So, are we supposed to conclude women really are flighty, irrational, emotions-driven hot-house flowers, after all?
No offense, but you’d have to pardon anyone’s concluding as much after tuning into the media’s frazzled, post-Hobby Lobby knitting circle of the past few days.
Hillary Clinton — whom Rush Limbaugh facetiously styles “the smartest woman in the world” — tsk-tsked the Court’s ruling as a proclamation that “employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”
Nothing of the sort, of course, occurred.
“Impose”? Her claim is a specimen either of ruthless dishonesty or clanging stupidity — or a toxic combination of both. But we know someone identified by “Hillary” and “Clinton” would never diddle with the truth, right? So, I guess that leaves only option number two.
What a slender majority of the Supremes, in fact, did find was that those hostile to pro-life/pro-family convictions can’t coerce anti-abortion business owners into subsidizing their baby-killing activities under color of “health insurance”.
Hillary added, seemingly missing the scorching irony: ““We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s controversial. And that’s why I’m pro-choice, because I want people to be able to make their own choices.”
Like a Christian employer’s “choice” not to pay for someone else’s sexual paraphernalia, Hillary?
The disoriented Sandra Fluke — fornication enthusiast and current California Democratic senatorial candidate — tweeted this morsel of history-shaping, lawyerly perceptiveness: “A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.”
A query for this potential U.S. legislator (!): Is that same “boss” permitted to “have a say” in his “health care decisions”? Namely, how he invests his resources, according to the lights of his conscience, regarding his employees’ health insurance?
National Organization of Women’s President Terry O’Neill scolded, “[W]e should not accept plain-out gender bigotry. Withholding basic health care from women is bigotry, plain and simple.”
Try following the erratically bouncing ball of that — estrogen-soaked? — reasoning: someone else must pony up for the sisterhood’s ability to spread their legs with consequence-free impunity — or we’re a nation of official anti-women bigotry, conniving to bar them from “basic health care”.
Meanwhile, no surprise, the ever-flustered Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fl/DNC ChairWOMAN) dipped her toes into the hysteria pond: “This … stifling decision for American women … blocks women from being able to make their own health care decisions … This is deeply troubling, because you have organized religions that oppose health care, period.”
Ah yes — exposed! That ugly animosity to doctor’s, hospitals and medicine that has been a mainstay of Bible-believing rubes for eons!
The Lady from the Sunshine State had more High Court analysis to inflict upon us, this time settling on a vivid, if unfortunate, word-picture. (Hey, if nothing else it sticks in the memory!) “Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make health care decisions for her”.
What can we gal-loathing, health-care-hating brutes say to that except: “Ouch!”?
There are other examples I could supply, but they’re hardly necessary, the point is made. All of the above, dizzying in their obtuseness, are declamations uttered by prominent human beings stamped with the XX chromosome.
If the soaring vision of modern feminism has been to showcase, in womanly packaging, the kind of practicable, hard-headed wisdom required to negotiate a complicated, demanding, often treacherous 21st-century — well, one would be tempted to conclude it has failed. The shrieking “war-on-women” rhetoric? Ain’t doing any public relations favors for the “women’s movement”.
Yet, honestly look around and the “chicks-are-easily-rattled-and-irretrievably-bubbleheaded” supposition runs pretty quickly into a muliebrous buzzsaw: the presence, current or past, of the likes of Michelle Malkin, Liz (or Lynn) Cheney, Phyllis Schlafly, Laura Ingraham, Margaret Thatcher, Mona Charen, Ann Coulter; not to mention ample female representation in the politically earth-quaking Tea Party movement.
Delightfully impish Libertarian You Tube humorist — and young LADY(!) — Julie Borowski retorted to the nitwittery of her less-grounded counterparts with this twittercism: “Boss, my birth control is none of your business! But you better pay for it.”
Then there’s Clashdaily.com’s own woman-warrior Teri O’Brien who trenchantly echoed,
The … owners of Hobby Lobby …have a tough time understanding how they have zero say in a woman’s “choice” about what she does with her body, but 100% responsibility to pay for whatever choice she makes. That view is “intolerant” in the view of the Left, and therefore, cannot be permitted.
Badda-bing! In pink!
Again, I could go on and on, but the upshot is: thoughtful, articulate, conservative, America-salvaging women; and lots of ’em.
Furthermore, these disagreeable thoughts intrude into any anti-female meditations: Sens. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chris Matthews, Ed Schulz, Al Sharpton, VP Joe Biden, President Barack Obama.
High-profile all. Lefties all. All reliably as goofy as the MSNBC, or NOW, or Democratic Party hens cheeping nonsensically in the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
And, obviously, all of them: dudes.
With nettlesome regularity, oodles of daffily progressive male commentators breathlessly line up alongside their fairer-sex equivalents to hold forth on their Leftist twaddle. This week it happens to be what they frantically deem the Court’s apocalyptic, religious-freedom ruling. Next week? We’ll grimly find out soon enough.
All the same, whatever the genitalia of these spokespersons? Their ridiculousness is the same.
On the hope-generating flip side, however, when men or women fly the flag of common sense, decency, prudence? Their gender becomes largely moot, as well.
Truth is thrilling, revolutionary; whether heralded by Joe or JoAnne.
Image: Courtesy of: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubia_tonta