“Every single Republican voted against equal pay for women. Every. Single. One.”
Did you hear that, Purple Penguins? Every single Republican. Every. Single. One. They all hate women. They sit around plotting your demise, wondering how they can get you back in the kitchen where you belong. They sit there in their La-Z-Boy recliners, planning to send you back to the 1950’s where June Cleaver vacuumed in heals, and Lucy the ditzy housewife was always getting in trouble with Ricky. They want you barefoot and pregnant, not making the same wages as your male counterparts. They want you to be a woman who has nary a hair out of place while working on a perfect meatloaf in your hot kitchen, glistening with perspiration while they sit in their ivory towers with a firm grasp on your ovaries. Ward – relaxing with paper in hand – need only snap his fingers to bring June to his side, that’s the way they want it to be,
ladies Purple Penguins. Without equal pay rights, we women will be back to the days of maki…..
Wait…wasn’t the Equal Pay Act signed in 1963?
Yes. Yes it was. So what is this “equal pay” stuff you keep seeing? It’s about the Paycheck Fairness Act, soon to be followed by the ‘If You Have Lady Parts, We’ll Fool You Act,’ and the ‘Let’s Get Those Boobs To Vote For Us Act.’ Why do you keep seeing propaganda that talks about equal pay for women? Well, it’s simple: They think you’re dumb. Not just run of the mill ‘Oops I put the colors in with the whites’ dumb, but more like ‘Hey, do these paint chips taste funny to you?’ dumb.
But don’t be angry at the left, it’s a special kind of love they have for you. Kind of like the love that Ted Bundy had for his victims, or the love that Hugh Hefner has for his bunnies. You serve a purpose; you’re an item, a voter, and an easily manipulated piece of flesh. They say “jump,” and you ask them how high, then when they are through with you, you’ll be lucky to walk away with any dignity whatsoever. Or in the case of Monica Lewinski, a book deal. This is how the left treats women on a daily basis, you’re good enough to garner votes, but if you step out of line you’re worthless. You’re a fun time, but say the wrong thing and you might just find yourself suffocating in a channel off of Chappaquiddick Island. This is why your illusionary 23 cent wage gap is important to them, but they’ll call men who support genital mutilation “moderate,” and “peaceful.” Betty makes less than Bob because she has less experience and they go all, “CALL UP THE TROOPS!”… Little girl is mutilated and then made into a child bride with the cries of “Coexist” from liberals in the background.
Example: Blake Lively recently published a piece complementing the Southern Bell ideals on her website Preserve. Left leaning Vox did not appreciate her article, and said the following:
“This week, Blake Lively, a popular human with great hair who supposedly stars in movies sometimes, made the most interesting move of her career: she accidentally published pro-slavery propaganda.”
But give other actresses who are simply popular humans with great hair a microphone at the DNC, and suddenly they become the most brilliant individuals in the world, and if you don’t listen to them you’re a slave to the Republicans. Put Lena Dunham in a onesie and have her dance to a song by a man who makes his living singing misogynistic trash, but she’s pro-choice, so clearly she’s beyond criticism. Put Beyonce in a thong and make her an item, but if she stands up for liberal principles she’s suddenly the picture of Feminism. I’m sure that all of the basement dwellers staring at her photos on their computers right now are thinking, “Man, I bet it’s not all body, I bet she’s super smart too.”
Hahahah…hah…hahahahah….Ok, back to the post.
Liberals are so vehemently against individuality that it seeps through their pores, and the women who fall for their rhetoric and share the ignorance with a sense of accomplishment are similar to kids who decided to show their Mom how they learned to paint on the walls with their split pea soup. It’s gross, it’s messy, it’s going to smell for a while, the adults are stuck cleaning it up, and you just can’t wait for them to grow out of that stage.
So what is the bastion of feminism known as equal pay? Well, other than being a glorious talking point for Emma Watson and Kristin Bell (ivory tower theatrics), it’s the “easy job.” When I’m cleaning my house and my nephew wants to help I enthusiastically say, “Well, Bud, you know how you can really help me out? Grab the Swiffer and take it all over the house a bunch of times.” Why? Because he can walk around for hours with that Swiffer, collecting stagnant little dust bunnies and not hurting anything. It’s just a way for me to keep him occupied for hours on end, and make him think he is doing something incredibly useful. Equal pay and reproductive rights are the Swiffers of the Democrat party, they’re the easy job that they can talk unassuming females into carrying around, and in the process they help them collect votes from unassuming
dust bunnies women. They might as well pat them on the head upon completion and say, “Good puppy, now you may add “Feminist” to your Facebook bio.” Sure, some liberal women go rouge and run into restaurants yelling about their chicken named Snow, or send vagina cookies with their middle school child, but all in all, the majority tend to stay on the reservation preaching the script.
I remember watching a movie once where all of the men were in the cigar room discussing business, and when a woman entered the room she was basically told not to worry her pretty little head about business affairs. This is pretty much the same thing. Let’s see these “strong” women talk about the labor force participation rate.
Sandra, Why is the LFP at a 36 year low?
Beyonce, What’s the difference between the U-3 & U-6 unemployment rates?
Gwyneth, Where was President Obama’s glorious face on the night of the Benghazi attack?
Lena, How many families lost their insurance, and now can’t afford insurance because of the ACA?
“Don’t worry you’re pretty little heads about such issues, remember, you have ovaries and wages to protect.” – Democrats
See, those questions are above their pay grade. Those questions represent cleaning the fridge, rearranging the living room, scrubbing the floors, etc. that’s the real work. No, no…Women get to carry around the Swiffer of equal pay and reproductive rights, and get dressed up in vagina costumes with tampon earrings; they get to be the show that keeps people from looking behind the stage. They get to march for the right to kill their children, and throw urine at those who respect life. They get to have grotesque sex scenes in their TV shows, portray themselves as objects, and then beg for birth control from their leaders. That’s what women get to do.
But, back to the point, let’s talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act. A) Paying women less than men for the exact same job – when they have the exact same credentials – has been illegal for a while (shhhhh… don’t tell those ladies in the vagina costumes), and B) the data that they used to give the bill any meaning whatsoever was so contorted that we could accurately compare it to the face I make when I listen to Hillary Clinton talk.
Here’s the deal, folks…Men and Women make different career choices. That’s right, after those Purple Penguins grow up, they find that they have different ambitions. Males and females tend to migrate towards different areas of expertise. The data used for the Paycheck Fairness Act does not take that issue into account. SO, while men may choose to become brain surgeons more often than women, and women may choose to become pediatric surgeons more often than men, they get lumped into the same category. Now, clearly a brain surgeon would be paid more due to the higher level of skill set necessary when dealing with the brain. So it isn’t about their genitals, it’s about their career choices, folks. Woman are also more likely to take breaks during their career – by choice – to take care of their budding family. Men also fill the majority of overtime paying blue collar jobs, while women tend to lean towards salaried white color jobs.
If you support a woman’s right to choose, then you should support the Republicans on this issue. The wage gap is due to the individual choices made by women. If a woman wants a more flexible lifestyle, she may choose to work less hours (which is more often in women than in men), she would logically be asked to take a pay decrease if she’s, you know, working less. This Act would open up doors for endless litigation if employers work with women on their flexibility and pay, so much so that employers will tighten the reins on negotiations with women. This doesn’t HELP women, it takes away their choices.
Does everyone remember the Lilly Ledbetter info that Democrats were circulating during the 2012 election? You know, the Republicans were against that too, because they hate women or something. Whatever happened to that, you ask? And what exactly was it? I’ll tell you:
Not getting paid as much as men who are equally qualified is called discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter act was put in place in 2009 by Barack Obama and his handsome face…Once again, discrimination was still illegal before 2009. So, why did Lilly need her own act, you ask? See, Lilly had been approached by her manager with a proposition; she would receive her raise if she didn’t reject his sexual advances. Lilly wasn’t fond of his addition to her job requirements, as most of us wouldn’t be. Unfortunately for perverted coworkers, the vast majority of women do not sit around and think, “boy, I sure wish that 50 year-old suit wasn’t married.”
Understand, Bill Clinton? John Edwards? Eliot Spitzer? I digress.
So, she refused, and she didn’t receive the pay raise. Every paycheck from that point on is considered a new case of discrimination. Once again, anti-discrimination laws were already in place, the Lilly Ledbetter Act wanted to change the statute of limitations. In the original anti-discrimination laws, the statute of limitations started counting down from the DAY of the discrimination. Well, Lilly didn’t report her story until later in her career, probably out of fear, but the statute of limitations clock started ticking the day her boss made a really, really, really gross proposition. The Lilly Ledbetter Act statute of limitations starts counting down on the day of your most recent paycheck (because each paycheck is considered a new act of discrimination). So, say you have a boss that gives you a similar Nicholas Sparks worthy offer and you turn him down, and then a year later he leaves. You have 2 new bosses between then and the time you report the utterly romantic proposal, both bosses give you raises without such vomit inducing terms, but even with those raises you still aren’t seeing the first raise due to your refusal of the first proposal. And so, every check is considered a new act of discrimination.
Why did republicans oppose this? Because they hate women? No. They didn’t feel that if an employee had been discriminated against in 2001 under a manager that left in 2002, the new management that took over in 2002 should not have to pay for the (unknown to them) discriminatory acts of the previous manager once the employee retires in 2016. Logical right? Because that would be like being abused by your father, and then making your step-father serve the prison sentence.
Fun Fact: If you double the turnout at the Sak’n Save Sandra Fluke “rally” of 2012, you will have roughly the amount of people that have used the Lilly Ledbetter Act. And that’s not much…
No matter where you stand on these issues, it is important to know the truth. This Lilly Ledbetter Act wasn’t a big deal for women’s rights by ANY stretch of the imagination, and the Paycheck Fairness Act could actually do more harm to women than good. The democrats like giving liberals an “act” that they can tout, because it makes them sound like they stand for something grand and glorious (even if the majority of women don’t even know what it is). But standing for something grand and glorious would be more like marching alongside minorities for civil rights when it wasn’t considered “cool.” Kind of like how the republicans marched for civil rights. Kind of like how George Romney marched for civil rights.
So, wouldn’t it be fair for human beings – male, female, and the purple penguins too – to be compensated for experience, quality of work, difficulty of job, and not what’s found between their legs? Well, that’s already the way it is. With our labor force participation rate continuing to reach new lows, the last thing we need is more bureaucratic tape for employers to muddle through. I’m not saying that there aren’t instances of discrimination, but this type of rhetoric and creating more issues for good employers (the vast majority) and women in the workforce, is not the way to solve those issues.
So, in closing, I’d just like to remind you that whenever I see someone post the ridiculous “Every single Republican voted against equal pay for women. Every. Single. One.” picture, I look at your post like an adult looks at a child after they catch them painting on the walls with their food. It’s a fairly balanced mixture of annoyance and pity.
Thanks for reading!
P.S. If you don’t get the “purple penguin” reference, you need to read the news more often.
I’ve seen a lot of both positive and negative responses to Emma Watson’s UN speech. I was asked for my opinion of her speech by a few people on Facebook and Twitter. So, here I am, typing away.
So, without further ado, here is my bucket of thoughts on the matter -
I didn’t hate it, I didn’t like it, personally I felt it was much like my favorite stuffed bear I had as a child. Not Emma Watson, mind you, but her speech. I loved that bear. My bear was soft, fluffy and comforting. It somehow made me think that the Boogeyman would avoid my room. Well, in reality, the Boogeyman never existed, and my bear would have been completely useless if an intruder broke in to kidnap me. My bear would have just sat there in its adorable clown outfit while I was raped and murdered. Emma’s speech was adorable, and completely useless. It was a teddy bear pretending to be a Rottweiler. Not only that, it furthered the idea that us civilized people are ridiculously narcissistic.
Example: The woman living in the Middle East being stoned to death after she was raped is not so concerned about Obama’s White House paying their female workers less.
Example: The homosexual sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia is, I’m guessing, not so concerned about whether your male friend can feel free to let his emotions floweth.
Example: The little girl suffering through genital mutilation is probably not worried about the fact that Emma was called “bossy.”
To quote Justin Timberlake, “cry me a river” came to mind.
Now, I’m not saying that little issues shouldn’t be addressed, but addressing them in a room with world leaders – a large portion of them still allowing women to be brutalized – is wildly silly. It’s like sitting in a room with Michael Vick and his followers and trying to encourage them to support a Tempur Pedic dog line because your buddy Fido seems to be a bit achy in the morning.
“When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play we would put on for our parents. When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the media. At 15, my girlfriends started dropping out of sports teams because they didn’t want to appear masculine” she boldly proclaims to the man that thinks women should be held down and mutilated so that they don’t feel pleasure during sex.
“At 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings” she tearfully says while trying to convince a world leader that thinks homosexuals should be beheaded.
“Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive” she says to a world leader who let dogs eat his uncle.
Side note: For people that claim to respect science more than anyone else, those that applaud the idea that men and women should be treated the same emotionally have completely rejected biology so as to create their own overarching moral system. Period. Men and women are different, suicides and depression increased when we started denying this.
So, in the end you can say, “It was meant for the world, not just for the men and women in the room!”, and yet it will still be about as effective as Obama’s hashtag diplomacy in getting anything done. It is ivory tower theatrics, Thurston and Lovey Howell-esque rhetoric. No offense, Emma darling, but the way I feel about your speech is similar to how your side would feel if Romney complained about money. It’s like a pageant contestant saying that they want to end world hunger while standing in a $2000 gown with a cloud of hairspray looming above their head. It’s adorable, it’s predictable, and “powerful” according to a magazine that will spend more than I will make in a lifetime ensuring that they get the first photo of the next celebrity baby named after a piece of fruit. Excuse me if I don’t raise my glass of Dom Perignon to their ability to relate to the little people and decide what is “powerful.”
Sounds harsh? Yes. Yes it does. Life is harsh.
Emma cited Edmund Burke saying, “all that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.” In actuality, that wildly popular quote was never found in his writings, and for the sake of the discussion I’ll post his exact words:
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
Same meaning, but interestingly enough, I doubt that she would use Edmund Burke as a point of reference in any other way. Why? Well, when he was making these statements, he was simultaneously saying that the preservation of citizens and the success of a country are intrinsically linked to Christianity. He spoke on the rights of ALL men, and the need for restraint of passions frequently. Not to put words in his mouth, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he’d have quite a few words for women dressed in vagina costumes fighting to remove rights from innocent infants. He wouldn’t support the various government programs that are aimed not at equality, but at giving the weaker sex as many handouts as possible so as to keep them enslaved (I didn’t call them weaker, liberals did by their actions). That’s not equality, Emma.
She spent a good portion of time discussing why she believes feminism has lost its zest. She claims that it is all about the false man hating rhetoric. I would challenge that position. I would say that it is because we have stripped feminism of its purpose. We have lost sight, Emma. I would say that we traded principles for weapons grade stupidity. There is a woman that sent her child to school with vagina cookies, Emma. Vagina cookies. Then she told the teacher that didn’t particularly appreciate them that she wished her future husband would abuse her for not happily accepting the vagina cookies. There is a woman who changed into a man, and then fought to teach breastfeeding AS a man. He won. A major part of the 2012 election revolved around the words “free contraception.” We call Beyonce empowering for prancing around in a thong and doing sexual favors for her man because she “just wanna be the girl you like.” The word “feminism” is rejected by women with brains not only because so called “feminists” act like man haters, but also because they’ve dumbed us down to petty, weak, ignorant, drama loving toys who don’t care about what is happening to our own sex in other countries.
See, Emma, back in the day women’s rights meant something. We started off saying, “WE ARE MORE THAN OBJECTS!!!!” and have now moved to “LOOK, WE ARE SHINY OBJECTS!!!!” and we pretend that it has something to do with loving our bodies. We started off by saying that life in the womb was sacred, now we are just vending machines that can be emptied and reused. The feminist movement started off by saying that we have minds, that we have individual opinions, and that we should have the right to voice those opinions and be taken seriously. Now we have moved towards the idea that if we don’t support Sir Nurses-A-Lot we don’t care about female empowerment. Emma, I can’t take the lady that sent cookies decorated as vaginas to school with her 2nd Grade daughter seriously. Honestly, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if she finger paints on her walls with peanut butter and calls herself Picasso.
Feminists of today do not deserve the title. Say I take a can of Spam and slap the label “Steak” on it… Would that make the Spam a steak? No. It would make me desperate to sell you Spam under false pretenses so as to get a higher profit that I shouldn’t receive. This is what feminism has done. It has taken what the original feminists believed to be oppression, and labeled it by a familiar name that makes other people think that they are doing something worthy of their accolades.
Emma spoke of being sexualized, as though it was unwelcomed. Yet she took home a paycheck from Burberry and Lancôme. That’s not an issue in need of calling in the feminist brigade to save her from the grimy hands of men, that’s an issue that feminists themselves have created. They are not consistent in their complaints. They don’t want to be sexualized, but when they get paid to be sexualized it is beautiful because then it is somehow taking pride in their body. They have decided when they get to be a victim, and that doesn’t work.
The problem is that feminism works kind of like a 5 year-old child left to clean his room by himself. Mom comes to the door and suddenly he’s cleaning, Mom walks away and then he is playing again. Emma Watson steps up to a microphone and suddenly it’s all about respecting ourselves and equality, Emma steps away from the microphone and it goes back to being reruns of the vagina monologues and genital pastries. They fight phantom monsters because going after the real monsters are too scary. They don’t have the ability to be a voice for brutalized women because they are too scared to step out of line and be labeled an anti-feminist. The feminists I know are only as brave as their edgy t-shirts and tampon earrings will permit them to be. Heaven forbid they say something that Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke, and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t agree with.
Feminism hasn’t become a negative term because it has been given a bad rap, it has become a negative term because the current leaders and voices of the movement are idiots.
Some people may be reading this and thinking, “Well, Emma never said that she blatantly supported abortion, nor did she go into detail on her own personal beliefs.” I concur, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is absorbing her message, and what conclusions they come to. What group did this empower? That matters. As much as I’d love to think that there will simply be a bunch of little girls running around saying, “I’m not bossy” – while I hope they one day grow up into someone that isn’t rendered powerless or weakened by a 5 letter word – I know that it won’t end there.
I know that the people doing a fist bump were the individuals that wish to allow little boys into little girls rooms because they “feel different,” without taking any care to evaluate what that might do to the little girls. Because the child that feeds their rhetoric is important, the other children aren’t. A confused little boy shouldn’t have to use the little boy’s room, but the vast number of little girls who will now be confused just need to “get over it” and learn tolerance.
I know some of the individuals who screamed “AMEN” during her speech are the very people that think slicing an infant’s spine at 8 months along is acceptable.
I know that some of those rejoicing over this speech are the very individuals who have turned their back on women, called Islam the religion of peace, and ignored the screams of the millions of brutalized women. All in the name of the cause though, right?
I know that many of those giving Emma accolades are the very same people that don’t think that I should have a gun to protect myself. They fight on behalf of men that may wish to brutalize me, and yet call themselves feminists.
THAT is what matters.
I would have been more impressed had she pointed to her audience and said something similar to the following:
“We as women will give a voice to the child brides and the victims of sex slavery. We will fight for the women that you have allowed to be brutalized. We will ask good men to join us, and we will stand up to men like you. We will stand strong, we will be powerful, and we will be heard. We will show you that we are not mere objects, that we are not weak, and that those silenced by your governments will be remembered. We will not support a porn industry that has aided in the slavery of women. We will no longer let you insult our intelligence. We will be valued. We will not fall for propaganda that leads to us electing leaders that have empowered you. Leaders that have helped you to continue harming us. We refuse to adapt the victim mentality.”
I know I sound like I’m being hard on Emma. I am. I think she means well, but I don’t agree with her on many points, and I refuse to pretend like I do. I support the original goals of the feminist movement, and I support my ability to come to a conclusion that is not spoon fed to me by the religion of feminism. Because THAT is what feminism was originally about.