Also there's some inspiring stuff about empowerment, and we just missed the point didn't we?
Michelle Obama took to the Instagrams Thursday to mark the first week of school and something called the "International Day of Charity" that we wouldn't have heard about otherwise. Posting a photo of herself as a little girl, Obama called for greater educational opportunities -- like any at all, in some cases -- for the "more than 98 million adolescent girls around the world" who aren't attending school. Gee, she was promoting the interests of people who need help? Didn't she have any weather forecasts to yell about? There go the Obamas again, making everything about themselves.
Noting that it's easy for Americans to "take our education for granted," the most admired woman in the world said it sure would be nice if girls around the world were so lucky:
You are welcome, America.
As you may recall, last week, Tomi Lahren debuted her new line of "athleisure wear," which she assured us were way more American and patriotic than all of the other commie athleisure brands out there. As you may also recall, just a few hours after Wonkette published my little article on Tomi's latest venture, I discovered that this very patriotic line of $80 yoga pants for women who don't hate America was, in fact, made in China.
This is a real thing that is happening, I am sorry to say.
Of the many difficulties that conservative Republican women face in America, perhaps purchasing yoga pants and sports bras is the most fraught of all. These days, it is practically impossible to find a pair of leggings without "FUCK AMERICA" or a hammer and sickle emblazoned on them somewhere. But Tomi Lahren is here to save the day with her very own pro-America, pro-Second Amendment athleisure line.
Now, Tomi knows that some people might say she is "controversial" to have an athleisure line, because people are often thinking about who is and is not allowed to have an athleisure line. But she will show them! She will show them all! She made some leggings and she does not care who knows it. AMERICA. FREEDOM. UNATTRACTIVE STRETCH PANTS IN UGLY PATTERNS.
You are never going to believe this, but it turns out that, according to a new poll from Supermajority/PerryUndem, people who are against abortion actually don't seem all that concerned about unborned babies. If you are shocked, you have not been paying attention. We and many others have been saying for years that if these people actually gave a shit about fetuses, they'd support policies that actually reduce the need for abortion, as opposed to trying to criminalize the women who need them and the doctors who provide them. But no, it's about control, and it's about punishment.
The entire poll, which is called "Gender Equality, the Status of Women and the 2020 Elections," is worth a look-see, but we are most interested in the part about the correlation between people's views on abortion and how they feel about other gender equality issues. SURPRISE, but so-called "pro-lifers" mostly just hate women.
You're gonna love this.
Earlier this month, mere days after a racist lunatic in El Paso gunned down a bunch of people in a Walmart because he was mad about immigration, Tucker Carlson proclaimed that it was a "hoax" that white supremacy was any kind of serious problem in this country.
Conveniently, he left on "vacation" the day after. Fox claimed that this vacation was "previously planned" and had absolutely nothing to do with the massive backlash to his saying something so incredibly ignorant. Whether it was "previously planned" or not, Fox probably still hoped that by the time he returned, his advertisers would have forgotten all about it.
That did not happen! In between the time when Tucker Carlson lol'ed at the idea that an ideology that is clearly killing a whole lot of people and getting more and more prevalent (thanks to Tucker Carlson) is some kind of problem, he lost multiple advertisers — including Long John Silver's, which pulled all of it's advertising on Fox entirely.
That guy doing a doubletake dot gif.
We know Republicans are generally opposed to abortion rights and overall bodily autonomy for women. But they don't always accuse Margaret Sanger of personally murdering black babies and promote false narratives about imaginary infanticide. Sometimes they discuss pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and when that happens, they compete for "Worst Statement Ever Uttered By A Person."
The previous record holder on this subject was Rick Santorum. When he was running for president in 2012, he who cannot be Googled suggested that rape pregnancies were a Spencer's gift from God, and only ungrateful skanks would consider exchanging them.
SANTORUM: I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.
You don't even get store credit from heaven. Carry your rapist's baby and wear this ugly sweater God also got you.
Now unrepentant white supremacist Steve King has outgrossed Santorum. That's the benefit of having no committee assignments. You can workshop your material. King spoke today at the Westside Conservative Club and defended his opposition to rape and incest exceptions in anti-abortion legislation he tried to pass.
KING: It's not the baby's fault for the sin of the father, or of the mother.
The pregnant rape victim hasn't committed a "sin" of any sort. King is "both sides"-ing rape here. This is the usual social conservative claptrap, absent any empathy or compassion -- at least for any currently living humans. King's no common Todd Akin. He believes that rape and incest can in fact lead to pregnancy. He just thinks this has somehow positively benefited human civilization.
Wonkette needs your help, and it's not even money? That's fucking weird.
For months now, people have been asking us for Mayor Pete merch in the ol' Wonkette Flea Market and Garage Sale of Love. But, and this is a problem for "creative" people who work with their "brains," we can't fucking think of any. Is that not sad? Do you not weep millennial mayoral gay tears for us?
So let's do a contest. Win the contest and receive a whole suite of your design on a T-shirt of the appropriate size for you AND a loved one, a coffee cup, maybe a sticker if it would look good on stickers, a tote bag, fuck it, AN APRON. WE HAVE APRONS. To give you some time to futz with your photoshoopery, we will announce a winner at lunch on Friday. So YOU make a picture (not from something already copyrighted please, unless you love sending us money for lawyers) and post it in the comments for love from your comrades, or send it to rebecca at wonkette dot com if you are shy of comments because people are MEAN.
Voters are dumb and sexist. What can you do?
We're often told that because a woman lost to Donald Trump last time, the only way Democrats can safely slay the Trump-beast next year is to nominate a powerful, strapping working-class hero such as Joe Biden. That's just what we're told. We never said it made sense. However, FiveThirtyEight argues that no matter which man pulls the sword from the stone, he'll still have to contend with Trump's flaming virility.
Excuse us a second.
OK, we're back.
The apparent thesis of Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux's article is that Trump governs like John Wayne, Vito Corleone, or even Regina George from Mean Girls. Trump sits around eating Big Macs and rage-tweeting about people who are mean to him on TV. Even if we accept toxic masculinity as a positive trait to admire in a president, we wouldn't describe a woman president who behaved identically to Trump as "tough." She'd be dismissed as "hysterical." Let's imagine President Donna Trump gushing over a "beautiful letter" she received from a brutal dictator.
Ladies and gentlemen, Stefan Molyneux
Lipstick! It is a thing that many of us put on our faces. When we go out, when we go to work, and sometimes when we are at home by ourselves spending way too much time trying to do YouTube makeup tutorials and then getting tired and not going out after all. But do we really think about lipstick? No, I am not talking about just when one is schlepping around Sephora trying to find a red that is comparable to NARS' Cruella because for some (cruel) reason they are out of it on the very day you went to go get a new one. I am talking about the fact that it is like a boner for your face.
On Friday, far-right Canadian podcaster Stefan Molyneux (rhymes with douchecanoe) took to Twitter to complain about how very unfair it is that women can wear "female lipstick" to business meetings, and yet he, a man, cannot walk around with a giant fake boner all the time. What gives?
Gosh, I never thought of it that way before. Let's bring codpieces back into vogue, shall we? Surely, it is the only way to address this terrible injustice.
It should come as no surprise that Stefan Molyneux is in no way original and that lipstick, and it's relation to sexual arousal, has been a very sore point for MRAs and MGTOWs for many years now.
"If a young female waitress wears a low-cut top to show off her prests, short skirt and red lipstick to imitate sexually aroused labia; is she sexually harassing me?
TL:DR: All of the older men at my job are retiring and being replaced with women, and the women come to work wearing lipstick (like sluts!) and I don't like it!
That post also produced this gem of a comment, which I have chosen not to edit for clarity:
Because female don't work on the job itself, they work on the social environment they are in. To do stuff they simply ask one guy how to do it and then repeat the same step. I work as a computer scientist at my university, all women are like this, alway asking to other guys how to do stuffs. Those times a girl had to work by herself the script was bad because she forgot that garbage collector existed...
And then there's this one, in which a Man Going His Own Way listed all of the things "females" do to attract men — so that we can seduce them and then divorce them and then collect all of those sweet sweet alimony checks.
Everything females do it to attract men. Here's a list:
Fine stockings: to cover up blotches, spots and veins.
Shave legs: so clumps of leg hair don't show through or poke through the stockings.
Lipstick: to simulate the flood of blood to the lips during sex.
Blusher: to simulate the flush of blood to the cheers during flirting.
Eyeshadow and liner: to simulate bruising to insinuate velnerablikty and need for protection.
Long shiny hair: sign of good health
Stiletto heels: simulates the tension of leg muscles displeyed as if in human history a female would grab a branch and stand on toes to get her genitals in position for taller male.
Corsets: to simulate the narrow waist a male sees when taking a female from behind.
This is collected from my 30 yrs in fashion. Anyone have some to add?
Yes, not only do we wear lipstick to make it look like we are sexing you up RIGHT NOW, but we also wear eyeshadow so that you think our eyelids are bruised. So we look "velnerabilkt" and the men protect us. Obviously!
Also if you kiss a man's face while you have lipstick on, it is because you want to prove he is a beta:
I am, however, very unclear on what this has to do with space travel. Then again, it seems like these idiots can make just about anything about going to outer space. It really is too bad that we can't send them all there.
This is now your open thread! Enjoy!
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
We're not letting them be manly, so they have to kill us.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but with a few very notable exceptions like that "I Don't Like Mondays" girl back in the '80s and one-half of the couple who shot up San Bernardino, pretty much all of our mass shooters are men. But is it really the fault of these men that they keep having to murder huge amounts of people? Is it really the fault of lax gun laws in the United States? Or could women be to blame. Isn't there a way here that we can just blame women?
Of course there is!
Earlier this week, Tim Kennedy, an MMA guy who used to be a Special Forces sniper, posted a rant to Instagram all about how the real reason for why we're having all of these mass shootings all the time is because we are being so mean to masculinity and not letting boys be boys and men be men enough. Was Fox News interested in this special take? MAYBE!
Nobody CARES, Tomi!
Tomi Lahren had to apologize to Kamala Harris on Twitter for saying she "slept her way to the top" a few days ago.
Nobody gives a shit about Tummy's dumb ass stupid fucking apology. We care about Kamala Harris. Let's talk about Kamala Harris and her relationship with Willie Brown -- former San Francisco mayor and boss of pretty much all California for a very long time -- very quickly, and then let's move the fuck on.
On why Kamala dated Willie Brown, via The Nation:
"There aren't a lot of us … lawyers, African Americans, people of color, interested in politics. There was a deep friendship there. He has a lot of wit and humor. I need my mind to be engaged—I've dated a lot of intelligent men."
While I don't really think this is any of our business, I still realize it is a subject that will resurface time and time again, mainly because the person running for office is running with a vagina between her legs. Having vaginas make people feel entitled to be all up in your business all the time, and even tell you what to do. The vagina she possesses also seems to have the magical ability to trick women with dumb fucking mouths into a false sense of security, then, when opening said mouths in their attempts to diminish, disrespect, or damage Senator Harris, they end up letting their mouth get their entire dusty ass dragged. Glory be! One such woman with a shithole-mouth, Timi Lumpkin, learned a life lesson the hard way this week. Her much needed lesson was about how easy and FAST people will turn on you for saying the wrong thing about Kamala Harris -- just "the wrong words" like she's a hussy slut who slept her way to the top.
Come, Poppy, the nurse has something nice for you.
Why is Alan Dershowitz still talking? If he were your grandfather, you'd rush in with scissors and a calendar, shouting, "Poppy, look! It's 2019, not 1999. Doctor Finkelstein has scheduled a CT scan for this afternoon, so how 'bout we just cut this router cord right here until we know what's wrong with your brain, okay?" Instead Dersh is actually out there on Twitter right now arguing that a 15-year-old girl is old enough to consent to sex with a man of any age.
Joan Walsh looks back on Kamala Harris's first campaign. Should you use up one of your five Nation clicks on it?
There are many reasons I haven't written about the San Francisco magazine profile I did of California Senator Kamala Harris, back in 2003 when she was running for San Francisco district attorney, her first elected office, against incumbent progressive Terence Hallinan, whom the headline writers cast in the role of "Beast" because of his pugnacious style. I haven't written about it, even though it was her first big magazine profile, and it's not online; I have it all to myself.
Most of the reasons I've set it aside have to do with the way the story embarrasses me, not at all her, 16 years later.
It starts with that headline ["Beauty and the Beast"], which I didn't write, but which still makes me shudder. It continues with my describing her, early on, as "black-eyed, raven-haired, latte-skinned." I made much of her stylish clothes. Yikes. I apologize, to her and to all women everywhere. I also called her "smart and strategic, ribald and flirty," and that's probably not politically correct either, but I kind of stand by it.
(Kamala Swag here by NOT Not Wonkette.)
A frozen, inhospitable world, and some hope.
This week, writer Jenna Karvunidis, who popularized the notion of the "gender reveal party" a decade ago, said she's a bit horrified at what has become of them, and wrote about her own ten-year-old, the focus of that party, who is now happily nonbinary in many ways, thank you very much. Karvunidis said maybe it would be better to simply celebrate the fact that you'll soon get to meet your amazing little critter, and that baby will become a person with so much more "potential and talents that have nothing to do with what's between their legs." So why get all het up about pink or blue icing inside the cake? Today's brave new gender fluidity isn't for cissies.
That little news item seems worth mentioning as we finish reading Ursula K Le Guin's 1969 novel, The Left Hand of Darkness, in which the people of the planet Gethen, a world in the midst of an ice age, have no fixed sex, only becoming briefly and randomly male or female once a month when their hormones kick in. Every Gethenian has a gender reveal party when they come into kemmer, and then they just go on with the business of living. Even pregnancy and childbirth are transitory states, since most Gethenians will be fathers and mothers at some point. Some typical science fictional themes are here, like first contact with an alien world, near-lightspeed travel (and relativistic time -- if you go halfway across the galaxy, everyone you left behind ages and dies), and telepathic communication. But as with Le Guin's other great SF novel, The Dispossessed, most of the "science" here is about people: what might the world look like if societies were arranged differently?
As we said last week, if you haven't finished the book, jump into the discussion anyway! Book clubs are about the coffee and community as they are the reading!
Don't worry our pretty little heads about things like the fate of the gosh darn planet!
Hey! Remember Jordan Peterson? He is back! And this time, he's not talking about lobsters, but is rather on some kind of jag about how us uterus-havers need to be having babies in order to fulfill our true purpose in life, and not-not having babies because of climate change. Oh joy.
In a recent convo with Bishop Robert Barron (who Wikipedia tells me is an "auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles" who founded "Word on Fire Catholic Ministries," whatever that is) that was breathlessly reported on this week by both Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and the forced birth site Life Site News, Peterson waxed on about evil feminists who are going around telling other women that they are cruel for wanting to have children and fulfill their "moral obligation" to have a "maternal adventure."
Anna Wintour, the legendary Vogue editor-in-chief, has some opinions on Melania Trump. Unfortunately, instead of sharing them in an appearance on a podcast from The Economist ... wait, did we say "unfortunately"? That is not the word we meant to use there! We meant to say that Wintour decided to respond to a shitload of questions about Melania Trump by decidedly talking about other people. Better people!
Interviewer Anne McElvoy wanted Wintour's thoughts about Melania Trump so very badly. And she got them! Just not in the way she was going for:
©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc