Skip to comments.What Women Want?
Posted on 08/22/2009 4:43:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
A few years ago, a popular movie called What Women Want played off the ancient joke and popular conceit that while almost any woman can read almost any man like a book most men havent the foggiest notion of whats going on in the minds of their wives, girlfriends, daughters, and co-workers.
One of the great mysteries of modern life, though, is not the inability of men to fathom women, but the increasing inability of women to understand, appreciate, and defend each other.
Ironically, no group of individuals displays more gender illiteracy than the one which appoints itself the arbiter of all things feminine, the National Organization for Women. NOW recently elected a new leader at its national convention, and President Terry ONeill launched her tenure with an elaboration on her pro-woman political agenda that included this telling statement:
Conscience clauses, where pharmacists refuse birth control sales because its against their conscience, must go. Guess what? Women have a constitutional right to birth control . There is no constitutional right to be a pharmacist.
So to clarify women not only have a constitutional right to birth control but that right trumps any other persons constitutional right to follow his or her own conscience or religious convictions? Thats an interpretation of our pre-eminent national document that would astonish not only the Founding Fathers, but more than a few of the women Ms. ONeill claims to represent.
Never mind that no coherent reading of the Constitution will produce any indication of the authors intent to defend a womans right to indulge in sexual activity without threat of fertilization. At what point did Ms. ONeill decide that most women care more about having unfettered sexual intercourse than they do about following the deepest convictions of their soul?
Did it ever occur to her that a healthy percentage of the pharmacists whose consciences she so blithely dismisses might be women? Given the choice between one womans desire to have carefree sex and another womans profound belief that dispensing certain drugs could make her complicit in the killing of a child, are we really compelled by the Constitution to side with concupiscence over conscience?
In fact, Ms. ONeill implies not just that the Constitution protects birth control but that it requires every person in the medical profession to accommodate the pharmaceutical desires of any sexually active woman at any time she asks.
Of course, if one pharmacist wont fill a prescription, another pharmacist will usually at the same location. At worst, in most parts of the country, a woman wanting to refill her pills might have to drive another mile down the road to get them. But according to NOW, thats just too far to go for the sake of a fellow citizens conscience.
Is that really the mindset of most women in America?
A similar lapse of insight is detectable in the ongoing efforts of The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) to force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, via lawsuit, to extend over-the-counter access to the drug Plan B the so-called morning after pill to women younger than 18. A federal court found in favor of CRR, but the case is currently on appeal. (Full disclosure: the Alliance Defense Fund is co-counsel for those appealing the decision.)
Nancy Northup, president of CRR, celebrated the courts decision as a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health.
Today, she added, all women including young women for whom the barriers and the benefits are so great are one step closer to having the access they need and deserve.
Of course, giving teens access to abortion pills is a great way to keep them from going to their parents, or a doctor, and confessing their pregnancy. That means its also a great way to ensure that they dont get checked for the now-rampant sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) that are infecting so many underage and extramarital sexual adventurers. Will that evasion help safeguard public health?
Some interesting statistics: four in 10 young women now become pregnant before theyre 20; one in four will contract an STD; one in two rape victims is under the age of 18. How many of those girls does Ms. Northup think would be better off dodging a doctor? How many will surmount the extraordinary emotional fallout of having an abortion?
In her zeal to celebrate the rights of teens to avoid parental consent, Ms. Northup fails to consider that half of those uninformed parents are women themselves. Do most mothers really celebrate the idea that, thanks to the intervention of organizations like CRR, their underage daughters can now have sex, contract an STD, and undergo a self-administered abortion without ever confiding any of that to her folks?
In fact, NOW and CRR and their self-congratulatory leadership have no more real interest in the rights or needs or concerns of women than Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt do they are simply guardians of a legal and political agenda who, wrapped in feminist gauze, are willing to risk the bodies, the freedoms, and even the souls of other women to accomplish their deeply self-serving goals.
And what are those goals? Apparently, the same as Mr. Heffners and Mr. Flynts: unlimited sex with unlimited partners for every man, woman, and child in America with no physical, legal, moral, or emotional restrictions of any kind.
Thats a goal theyre inching very close to achieving, but its one that ignores not only what most women really want, but the immutable facts of life.
WHat about lowering taxes so the mom could stay home if she wants to. Instead of putting junior in goverment day care, he can learn from mom.
Am I wrong???
And these baby-hating women are going to let the Dems exclude tax-payer funded abortions from ObamaCare. No one, including BO, really believes that.
Shame on the preacher-propagandists who have been dispatched by their real messiah, Obama, to lie to their congregations about abortion to win their support for ObamaCare.
Give or take, about ten generations, and the best men of any nation are winnowed out in wars. After that, it’s all over but the lamentations of the women and the girly men.
And we’re getting there fast. Not enough good men, too many whiny women, nanny state, extended childhoods. :(
The right to shoes, of course.
“Women have a constitutional right to birth control”
So buy it somewhere else.
NOW is freaking RIDICULOUS!
OK, the Left wants us to make her wait until 18 to make the decision about smoking, 21 to make the decision about drinking but thinks she should make the decision about abortion at 13?
Are these people really this sick and demented?
N.O.W. ( National Organization of Witches)
It makes one wonder just how many law makers are sleeping with 13 year olds.
THIS woman just wants a good handyman.
That theory is hogwash. There are plenty of good men and good women. The trouble is the barbarians learn how to use our system against us, and we haven’t figured out a way to fight back thats not violent.
Ha! NOW cares nothing about family. They are all about 3 things, and 3 things only.
1. Abortion on demand at any age, under any circumstance.
2. Gay marriage.
3. Promiscuity for womyn, without conscequence.
I fully support the Constitutional right of women to hold their legs together in their inalienable right to birth control.
And we are not going to get violent, are we? Ergo...what I said, and you have virtually agreed to. The barbarians HAVE learned, and we are clueless. How long does anyone expect that to go on without us going under?
Ignore the question marks, by all means. The questions are merely rhetorical.
Per tagline, frog's brewing.
For the antidote for the NOW hags read/listen to Tammy Bruce, ex-President of NOW. Part of Ms. Bruce’s bio here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28859.html
French girls they want Cartier
Italian girls want cars
American girls want everything in the world you could possibly imagine
>>>What Women Want? The right to shoes, of course.
Excuse me but no. Women don’t see shoes as a Constitutional issue. It’s more a spiritual concern, as shoes are a matter of the sole.
I dunno. One could also make the argument that wars also winnow out the weak, stupid and unlucky. I realize that sounds bad, but you can be very brave & patriotic but still have other flaws that contribute to your death. Death is war is also somewhat random (hence the “unlucky” qualifer).
That being said, WWI and WWII were waged on a scale never before seen in human history. I think the loss of Alpha males from that conflict is definitely behind Europe’s decline. WWI likely set back any recovery France was making from the Napoleanic wars.
One could also make the argument that wars also winnow out the weak, stupid and unlucky.
Yes but like the poor, those are always with us. We have weak, stupid and unlucky to last for a thousand generations.
That just about sums it up....a handyman, not a partner, not a friend, but a Handyman, a man who will hammer some nails, paint a wall, fix the electrical system, and then disappear until the next time he is “required”....
You mean hand job.
“And we are not going to get violent, are we? Ergo...what I said, and you have virtually agreed to.”
Your argument still doesn’t make sense. Its a cultural problem and not a genetic problem caused by taking the aggressive genes out of the pool.
Its also pretty cyclical for any civilization throughout history.
Well I'd love to help you with it but we're on our way to the beach. HAND!
NOW is still around?
After giving Bill Clinton the ‘one grope’ rule they lost any and all respectability with any thinking person, even many leftist feminists.
in new york city, they want money.
best of show, so far.
Keep your knees together.
No U.S. court has ever ruled that anyone has "a constitutional right to birth control". They ruled that persons have a constitutional right to privacy which precludes the government prohibiting access to birth control.
That's not even close to the same thing.
What she's arguing is akin to saying that, because I have a constitutional right to free speech, if I want to print some inflammatory handbills, the government should force my local print shop to print them, whether the print shop wants to do business with me or not.
To make the example concrete, Nazis have a constitutional right to free speech. That right limits what the government can do to silence the Nazis. It doesn't require or permit the government to force a Jewish printer to print Nazi pamphlets.