Attention ladies! Do you know what you want, what you really really want? Probably not, so how about you listen to these three hotties – WHOM YR WONKETTE RESPECTS FOR THEIR MINDS AS WELL AS THEIR FEMININITY – yap at you about some feminist idea or other that’s floating through their well-coiffed heads while they show some leg to the geriatric shut-ins who make up the
You blonde baby-machines can do whatever you want. Call yourself feminists while raising kids on daddy's salary, and say it's prosperity, God's wishes, or taking back your sexuality, whatever.
Just stop trying to convince everyone that this is what is right for every woman. You can just put that idea in Roger Ailes dick and smoke it, in the most feminine way possible.
I just went to the Amazon page for this book and of course found some empowering information!
Like an editorial review: "You gals are out there preaching it and I love you and I thank you . . . I get goosebumps listening to you on the radio." By none other than superfeminist Sarah Palin.
Some great words that totally belong together and aren't contradictory word salads: "Women don't want to be enslaved, patronized, labeled, or invaded. What women really want is to be empowered to be able to make a difference in the world beyond the trivial things. Women really want freedom of religion, a strong family, a man who stands for something, a voice, the freedom to protect herself, prosperity, choices."
And what else people bought: <i>Blood Feud, The Clintons vs. The Obamas</i>; <i>Assault and Flattery: The Truth About The Left And Their War On Women</i> by Katie Pavlich; <i>America</i> by Dinesh D&#039;Souza; other &quot;books&quot; by Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DID
Also, one of the five five-star reviews (there are only five) is by a Carolyn Elkins, whose account is so feminist and empowered that it seems to actually belong to &quot;mike w. elkins&quot;
When the Special Theory of Relativity was still very new, there were people who criticized it via the &quot;Twin Paradox&quot;. If one of two twins took off in a spaceship at a large fraction of the speed of light, and then stopped and came back, the theory said that the travelling twin would have aged less than the non-travelling one.
The &quot;criticism&quot; was that, given the postulate that all motion is relative, you cannot tell which of the two was actually the one who travelled, so each of them aged less than the other, so paradox, so Special Relativity fails.
The easiest explanation of why this is wrong is to point out that the twin who experienced the accelerations of starting, stopping, coming back, and stopping again is pretty clearly the one who was travelling (relative to the stationary twin&#039;s worldline, which is where the comparison is made).
When we point out homophobia/sexism/racism, we generally tie these observations to real-world, observable events, where real people have experienced real ill effects -- like the accelerations in the twin &quot;paradox&quot;. The right&#039;s &quot;criticisms&quot; are generally as ephemeral as the notion that the non-moving twin is the same as the moving one.
** Note. I am drunker than I realized. There may be the kernel of a decent comparison in here, but I lack the ability, currently, to sort it out. Sorry.
Today&#039;s feminists don&#039;t pay enough attention to hairstyles, obviously.
Henry VIII?
Oh wait . . . he had &#039;em one at a time didn&#039;t he?
You&#039;ve got a future as a TV producer!
You blonde baby-machines can do whatever you want. Call yourself feminists while raising kids on daddy&#039;s salary, and say it&#039;s prosperity, God&#039;s wishes, or taking back your sexuality, whatever.
Just stop trying to convince everyone that this is what is right for every woman. You can just put that idea in Roger Ailes dick and smoke it, in the most feminine way possible.
I just went to the Amazon page for this book and of course found some empowering information!
Like an editorial review: &quot;You gals are out there preaching it and I love you and I thank you . . . I get goosebumps listening to you on the radio.&quot; By none other than superfeminist Sarah Palin.
Some great words that totally belong together and aren&#039;t contradictory word salads: &quot;Women don&#039;t want to be enslaved, patronized, labeled, or invaded. What women really want is to be empowered to be able to make a difference in the world beyond the trivial things. Women really want freedom of religion, a strong family, a man who stands for something, a voice, the freedom to protect herself, prosperity, choices.&quot;
And what else people bought: <i>Blood Feud, The Clintons vs. The Obamas</i>; <i>Assault and Flattery: The Truth About The Left And Their War On Women</i> by Katie Pavlich; <i>America</i> by Dinesh D&#039;Souza; other &quot;books&quot; by Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DID
Also, one of the five five-star reviews (there are only five) is by a Carolyn Elkins, whose account is so feminist and empowered that it seems to actually belong to &quot;mike w. elkins&quot;
It&#039;s like a Costco of wingnuttery, actually
Fox viewers know all about cavemen from that documentary they watched: <i> The Flintstones</i>
- shamelessly stolen from Lewis Black
Fox viewers know all about cavemen from that documentary they watched: <i> The Flintstones</i>
- shamelessly stolen from Lewis Black
Safe word is Schafly - because that brings ALL the fun to a screeching halt.
Safe word is Schafly - because that brings ALL the fun to a screeching halt.
I once saw Devo open for themselves on NY Eve. Does that count?
I think it means they were not Devo. Or, possibly, that they were not men. Or, wait, if they were not men, then they might have not been Devo.
Or maybe I&#039;m just envious you got to see that show.
The fuck is a sexualist?
A bird with a gilded dildo.
When the Special Theory of Relativity was still very new, there were people who criticized it via the &quot;Twin Paradox&quot;. If one of two twins took off in a spaceship at a large fraction of the speed of light, and then stopped and came back, the theory said that the travelling twin would have aged less than the non-travelling one.
The &quot;criticism&quot; was that, given the postulate that all motion is relative, you cannot tell which of the two was actually the one who travelled, so each of them aged less than the other, so paradox, so Special Relativity fails.
The easiest explanation of why this is wrong is to point out that the twin who experienced the accelerations of starting, stopping, coming back, and stopping again is pretty clearly the one who was travelling (relative to the stationary twin&#039;s worldline, which is where the comparison is made).
When we point out homophobia/sexism/racism, we generally tie these observations to real-world, observable events, where real people have experienced real ill effects -- like the accelerations in the twin &quot;paradox&quot;. The right&#039;s &quot;criticisms&quot; are generally as ephemeral as the notion that the non-moving twin is the same as the moving one.
** Note. I am drunker than I realized. There may be the kernel of a decent comparison in here, but I lack the ability, currently, to sort it out. Sorry.
Really?