You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘misogyny’ tag.

From the medical business to the media to idiotic women, they all got on the  Angeina Jolie bandwagon. For whatever  reason she chose breast surgery, plastic or medical – it shouldn’t be our business. But she decided to make it so, so here is my reaction:

A healthy woman is hailed as brave for cutting her breasts because she might get cancer (she still might now, but better odds) I don’t know who came up with the 87% and 5 % numbers and how, but people take them on faith and miss one point: without surgery she might never get cancer. With it, she still could.

Yet the move is praised to high heaven – even elevated at the rank of “a mother’s duty”. NY Times promotes the tweet with the quote about telling her kids they don’t have to fear losing her to cancer. Keep your breasts and you are a bad mommy!

It’s nice how everyone is so cavalier with a woman’s body parts. Waiting for the praise for someone cutting testicles based on an 87% chance.

I have been called ignorant, anti-woman and how do I dare criticize her. I don’t. She wanted to raise awareness, I’m aware and this is what I know:

Genetics is in its infancy – not sure how reliable their cause/effect study is – and is there only one gene involved? The numbers are highly suspicious.

Cancer patients are less and less getting surgery these days. Boosting immunity is the state of the art treatment. With all the early screening, it was noticed that the body takes care of a great number of tumors, through its immune system.

Breasts, ovaries are not just man toys, baby-making organs. They are important parts of our body. Nerves, hormones important to our overall health are there. Lopping them off based on a “maybe” is not bravery in my book.

Oh, and this woman the whole medical science defers to today, used to carry blood vials of her spouse around her neck (they both did, Billy Bob and her) for a strange reason I forgot now.

And a balancing view

Reacting to Angelina Jolie’s Breast Cancer News

Preventive double mastectomies among women in that latter group have shot up by 188 percent since the late-1990s. The steepness of the rise suggests those operations were driven less by medical advice than by women’s exaggerated sense of risk of getting a new cancer in the other breast. According to one study, such women believed that risk to be more than 30 percent over 10 years when it was actually closer to 5 percent. I am concerned that the coverage of Jolie’s decision, if not handled carefully, will add fuel to a culture of fear, to a misunderstanding of risk that could compromise women’s health choices.

.

I once thought of naming my dog MoDo because she hates all girl dogs while getting along fine with the guys. I didn’t, because I like my dog.

MoDo is still lying, of course, but she is trying to make herself look better NOT BY ATTACKING HILLARY?

NY Times’ Dowd Tries To Whitewash Her Awful Hillary Campaign Coverage

It’s a good article, so I won’t add anything to it except “what happened??????”

and not afraid to say so

The Daily News fresh from their Obamagasm, shows their true co;ors by displaying the same picture

I did not watch this non-event, but got a better perspective from this source

I guess this would show the same moment that NYC tabloids relished from a better angle and you’ll have to go to the source for their  priceless narrative

On edit, the Gothamist has a good comment

A One Act Play About The NY Post’s Sexist Hillary Clinton Cover

..Excerpt

Post Editor Guy 1: So are we goin’ with “HELLARY: WHO’D WANT TO BENGHAZI THIS BROAD?!” or “MIDDLE SHEESH! WACKO WOMAN GETS SNIPPY AT SENATE” ?

Post Editor Guy 2: Hmmm, whaddya think Gary?

Post Editor Guy 3: [Brushing 7-11 Taquito crumbs off double chin]

Not much I can add to this…

Told'ja So, the truth comes out about what it’s like to work as a woman in the White House. In Ron Susskind’s new upcoming book, Confidence Men, Women in Obama’s White House felt excluded and ignored: A new book claims that the Obama White House is a boys’ club marred by rampant infighting that has hindered the administration’s economic policy and left top female advisers feeling excluded from key conversations. “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, … Read More

via The Confluence

My morning sneeze comes from Roger Ebert’s tweet. He tweets often, on many subjects, relevant and funny.

On this one I am afraid he put the emphasis on the wrong thing though

He should have said : “He said “women”

The article at the link sets it straight from the headline

Female sex workers can use condoms too, says Pope

This is a clarification of prior “game changing” statements

Pope Benedict XVI was quoted at the weekend saying condom use by male prostitutes could be a good thing, indicating the user’s intention to protect others from a deadly infection, apparently condoning the use of contraceptives for the first time. The Vatican yesterday confirmed that the same message applied to women sex workers.

In other words, when sticking his nose in other people’s bedrooms (or cars, or dark  street corners), the Pope decided preventing disease is an acceptable reason for condom use.

But only if sex is traded for money, mind you.

I think some of his advisers since the original statement informed him shockingly, not only some priests go for adult males, but for some, women are of interest as well.

And, voila! Women are allowed to not get sick too!

Another giant step for women! (provided they sell it, mind you). They can now sell sex just like the guys!

Not Your Sweetie

December 2016
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031