House of Eratosthenes

Cassy Fiano brings us the latest example of Cosmopolitan nags making abject fools out of themselves, with an alarmist expose absurdly headlined Are Your Rights in Jeopardy? Once again, the glossy-mag scolds are confusing the right to indulge in baby-killing, with the right to demand taxpayer-funded baby-killing.

Cosmopolitan has gotten in on the anti-Stupak movement. Without bothering to think for themselves at all, they’ve just taken the feminist route and decided that cutting abortion funding means that “women’s rights” are being threatened somehow. Check it out:

If you’re pro-choice, you may not be aware that an amendment to the health-care reform bill that passed in the House earlier this month threatens women’s rights. Called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, it bans abortion coverage for millions of women who will purchase health insurance in the new health exchange. This ban will also extend to women who opt to be covered under the “public option” form of health insurance that the bill will create.

The health-care reform bill still has to be passed by the Senate, so it isn’t law yet. If you want to preserve a woman’s right to comprehensive reproductive health care, click on the link below to sign a petition that will be sent to President Obama and key legislators.

To really get their point across, they even included the prerequisite picture of a defiant-looking woman.

I guess it would be impossible for someone to point out to these harpies that abortion would still be legal. Any woman in the United States, provided she is over the age of 18, can legally get an abortion without any trouble at all, beyond the occasional pro-life protestors. All the Stupak amendment will do is prevent abortion from being taxpayer funded… in the new health care bill. It doesn’t ban all taxpayer funding for abortion. But to hear these feminists carry on, it’s as if abortion is going to be completely outlawed and the world is going to end.

But Cosmopolitan wouldn’t possibly point out all those pesky little facts, would they? They phrase it in a very specific way. They aren’t lying, but they don’t point out that abortion itself isn’t going to be banned, nor is all taxpayer funding going to be ceased. Women who don’t pay attention to politics — which would be many Cosmopolitan readers, of course — could very easily be misled. And why would they offer the other side of the argument, either? It’s all one-sided with liberal publications like Cosmopolitan, which, of course, masquerades as a non-partisan, non-political publication.

A hundred years from now, historians will look back and associate pictures of defiant-looking women with all the evils, liabilities and weaknesses of the times in which we live. Here we go again: People pretending to be preserving “rights,” when really all they’re trying to do is destroy things. Every single abortion that might happen, has to happen. The lying, the obfuscation, the half-truths.

And gol darn it, we’re just trying to get the world to spin on its axis with a little bit more peace, love, mutual respect and harmony…and the standard we hoist as we ride into this battle, is always some kind of a hip skinny spoiled white chick with her arms crossed looking like she’s ready to lay some smack down.

I remember last time I was single and available. I had certain “jobs” expected of me on dates…and they no longer had much to do with pulling out chairs or opening doors. They had to do with what I was supposed to be, and what I was supposed to be was something very, very normal but at the same time very, very extraordinary. Usually, I failed that test before things went on to the next step…but the next step was to show lots and lots and lots of empathy.

My date would reciprocate by demonstrating how self-assertive she was and how she wouldn’t-take-no-shit-from-anybody.

That was not, by the way, for the purpose of laying ground rules for a potentially lasting relationship. That, I suppose, might have happened around step five or six, by which time I would typically have been dismissed from the interview process quite some time ago. No, this I-am-woman-hear-me-roar bullshit was…and this gets back to Cassy’s observation about feminists, and I find it exceedingly sad…the young lady’s offering. She was demonstrating for me what she would be bringing to the table. It was the reason why I should want to continue dating her.

Just imagine. I had to show empathy. That was her way of reciprocating: Hey, she knew exactly what I wanted! To spend the rest of my life with a spoiled rotten harridan. Gee, I’m so impressed, she knows me better than I know myself. What a keeper.

So from this experience of mine while I was “on the market” — some ten months or so, now five years out of currency — I have this impression that there’s a lot of delusion and fantasy taking place out there. There are single and available females somehow operating under the premise that cantankerous bitches are rare and therefore sought, coveted and highly prized.

Toward the end of it, I had to conclude that I was being offered an endless procession of just the women who happened to be available, each of them arriving with a bundle of reasons why they were the ones still available.

Feminism hurts women in all kinds of ways. In this case, it mentally “abducts” them when they’re at an impressionable age, and indoctrinates the weaker among them to the idea that everyone is going to be oh so nice to you, if you can just show how irascible and vicious you can be. And this has been going on for forty years now. It’s thankfully on the wane, it seems to me…part of the female coming-of-age is, more and more often, learning how to show proper etiquette, smile sweetly at the right time, do your bit to keep things pleasant…then just wait until the time’s come to stand up for yourself, and do so. Behind closed doors. That’s what a mature, capable, sophisticated lady does. That’s what a woman of class and substance does.

But the less capable grown-up-girls are still out there, the “Real Housewives of New Jersey” types, eager to showcase their talents for dripping acid.

This does not represent womanhood well. In fact, thinking on it awhile one has to notice: These “ladies” must have some friends who tolerate the behavior, or else they wouldn’t keep doing it. Sure, most women grow out of it by the time they’re thirty. But that’s a long time to be going through life spoiling for a fight, with your brow all furrowed up like that and your arms crossed.

Cosmopolitan-and-similar-mags: Civilization will ultimately succeed in spite of you, not because of you.

Spot on, of course, Morgan, but the last 1/3 to 1/2 of your piece could loosely be applied to minority groups, too.

Think about it. What kind of attitudes and outlooks are young black males encourage to adopt – by the Jesse Jackson types, by the Democrat politicians, by rap music, by Black Entertainment Television?

I’ll leave the answer to your capable mind, but it’s not all that far off from what you’ve written about the Cosmo readers. I’m kind of glad my girlfriend doesn’t read that magazine anymore. It seems the articles are rarely about anything besides sex.

I’ve caught her doing things to me late at night that she probably read in there. (Hint: they don’t work.)
- cylarz | 11/25/2009 @ 11:19
Spot on indeed.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget Codependents Unanimous, the quintessential epicenter of “Hi, I’m Susan, and I’m not going to take that anymore. Aren’t I cute?” What they really mean is “All my friends agree that it’s all your fault.”

If you ever hear a woman use the term “codependent,” don’t bother to say goodbye, just leave.

Don’t forget your hat.
- rob | 11/25/2009 @ 12:32

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Cosmo, Stupak and Defiant-Looking WomenWednesday, November 25th, 2009

Cosmo, Stupak and Defiant-Looking Women
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009