Category Archives: Radical feminists

‘Taylor f*****g Swift… may as well have voted for Trump’: Actress Lola Kirke slams the singer for not using her fame and global platform to discuss politics

lola kirke

Actress – and bully – Lola Kirke

From Daily Mail: Actress Lola Kirke has hit out at Taylor Swift – claiming that the pop star’s silence on politics is tantamount to voting for President Donald Trump.

The 26-year-old, who is also a musician, has been vocal in her support for causes such as Planned Parenthood and the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline and wore a ‘f**k Paul Ryan’ badge to the Golden Globes.

The British-born American told Vogue.com that during turbulent political times, global stars such as Swift, 27, should speak out for grassroots movements. Since the election, Swift has remained relatively silent on the issue of politics – sparking speculation over her political affiliation.

Kirke, who is the sister of Girls star Jemima, said: ‘For me, it’s really important to elevate voices and causes that don’t get as much attention with whatever attention I get. I totally understand why some people won’t do that. I definitely think that there are certain celebrities who really could offer more help to grassroots movements with their power – and don’t.’

She added: ‘Like Taylor f*****g Swift, who may as well have voted for Trump, as far as I’m concerned, by not doing anything.’

Kirke, whose latest film Gemini recently had its world premier at SXSW, said the notion of selfie-obsessed celebrity is ‘confusing and weird’.  Despite labeling it ‘vapid’, she said social media can be used for good. ‘You can imbue everything you’re doing with meaning. I believe that life is meaningful and I believe there are things that are important that are not getting the attention that they deserve,’ she said.

Listing issues that she believes are currently under threat or in need of attention, she said the environment, reproductive rights and human rights which she said ‘are in jeopardy’.  She said she does not want to contribute to the ‘smokescreen’ that encourages people to think that those issues do not exist.

DCG

Advertisements

Wednesday Funny!

funny

h/t Laura!

DCG

Hollyweird actress Blake Lively – who supported Hillary Clinton – wants to teach her children about “realistic” beauty standards

blake lively2blake livelyYou be the judge. Is it “realistic” beauty when you go under the knife? At least be honest and own it.

From Cosmopolitan: As a parent, it must be pretty hard to manage the expectations of your children when they reveal what they want to be when they grow up. Sometimes, adults need to push aside thoughts of failure and the realities of a world that allowed Donald Trump to become President and remember what it’s like to be a child with a view that anything is possible. It sounds like that’s exactly what Blake Lively’s parents did when she was growing up.

On Wednesday, the Shallows actress appeared at the L’Oreál Women of Worth gala and spoke on CTV’s eTalk revealed her mother’s advice about self-belief.

“Whatever it was, whether I was doing a school project, I was doing something creative, she would always say, ‘You can’t mess it up’,” she said. “I mean, I could mess it up really severely, but just the fact that she told me I couldn’t almost made me feel like I couldn’t.”

The 29-year-old, who earlier this week was spotted walking through the streets of New York with her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, said it’s thanks to her mother’s positivity that she was able to try out a career as an actress.

“I took risks and I would do things I otherwise would have limited myself with,” she explained.

The actress has spoken out about the need for parents to teach children about realistic beauty standards and shedding the idea of perfection in the past, and took the opportunity to address the issue again ahead of the gala, specifically on the subject of positivity on social media.

She told eTalk: “I do think we all believe in the same thing, which is everybody wants happiness, everybody wants peace, everybody wants to feel safe and secure.”

DCG

Feminist theologian: Jesus may have been a hermaphrodite

A Catholic university in California — the Jesuit Santa Clara University — has invited UK University of Exeter theologian Susannah Cornwall to deliver the Santa Clara Lecture on “Gendered Theologies and the Common Good” on October 12, 2017.

The Santa Clara Lectures are a series of lectures that “brings to campus leading scholars in theology, offering the University community and the general public an ongoing exposure to debate on the most significant issues of our times. Santa Clara University will publish these lectures and distribute them throughout the United States and internationally.”

Cornwall describes herself on her blog as specializing in: “Research and writing in feminist theology, sexuality, gender, embodiment, ethics and other fun things like that.”

Susannah Cornwall, queer theologian

Susannah Cornwall, queer theologian

That a Catholic university invited Dr. Cornwall to deliver any lecture, even less the university’s prestigious Santa Clara Lecture, is reprehensible because Cornwall is known for her peculiar notion that Jesus might have been a hermaphrodite, i.e., with both male and female DNA and genitalia.

As reported by John Bingham for The Telegraph, Cornwall’s claim that it is “simply a best guess” that Jesus was male was published in response to the ongoing debate about women bishops in the Church of England.

In her paper “Intersex & Ontology, A Response to The Church, Women Bishops and Provision”, she argues that it is not possible to know “with any certainty” that Jesus did not suffer from an intersex condition, with both male and female organs, and that the fact that Jesus is not recorded to have had children made his gender status “even more uncertain”. As she put it:

“It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that Jesus was male as we now define maleness. There is no way of knowing for sure that Jesus did not have one of the intersex conditions which would give him a body which appeared externally to be unremarkably male, but which might nonetheless have had some ‘hidden’ female physical features.”

In arguing that Jesus might have been a hermaphrodite, Cornwall employs a logical fallacy called “the absence of evidence”. She argues:

“We cannot know for sure that Jesus was male – since we do not have a body to examine and analyse – it can only be that Jesus’ masculine gender role, rather than his male sex, is having to bear the weight of all this authority.”

The absence-of-evidence logical fallacy is when one argues that finding no evidence for something (X) is evidence for the absence of that thing (X). In Cornwall’s case, her logical fallacy is in arguing that the absence of Jesus’ body (for us to examine and analyze) constitutes evidence that he is not a male.

As several Telegraph readers point out, Corwall’s absence of evidence (Jesus’ body) is a ridiculous reason to doubt Jesus’ masculinity:

Baluba Swinarska: “And…we don’t know if he was 10 feet tall, had green hair, and a tail – all because we have no body to examine. Good argument lady.”

Bast Hotep: “There is no forensic evidence to prove that Jesus was not a large, intelligent talking cat either. That doesn’t mean he was one.”

Lev Kalman: “We also don’t know if he was an armadillo, because we have no body.”

Two Telegraph readers demonstrate they have more intelligence in their respective right toe than Dr. Susannah Cornwall has in all of what passes as her brain:

James A: “Her claims cannot be tested. Her hypothesis is unproveable.”

Rogan M: “What a stupid claim to make. ‘It can’t be proved’ does not trump ‘There is no evidence to suggest!’. This is just another radical feminist, as opposed to those real world feminists with aspirations and belief in self worth, to blur the edges of orthodoxy to advance their own contorted and distorted views.”

Keith Kilgore: “How does Dr Cornwall account for Luke 2:21*? Where Jesus was circumcised.”

*Note: In Luke 2:21, it is said: “At the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”

~Eowyn

‘Real men provide’ billboard in North Carolina is turning heads

real-men-provide-billboard

And causing Feminazi heads to explode.

From WHNT: (WINSTON-SALEM, NC) – A new billboard in North Carolina is stirring up controversy, protest and debate. It reads: “Real men provide. Real women appreciate it.”

It’s located on I-40 Business West between Greensboro and Winston-Salem.

Clearly, the billboard is turning a lot of heads. Some folks were even spotted getting out of their cars to take pictures. Love it or hate it — everyone has a strong opinion on the message.

“I think it’s fairly accurate. Being a married man myself, I think my wife really appreciates the fact that I can provide for a family and take some of the stress off her,” said Ron Houser.

“I think appreciation is good however we find it. But there is a message in that board that’s not good,” said Lucy Milner. “It really undermines women’s work in the world,” said Joe Milner.

“I would assume if you had a husband that loves you and appreciates you and showed it enough to carry your family and kids, that you would appreciate it. I don’t know why that would be offensive. I think that’s a good thing,” said Nathan Walin.

The billboard belongs to Whiteheart Outdoor Advertising. At the time of this report, it’s still unclear who’s sponsoring the message and why.

But female rights activists like Molly Grace say the billboard delivers a misogynistic, outdated message. “It’s absolutely, absolutely insulting to single mothers, to women who have careers whether they are small careers or big careers,” said Grace.

Grace is planning a peaceful demonstration against the billboard this Sunday at 11 a.m.

DCG

Witches in pointy hats demonstrate in support of Planned Parenthood abortion

The Left don’t even bother to wear their masks anymore.

Last weekend, pro-lifers held rallies before some 200 Planned Parenthood clinics abortion mills across America.

At a Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota, three pro-aborts demonstrated in support of killing innocent little human beings. Real witches who belong to a local coven, the ghoulish pro-aborts were in full witch’s garb, complete with black pointy hats.

planned-parenthood-witches

Kristan Hawkins reports for LifeNews, Feb. 13, 2017:

This weekend, there were pro-life #ProtestPP rallies scheduled at more than a quarter, over 200, of Planned Parenthoods across our nation. And the violence and hatred that our team saw at multiple locations was not only frightening but it was a clear warning sign to you and me.

In Portland, where our Northwest Coordinator (Katie) spoke, the abortion supporters were already at the Planned Parenthood by the time the pro-lifers arrived for their rally. They immediately started yelling obscenities, swinging long hard plastic jump-ropes around hitting the pro-lifers, pushing and shoving those who gathered, and had signs that said “abort everyone,” “p*ssy bites back,” “your kids an a**hole,” “thank God for abortions,” etc.

In Washington, D.C. where our Capitol Area Coordinator (Lori) spoke, police had to shove abortion supporters back as they blocked the streets the pro-lifers had gotten a permit to march down during their prayer walk. The police ended up escorting the pro-lifers all the way to their destination to protect them.

In St. Paul, where I spoke, there were witches that came out to support Planned Parenthood and only spoke to us to tell us the name of their coven. When streaming coverage of the event live on Facebook, we began to ask the abortion supporters about why they were there. One woman with a “keep your laws off of my body” sign tried to grab and steal my camera phone. How about, keep your hands off my phone!

Over the past few years, we’ve been lucky. We would hold rallies and protests and only a few abortion supporters would come out to heckle us.

But something has changed in our nation.

The other side knows that they are losing. We’ve pushed the pro-abortion lobby into a corner. They are desperate and now they feel like they have to push back harder than ever before…and they don’t fight fair.

And they don’t care about freedom of speech or who has a permit to rally or not. They don’t care that there are children present. They don’t care if someone on our side gets hurt.

This is important because we can’t let the radicals who advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions in all nine months drive the media narrative. Every time they rally, we need to be there in stark comparison, with smiling, youthful faces. We need to show our nation’s media and those politicians in Washington who pay attention to the media that this generation really is pro-life and we are expecting them to hold up to their promises.

When our team crashed the so-called “Women’s March” last month, I got a first-hand glimpse of what our nation would look like without faith. The people who had gathered in D.C. were angry, sad, and desperate. You see, the Left has said that believing in God is anti-intellectual, it’s passé, yet they have replaced their beliefs in sinners, fallen men and women like you and me. So when their candidate lost the presidential election this November, they lost all hope.

But the Pro-Life Generation is different. Even in the years when we knew President Obama and Congress were going to do everything possible to fund the abortion industry and push back against any life-saving legislation, when we gathered at the March for Life, there was still a sense of joy and hope…because we placed it in something else, someone else.

And this is what makes the other side so dangerous, they have lost their hope, and they have nothing left to lose.

See also:

~Eowyn

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg favors decriminalizing pedophilia and child sex trafficking

The legal definition of “age of consent” is:

Age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which a person is no longer required to obtain parental consent to get married. It also refers to the age at which a person is held to have the capacity to voluntarily agree to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent may lead to criminal charges of statutory rape or sexual assault . . . .

Statutory rape is sex between an adult and a minor below the age of consent. Every state has a statutory rape law in some form. The age of consent varies from state to state, but is generally from 16 – 18 years of age. . . . Consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial.

A pedophile is an adult with “sexual fondness for and activity” with children, i.e., minors below the age of consent. Pedophilia is legally defined as sexual child abuse, i.e., any sexual activity with a minor below the age of consent, which includes fondling a child’s genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation of children through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.

Since the age of consent in the United States which varies from state to state is  from 16 to 18, lowering the age of consent to 12 would legalize pedophilia of children age 12 and above.

That is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee and daughter of Russian Jewish immigrants, recommends in a co-authored book that led to sweeping changes made by the federal government in the name of sex equality.

ruth-bader-ginsburg

In 1977 when Ginsburg was General Counsel of the ACLU, she co-authored (with Brenda Feigen-Fasteau) Sex Bias in the U.S. Code: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977, for which Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010.

The 230-page Sex Bias in the U.S. Code identifies hundreds of federal laws alleged to discriminate against women and recommends an avalanche of government and social changes, including:

  • Military draft and combat duty for women.
  • Legalization of prostitution (see pages 97, 99, 215-216 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code)
  • Sex integration of prisons, reformatories, schools and colleges and their activities (including sports), all-girls and all-boys organizations, and fraternities and sororities.
  • Changing the names of the Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts and Big Brothers of America to reflect sex integration (see pages 145, 205 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code).
  • Elimination of the traditional family concept of husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker.
  • Comprehensive government child-care.
  • Adoption of sex-neutral language, e.g., “artificial” instead of “manmade”; “person, human” instead of “man, woman”; and plural nouns “they” and “them” instead of “singular third person pronouns”. At the same time, however, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau hypocritically insist that the U.S. Department of Labor retains its “Women’s Bureau”.

On p. 102 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, under the sub-heading “Recommendations,” Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau recommend a revision of 18 U.S.C. §2032 from “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” to “A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and . . . the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old“. Below is the pertinent paragraph:

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Ginsburg (and her co-author) also recommends that the Mann Act be repealed. The Mann Act is a federal law passed in 1910 which makes it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”.

From Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, pp. 98-99:

The Mann Act . . . poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates . . . . It was meant to protect from ‘the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ ‘those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . .’

In other words, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg has her way, sexual abuse of children 12-years or older would not be a crime, nor would child sex trafficking.

Ginsburg will be 84 next month. May President Trump be given the opportunity to nominate her replacement on the Supreme Court.

H/t Executive Director of Eagle Forum Susan Hirschmann’s Testimony Re. Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 23, 1993.

See also:

This post was revised on February 23, 2017.

~Eowyn