t. This may be shocking to you, but we actually would rather be attractive to people who aren’t closed-minded and ignorant. Crazy, eh?!We, as any women with an ounce of self-confidence would, prefer our men to be confident enough in themselves to not feel emasculated by the fact that we aren’t weak and feeble.

Sexism seems to be almost as common as sweat at this year’s Olympics — which has a record number of women participating — from female boxers being asked to wear skirts to differentiate them from the men to women’s teams taking coach while men’s fly first class.

Alternet

occupyallstreets:

Arizona Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!
Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko’s HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.
It’s all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.
Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because

“we live in America; we don’t live in the Soviet Union.”

Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn’t using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don’t run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.
Anyway, this bill probably won’t get anywhere (but we shouldn’t underestimate Arizona’s bigotry); it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can’t imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn’t make it any less depressing. In fact, it’s almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.
Source

Okay, wtf Arizona? You’re becoming what the Deep South used to be..

occupyallstreets:

Arizona Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko’s HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.

It’s all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because

we live in America; we don’t live in the Soviet Union.

Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn’t using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don’t run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.

Anyway, this bill probably won’t get anywhere (but we shouldn’t underestimate Arizona’s bigotry); it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can’t imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn’t make it any less depressing. In fact, it’s almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.

Source

Okay, wtf Arizona? You’re becoming what the Deep South used to be..

(via masonthegrey-deactivated2013121)

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. — President Obama’s statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (via remembermeright)

(via remembermeright)