Category Archives: Feminism

NOW Takes on KFC

Here’s the skinny on KFC:  the world’s largest chicken chain’s US same-store sales fell 7% in the second quarter of 2010.  Two weeks ago, KFC revealed more than 60% of Americans ages 18-25 couldn’t identify who that “old guy” (Colonel Sanders) was on the KFC logo.

Obviously, time for a change!  Spalding University in downtown Louisville is the first campus in America to be involved in the logo change.  KFC’s Marketing Division paid $500 for a cute college coed to parade around campus with “Double Down” emblazoned across her not quite tight sweat pants, obviously to attract young men who are the key customers and the biggest fans of “Double Down” KFC Sandwiches.

Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with this.  But the National Organization for “I don’t know what kind of” Women has a big problem with this.  Terry O’Neill, president of NOW says “It’s so obnoxious to once again be using women’s bodies to sell fundamentally unhealthy products.”

Gee, I don’t know….how healthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to have perfectly good babies sucked out of their bodies in an abortion?

I don’t know…how unhealthy (emotionally, physically, and financially) is it for women to intentionally make babies while single, with no daddy for the children and no husband to share love, life, responsibilities, and finances?

I don’t know…how unhealthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to put their children in the care of institutions instead of their own arms, voice and time?

I don’t know…how healthy (emotionally and physically) is it for women to have casual sex (“hooking up” as it’s called)?

These are all issues that NOW does not criticize.

NOW criticizes a sign on the rump of a college coed.  Give me a break.

And as one comment on this story read:  “If NOW were not the shrill, hypocritical, quasi-Marxist ‘women’s advocacy group’ that it is, it would concern itself with REAL issues such as Islam’s treatment of women in much of the world (and in not-so-isolated cases right here in the USA) regarding honor killings, husbands’ ‘rights’ to beat their wives, stoning, second- or third-class citizenship and the like.’ “  And another comment:  “How amusing.  So the NOW organization, which has no problem with burqas, and no problem with a former president [Clinton] accused of rape, finds it offensive for women to advertise on their behinds.”

Well, I find it offensive when a gorgeous, voluptuous, former Miss Something or other, wearing very tight clothes, goes into the locker room full of naked men ostensibly to get “interviews” after a football game, and gets her nose bent out of joint when they hoot and holler.  I thought her behavior was provocative, inappropriate, and unnecessary, and her outrage at being admired absolutely ridiculous.  And the guys got punished!  I think her behavior was sexual harassment!

I thought the National Organization for “I don’t know what kind of ” Women’s chief purpose was to promote women’s rights?  Doesn’t a woman have the right to do with her body as she chooses?  If she can kill babies in her womb, should she not be able to earn a few bucks with a “Double Down” tag on the rump of her loose-fitting sweats?  Walk the streets in prostitution?  Produce and star in pornography?

I had a feminist professor from an east coast university write me a threatening letter when I published a column promoting married mothers raising their own babies.  She pretty much said I singlehandedly was trying to keep women oppressed and in poverty.  So much for my rights to free speech.  She promised to amass a movement to eliminate my written voice, simply because I promoted mothers loving, holding, teaching, feeding, protecting, and nurturing their own babies.

I don’t believe NOW has much credibility in general, much less in this circumstance.

Giving Birth In Front of an Audience

During my college years in the Sixties, “empowerment” and “consciousness-raising” were the main focus of existence, even though these concepts were largely used to insist that you were a victim of something or someone just for being female.

Well, fast forward to now, and one young, married woman in her twenties has decided that giving birth live on the Internet is empowering to women!  The use of that term in this circumstance cracks me up.  I remember, during my loooong labor, my husband saying that he was going to leave to get a cup of coffee.  I threatened him with “if you leave…never come back!!”  I guess that threat was “empowerment,” but giving birth in public or private is one of our least powerful times.  We are completely at the mercy of a baby who is usually saying “Hell, no, I won’t go.”

Nonetheless, this woman has decided that taking something personal and making it public is empowering and educational and spreading joy.  Oh, puleeze!  In our sadly growing exhibitionist, voyeuristic, reality show mentality of a society, this is how people become “important,” known, and “famous.”

The point of “personal” is that something is perfected by its modesty, and sharing is not an issue of public promotion, but an opportunity for a few people to embrace a meaningful moment of experience.  Experiences and moments that are universal (like child-bearing) are not educational.  The childbirth is going to be posted on a mom website, which means that they’ve all been there and done that.

Her husband is marginalized.  She admits that he was “hesitant” at first, but I’m sure he ultimately had no say.  There aren’t too many decent men who want to share the birth of their first child with a camera crew and a blog audience – that makes Daddy less special and less involved.

It’s all just sad to me.  And what happens after the event, when the thrill, the attention and adrenaline of being in the spotlight goes away?  What is she going to do with this kid to keep the flow going?  Think Jon and Kate.  Think “sad” for the children who become the means of their parents’ moment in the light, in ways other than simply enjoying their first smiles and first steps.

Timeless Lessons from A Classic Story

I have watched film adaptations of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice in all its incarnations many, many times, and I recently watched the 2005 film version again. I love the film…no matter what criticisms may be about a portrayal or a performance. I clearly have a profound attraction to this work.

First and foremost, I love the utter regard the men had for women, which is evident from how they addressed them: “Miss…” (and their first names if they were single) or “Mrs….” (and their last names if they were married). Men bowed upon entering and leaving a woman’s presence, and women curtsied, even under unpleasant conditions. Flirting was ever-so-subtle: a look, a light “accidental” touch of a hand. A man romantically yearned for and tried to earn the affections of a woman. The sweetness of the regard for women in this era (particularly in upper and middle classes) was something to be admired, and something we now miss. There was a clear distinction between a “good” woman and an easy, loose woman or whore.

That distinction is gone today. Now, women put down good money for music that represents them as whores without pay. So many young men are casual about women and sex in general, and sex is a casual expectation almost always fulfilled.

Young women scoff at dignity and modesty as just stupid, prudish, sexist notions. They “shack up” with some dude without a marital commitment, yet expect the love and respect, fidelity and loyalty to exist without the spoken vows, only to be disappointed, hurt, and generally confused.

There was a recent film comedy, called “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” in which Matthew McConaughey (in a twist on Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”) got to go back into his life to see all his old girlfriends. There was one scene in the television ad for the movie which showed a seemingly endless dining table filled with hundreds of girls. Obviously, this was meant to show how shallow and manipulative he had been. To me, it just showed how many stupid girls there were (and are), “putting out” in a situation where there was clearly no respect, regard, or intent.

Men used to have to ask a woman’s dad for permission to “court” her, even when the woman was an adult! Now, all he has to do is show her a bedroom, back seat of a car, or a motel room, and the date is sealed. When men had to explain and express their intentions, they had to take the whole activity of dating much more seriously, as there were personal and social consequences to misleading a young lady. That reputation would annihilate any chances he might have had of marrying a good woman. He’d have to move states or provinces away. Now? That kind of rakish reputation makes girls/women want to line up to get some from an infamous entity.

The women’s revolution did not raise any consciousness worth elevating. It mostly diminished a woman’s sense of herself as special, minimized her value in the minds of men, put sex on the level of animals, created a nanny/baby-sitter/institutionalized day care financial boom (as women gave up the blessing of nurturing their own children), increased the use of abortion as a birth-control technique when an accidental pregnancy occurred with a guy who did not want fatherhood, created perpetually unhappy, angry, nasty wives, and made it very difficult for “nice girls” to be respected and cherished.

The last scene in Pride and Prejudice between the two now-married lovers has them discussing what she wants to be called by him when he is not using her given name. He suggests one name, and she rejects it sweetly, because it is what her father calls her. She then asks him what he will call her when he is angry. He, not being able to envision that situation, talks to her about always letting her know how lovingly important his happiness in wrapped up in her…forever…and he kisses her gently about her face as he says “Mrs. Darcy” over and over again. He gave her his heart, his life, his vows, and his name. And, in that era, giving a woman your name was the ultimate public and private statement of his total commitment to her, which makes that scene so moving to most of us, and infuriating to feminists who see that scene only as ripping away the woman’s identity.

I always cry at the end of the movie.

I cry also for what women have given up in exchange for wanting to have it all and not be subordinate to a man. I don’t know…I kinda think being on a pedestal is not subordinate. But what do I know? I’m only a recovered feminist.

Taking Food Out of the Mouths of Call Girls

I’m still laughing…I read an article last week in one of the online news reporting sites about a new book on economics, called Superfreakonomics.  In the book, the authors discuss the issue of prostitution in today’s economic climate.  As it turns out, prostitution was a profitable enterprise (focusing on mainstream sex acts) until the sexual liberation movement in the 1960s changed “the business of intimacy, and a generation of ‘free love’ altered the marketplace forever.”  The “modesty traditionally displayed by women in search of Mr. Right evolved to a bold pursuit of Mr. Right Now.”  The 1960s genesis of casual sex became prostitution’s direct rival.

So, prices for sex acts plummeted.  Hookers had competition from the average woman who would have sex for free (without even getting a dinner out of it). Being entrepreneurial, hookers then began to provide more unconventional sex -  the kind of things men can’t get from their girlfriends – and the price for those often depraved acts hauled the fees way back up.

As one call girl said:  “Thank God prostitution is illegal, ’cause if it weren’t, I wouldn’t be making $500 an hour; I’d probably be back doing what I was doing, which was working as a computer technician for a Fortune 500 company.” Of course, if you’re the prostitute for a state governor, you’ll probably get lots of media offers!

The call girl entrepreneur who was interviewed was asked whether or not she would suggest this “career” for her daughter.  She obfuscated like crazy, saying she hoped it would be only one of many, many options, and then the article ended with the revelation that she’s now quitting prostitution to go to school to study economics.  I guess morality finally caught up to her.

This is why I use the term “unpaid whore” for women who shack up with guys, rather than dignify themselves and sexual intimacy with a marital commitment.  I tell them that at the very least, they ought to be paid for sex, since it ultimately means nothing profoundly important to him past the orgasm.  Now I can mention that they are taking food out of the mouths of prostitutes and their families!!

Women cannot run away from their true nature, and our true nature (apart from any psychological problems) is to nurture and nest.  We can act like wild women and say it’s our right and freedom, but I take the calls every day from disillusioned, hurt women who did, in fact, expect love and loyalty from the men they had sex with.

So, ladies, have pity on the call girls and prostitutes.  Give them back their turf, and re-elevate womanhood so that men again have a mountain to climb and earn, and therefore value.

 

Pepsi’s iPhone App Under Fire

I Googled “PepsiCo and Apple iPhone” and found three million sites talking about PepsiCo’s promotional concept for Amp, their energy drink:  “AMP Up Before You Score.”  The app purports to help men pick up any one of 24 types of women and then get coached on “pick up and score some sex” lines.  The app then takes the coaching a step further, encouraging users who “score” to post details such as name, date and comments for their pals on Facebook and Twitter.  Apparently, a lot of people (mostly women) have criticized the app (mostly on Twitter), saying it contributes to the objectification of women.

Frankly, I think it is hilarious, and that women (especially the feminists) are being unbelievably hypersensitive and hypocritical.  Let me count the ways:

1. Women’s studies at colleges and universities objectify men as the “dark side.”
2. Women dress provocatively these days.
3. Women “hook up” (i.e., casual sex – no obligations, no dinner)
4. Women use abortion as birth control for any children conceived via
 casual sex, as opposed to marrying the father of the child.
5. Women “shack up,” have sex out of wedlock, and have babies out of wedlock.
6. Women today are so casual about sex that The Wall Street Journal reports that they have interfered with the earning abilities of call girls and prostitutes.
7. Porn movies star women.
8. The porn industry is owned and managed largely by female entrepreneurs who themselves are objectifying women.

So, what is the problem with an app that suggests pick-up lines?  If a woman is foolish enough to hear a come-on and drop her undies, well, that’s her choice, isn’t it?  Instead, she could tell the guy to “kiss off.”  She could wait to have sex until at least 1 ½ years into the relationship, with an engagement ring and a wedding date. 

I am not offended by this ad program.  After all, it worked.  Everyone is talking about it (even me).  I think it’s stupid, but I’m not offended.  But if any of those “lines” gets a guy some free sex, well it’s the woman’s damn fault, not PepsiCo’s.

Cheating Husband Does Public Penance

William Taylor, from a Washington, D.C. suburb, cheated on his wife.  How do I know that?  Because he held a sign near Tyson’s Corner Mall that read:  “I cheated and this is my punishment.”  He stayed out on the corner for most of the morning commute, creating quite a commotion.  He and his wife brokered the deal.  He figured he had to do what she asked in order to make things right.

When Fox TV interviewed women, they all loved the idea.  The print version of the story appeared on www.foxnews.com and it was followed by a series of reader comments.  Some of the responses suggested that castration was the best punishment for infidelity.  One (obviously male) writer pointed out that women seem to enjoy publicly humiliating men, but would not tolerate the reverse for exactly the same situation.

That is true.  Feminism’s perspective is that no matter what a woman does, it is the man’s fault, and whatever a man does is the man’s fault.  Hypothetical example:  a man and woman rob a bank.  He’s a bad guy, and she is duped, clouded by love, or dominated by his will.  She’s a sad victim, instead of a co-conspirator.  Another example:  a married man has an affair which lasts two weeks.  He comes guilt-ridden to his wife and confesses.  He tells her he’s been so emotionally and sexually ignored by her for ten years, that he just absolutely needed some feminine attention and affection.  She ignores everything that comes after the confession and spends her time punishing him and whining to all who will listen.

Women rarely take responsibility for any negative relationship issues, and that’s largely because of the feminist brainwashing which has made them see all men as Darth Vader. 

Here’s another point:  in the development of our country, being humiliated in the public square was a standard form of punishment — remember “stocks” and “pillories” from American history class?  There is something positive to be said about this concept of punishment – for men or women. 

When we lived in small communities, the power of shame was potent, and probably dissuaded many from inappropriate behavior of all sorts.  The thought of being embarrassed in public is horrendous to most people, since our reputations are everything in interpersonal relationships.

I bet that a lot of spouses, seeing this fellow out there, will remember him when they consider straying.  Consider it a kind of prophylactic for infidelity.

Unbelievable Feminista Hogwash About Quality Husbands

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don’t mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.  She’s also “decided” that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men “lend a hand in housework,” are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.

I say:  unbelievable feminista hogwash!!  The professor’s definition of a good husband is ridiculous.  Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don’t do what used to be called “women’s work.”  This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they’re told that they’re neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.

When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband’s route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren’t able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.  They say “no,” but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.

In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there’s a “war” about who’s going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.

There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.  When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.  Women don’t stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.  Why?  It’s the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.

Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women’s studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.

A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.  Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.  This particular study?   Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam.

A Young Woman Does the Research on Feminist Theory

This is a two-parter from one of my listeners.  She originally wrote me the following email:

Dear Dr. Laura:

“…I am to give a presentation on …Feminist Theory for my Social Theory class.  Let me tell you, I am so excited to present this, because I am far from a feminist.  I can’t wait to share my thoughts with my class..[and] provide details of what women today are missing because of this movement. 

“…Thanks to you, I will be no one’s shack-up honey.  I will not have children until I am married.  I will not marry the wrong man…I will be my kid’s mom and my husband’s girlfriend….”

Thanks to you, here is a 25 year old woman who loves and respects herself.

Well, she did the research in preparation for the presentation, and here’s what she wrote as a followup:

“[In doing my research,] I… never read the word ‘oppressed’ so many times in my life.  My goodness, how can women complain so much? …I have never gotten mad when working on a project for school.  I have always found things that I have learned along the way interesting and useful.  Well, this time, I got mad.  My professor knew I was anti-feminism, so she must have thought [doing the research] would open my eyes to her world….She was incorrect.  I started getting angry at these feminists.  Finally, the day before my presentation…I had had it!  I could hardly stand these women.

I believe I read that women wanted to be accepted and respected, …[but] all it seemed like they wanted to do was emasculate men, demoralize tradition, and degrade anyone or anything that stood in their way of what they thought was power….I think a lot of feminists have taken this movement a bit too far.  I truly believe feminists must be the most miserable people.  They miss out on so much.  My mother is a feminist, and she has never been happy.  Thanks to you, Dr. Laura, I did not follow in her footsteps.

You were right when you told me the angrier the professor gets, the more “right on” I am.  She didn’t care what [analysis] I provided.  I appreciate that women have rights, but I resent that my rights of becoming a stay-at-home mom day are not honored as well….My professor thought she was tricking me into finding things [in my research] that maybe I would think I can’t live without.  All she did, though, was teach me how to be a better woman and how not to treat a man.