Harvard Sex Week

March 25, 2012

Harvard Never Learns (Legal Insurrection) Sex-Positivity and Slut-Pride: Sex Tips for a Modern World from Good Vibrations: Join HLSRJ and Good Vibrations for a short discussion of sex-positivity, a demo of lube and some popular sex toys, then Q&A. Free Food!

As if the one state solution event that didn’t invite any Zionist groups for a Jewish one state were not biased as is. I suppose the sluts are now preparing to blow Hamas and Fatah together.

(Palestine Today) and (Challah) reports that Egypt has said that Fatah and Hamas are both “fully responsible” for the failure of reconciliation. An Egyptian official said that the two movements have “failed completely” in the implementation of the Cairo Agreement and the Doha Declaration. The official also said that the two factions have made things more complex and have moved further away from a solution. The same official said that the bickering between Hamas and Fatah undermined all the efforts to complete the reconciliation process and form a unity government. According to the official, if Fatah and Hamas continue to bicker (they have) then Egypt will be forced to stop hosting reconciliation meetings in Cairo.

Makes it more dramatic… the slutty vaginas indoctrinated in arrogance are excited already… I mean what is a bunch of feminists hanging out with out terrorists to make things interesting so that they can blame the plight of women on Jews and Western civilization, but somehow I think the marriage will work out like the marriage of Fatah and Hamas. I guess gay marriage really is like straight marriage. Oh well… you always can rape a college educated liberal in Tahrir Square. Where is Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda when that happens?

When you make sex political, you shouldn’t be shocked to be called a #CUNT

March 14, 2012

Media_httpwwwretrosel_oijdf ( Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem Call for Government Suppression of Rush Limbaugh’s Radio Broadcasts) This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.

(Eugene Volokh) Of course it is “political” — they’re urging the government to suppress Limbaugh’s speech based on the ideology that it expresses. And this is precisely what the Supreme Court has rightly said is impermissible. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court did uphold restrictions on vulgar words on the radio — a question that’s now being reconsidered by the Court, in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. — but in the process the plurality said:

[I]f it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, would have been even more speech-protective; and none of the other concurring or dissenting justices cast any doubt on the plurality’s judgment, which indeed represents a basic First Amendment principle — the government may not suppress speech based on its viewpoint, even if the speech is seen as using “government resource[s]” (see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector (1995)). That is something that applies to all viewpoints, whether feminist or sexist, pro-American or anti-American, or whatever else.
Likewise, FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) held that even broadcast regulation must be closely scrutinized to prevent, at least, viewpoint discrimination and often even viewpoint-neutral content discrimination:

Since, as we [have] observed …, “[t]he First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic,” we must be particularly wary in assessing § 399 to determine whether it reflects an impermissible attempt “to allow a government [to] control … the search for political truth.”

And that’s exactly the control that Fonda, Steinem, and Morgan want the government to exercise.

Denied


Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Feminists attempt to censor like usual.

March 12, 2012

(Red State) Gloria Steinem pens with three other feminists wrote an opinion piece at CNN calling for the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the airways. Her ‘writing’ partners, were Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan an editor at Ms. magazine. The trio open with quotes they didn’t bother to source.

(Daily Caller) The co-founders of The Women’s Media Center put pen to paper over the weekend to request that the public complain and urge the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the licenses of stations that carry “The Rush Limbaugh Show.”. Especially offensive, they wrote, has been the fact that his go-to term for feminists, “femi-nazis,” is no longer enough to “raise eyebrows anymore.”

but apparently it is ok for the feminists to call Rush a Nazi?

(Red State) This is followed by the pièce de résistance of the op-ed — they equate Rush with Josef Goebbels. No, for reals. While fascistically demanding that The State’s FCC shut down Rush Limbaugh. While seeking to silence those with whom they disagree – using hysterical lies and propagandist rhetoric – they Godwin themselves with Goebbels. Irony is lost on these geniuses.

The three then exhibit a staggering lack of self-awareness by claiming that Rush Limbaugh seeks to “dehumanize” people. Um. Did Gloria Steinem forget that she called housewives “dependent creatures who are still children” and “parasites”? That is the Left’s standard operating procedure. That is what they do, always, and especially with regard to women. This has been proven over and over again and only the willfully ignorant can’t see it. Gloria Steinem also said that one cannot be a feminist and be conservative and pro-life. A group called Liberal Ladies Who Lunch has launched a campaign to withhold sex. The founder of the group said the following:

“American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”

Rush can afford the lawyers, but what about the rest of the men out there that try to oppose feminism and find themselves extradited to Washington State for what they write online? It happened to me.


Gloria Steinem in Wonderland: Hollywood Turns Alice Into Feminist Manifesto, Anti-Male Action Flick

March 5, 2010

If you’re planning to see Disney’s new version of “Alice in Wonderland,” know that it really isn’t Alice in Wonderland at all. It’s Gloria (Steinem) and Betty (Friedan) and Susan (Sarandon) in a high tech, souped up, feminist wonderland. It’s like NOW (the National Organization for Women) invaded a kids’ flick and turned it into a horror movie. There’s nothing wondrous or wonderful about it. It’s dumbed down baloney.

aliceinwonderlandgloriasteinem
Gloria Steinem’s Fantasy, Not Lewis Caroll’s Charming Classic

The new “Alice” is about the horrors of marriage and how, even back in the 1800s a young girl knows more about business and trading in far off lands than a wealthy English tycoon. The movie, which debuts in theaters tonight, bears very little resemblance to the classic Lewis Carroll fairy tale, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” While the 3-D effects were okay and some of the movie was cute, the destruction of Carroll’s charming tale is a huge disappointment. And it simply wasn’t “Alice in Wonderland.” It was the feminist manifesto fraudulently and deceptively dressed up a that name.

read the review at debbieschlussel.com

taking away the naughty element of Wonderland kills the fun. Alice in Wonderland is often a play with sexuality on a young girl. the hypocrisy of society is especially disturbing because Alice is being harassed the whole time… one often wonders if the writer isn’t getting off on the offense of it all. Alice escapes an uptight victorian life for her dreams where she meets hypocritical scoundrels. The idea is that through the experience she becomes a more adult woman. These scoundrels certainly should never inspire a woman to become hostile and anti-social herself. In essence what you describe Debbie is an Alice who becomes her own monster. the frustration and paradox of the experience is supposed to make Alice grow into a character that the reader feels has come to a conclusion that argument and hostility comes to no end. the newest incarnation of Alice has decided to become a diva instead. How depressing.