Here’s a partial repost from March 2018. It’s only a “partial” repost, because I have matured a bit since 2018 and feel the need to be slightly less vulgar and obscene. Also, it gives me some time to think about today’s “fresh” content. I’m sure I’ll be wanting to post some fresh content after writing about this subject. Or maybe I’ll just want to take a shower.
A few days ago, I saw this photo posted in my Facebook feed. Someone had shared it in the Duggar Family News group. Here’s a link to an article about this, which led the original poster to get quite a “grillin'”.
Personally, I did wait until marriage before I lost my virginity. It wasn’t because I was concerned about how tight my twat was, though. In fact, I vividly remember worrying about what that first experience would be like, since I didn’t have any sex before I got married. In my case, being a virgin was less because of a sense of morality and saving myself, and more because of practicality. I simply never found anyone with whom I wanted sex who also wanted sex with me. I will admit that I didn’t try very hard. And Bill, who was a lapsed Mormon during our engagement, wanted to wait until marriage, too. I figured I’d waited that long, I might as well wait for our big day… and then we waited another couple of weeks, because I started my period right after the ceremony. 🙁
I truly don’t regret waiting for marriage, but I realize that’s not a choice everyone will want to make. Moreover, I would much rather people have sex while they are single, than get married simply so they can finally fuck each other. I can personally attest to how awful and complicated divorce can be, not just for the person who gets divorced, but also family, friends, and significant others. I am for people being responsible about it and taking precautions to prevent pregnancies and disease transmission. Then, by all means, have your fun.
I have not yet seen a post encouraging men to wait until marriage, even though I’m sure that’s encouraged among the religious. On the other hand, guys like Josh Duggar preach about family values and living the fundie Christian way. Then they go out and hire strippers and prostitutes. The truth later comes out in a big scandal. I suspect that a lot of fundamentalist Christian males are massive hypocrites and liars. I feel sorry for Josh’s wife and kids because I’m not sure he’ll ever live down what a hypocritical scumbag he was revealed to be. (ETA: remember, this was originally posted in 2018– three years before the world found out how truly vile and disgusting Josh Duggar really is!I feel even more sorry for his kids today, although my sympathy for Anna is slightly less now…)
I think it’s pretty gross that the person who made the first post used fish to illustrate how tight a woman’s vagina is after multiple sex partners. I mean, did that person choose fish on purpose, realizing that a lot of sexually transmitted infections can cause that part of the body to take on a fishy odor? What’s the old saying? Fish and visitors stink after three days?
And what’s with wasting perfectly good fish on an object lesson? That fish died so the world can get a graphic representation about how women who have sex with many men might make them too “loose” for a man’s pleasure. There are people starving in the world… people who would love to have fish for dinner. And finally, the idea of a woman’s genitals being akin to a cold, slimy, fleshy, malodorous piece of fish. I’m surprised anyone would feel sexy after seeing that. But I guess that was the point.
This fish business is even grosser than using licked cupcakes and chewed gum to teach girls about purity. At least gum and cupcakes are appetizing. Using raw fish, especially when illustrating a woman’s vagina, is just nasty and disrespectful.
And just to make this more topical in 2021… I have been stumbling across more and more news pieces about fundie males who turn out to be total deviants and perverts. I am convinced that a higher number of creeps are hiding out in fundamentalist religious cults than in the regular population. If you think about it, those types of very legalistic religiously based groups with high levels of control and power over members are especially ripe for abuse. Females are usually taught in those groups that they are to submit to men at all costs, and if they suffer from abuse or mental health issues, it’s because they aren’t “right” with God and need to repent and pray.
Every day, when I read about these kinds of situations, I am more and more grateful that my parents did not raise me in a cult. I went to a mainstream church, where there was no weirdness and no intrusive interviews about my sexual habits or preferences. No one ever shamed me for what I was wearing. And I was only expected to be in church for an hour (two, if you count Sunday School) a week.
Speaking of Josh Duggar… looks like his most recent court case involving his evident issues with downloading videos and photos of CSA is heading south at a rapid pace. The federal judge keeps turning down his desperate requests to suppress evidence. I think he’s going to regret not accepting a plea deal, because I have a feeling that at the end of his trial, he’s going to be going away for a very long time. I’m generally not a fan of putting people in prison for years on end, but I do think it’s probably appropriate in his case.
In any case, the fish object lesson is particularly disgusting. I thought the wadded up gum, licked cupcakes, and wilted roses used to discourage girls from being “handled sexually” were yucky, but none of them compare to using tuna to demonstrate the condition of a woman’s nether regions. Eeeeew! The guy who made this ought to be ashamed of himself… and he should enroll in an anatomy class, pronto.
Here’s a repost that appeared on my original blog on October 7, 2018.I still think it’s wrong for a person to coerce another into having an elective and permanent surgery (which is what a vasectomy is intended to be). I get that they are reversible, but sometimes reversals fail. They are also expensive and invasive. I know this because Bill had one.
This morning, as I looked at my Facebook memories, I found a lively discussion that I had last year. It was about Kelly Clarkson and how she’s demanded that her husband have a vasectomy after she had their two children. Anyone who regularly reads this blog knows how I feel about coercing people into permanently altering their bodies to suit the other person. I think it’s wrong. It’s very admirable if a person offers to get sterilized for their partner’s sake, but I don’t think it’s right for the partner to try to force it.
Imagine my surprise this morning when I found an article in The New York Times about that same subject. Only this time, it was in the form of a letter to The Ethicist, written by a woman who knew someone who had decided she wanted to get a divorce. But before she got the divorce, she wanted her husband to have a vasectomy. Why? Because she thinks he’s a terrible father and doesn’t want him distracted by kids he might have with someone else. She also doubts any future women would be interested in having kids with him anyway, since he’s “middle aged”.
I probably don’t need to rehash my thoughts on this subject. The short version is that I think it’s wrong for a man or a woman to demand that their partner have a permanently altering surgery. If you are done having children, you should have the surgery… unless there is a very good reason why you can’t have it. Even then, you have no right to demand that your husband or wife get sterilized. There are ways to prevent pregnancy that don’t involve permanent surgeries, which is what vasectomies and tubal ligations are intended to be (even if they can be reversed). However… to insist that your partner have such a surgery and then dump them in a divorce is unbelievably despicable and unethical. In reading The Ethicist’s column, I see that he is fully in agreement with me on this point.
What is prompting me to write again today are the horrifying comments people left on the New York Times’ Facebook link. Thanks to all of the misogynistic crap that has been circulating in the news ever since Trump got elected, there is a hive of emboldened women out there who think the way this man was treated is perfectly okay. It’s just fine that his ex wife, who did convince him to have surgery and subsequently divorce him, manipulated this man into doing her bidding. And why? Because there’s so much “misogyny” in the world. Who cares if this guy might actually be a decent person and maybe might be a great partner to someone else and a terrific father? He has a penis, so therefore, it’s alright to mislead him. Screw him and his plans for his own life, and those of any other woman he chooses to have a partnership with or marry.
I noticed a lot of men were commenting, only to be shut down by a group of women who appear to pretty much hate all men. I will admit that sometimes men can be annoying when they mansplain, but the reverse is also true. Femsplaining is also extremely irritating.
I’ve never made it a secret that I’m for *actual* equality. When it comes to reproduction, women have a bit more power than men do, since they are mostly capable of having babies without anything more than a dose of sperm. However, I would never agree that it’s okay for a man to demand that his partner have an abortion or get her tubes tied. I likewise don’t think women have the right to demand that a man get himself snipped. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex. Get yourself surgery that prevents reproduction. Use birth control. But you don’t get to coerce, bully, or trick someone else into having surgery.
I think some feminists have lost their sense of fairness when it comes to this issue. Some of them seem to have the idea that men should be punished for what women have endured for so many years. But we will never have equality and fairness as long as one group thinks the other “owes” them.
I see the comments on the article itself are a bit more even-handed. A couple of people even suggest that the man would have grounds to sue his ex wife over the duplicity. She would probably really deserve it if he did pursue that action, although since they have children, it’s probably not the best solution for the children’s sakes. Besides, a judgment against the ex wife would not bring back his prior fertility. He’d either have to undergo a reversal, which costs a lot of money and involves some pretty serious recovery time, or some other costly intervention.
I will admit that my feelings about this issue arise from the fact that I was personally affected by a woman who demanded that my husband have a vasectomy. She claimed pregnancy was “hard” for her. Then she had two more kids with her third husband, while I’m left being the mom of beagles. Bill wanted to have a child with me and I wanted to have a child with him. We were denied that chance thanks to his manipulative bitch of an ex wife who took advantage of Bill’s kindness and good character. And yes… I do think she’s a bitch, among other things. I don’t like to namecall, but it is what it is. She destroyed his relationship with his children, tried to turn his parents against him, and made it very difficult for me to have children of my own without resorting to measures that should have been completely unnecessary.
Even if this hadn’t happened to me, I’d still be against this kind of manipulative bullshit. What the hell right does that woman have to leave such a permanent mark on her victim? I only hope the man in this story goes on to find a far more ethical, decent, and thoughtful woman than his ex wife is. The woman described in that column is the very definition of a bitch, among other things. I hope she gets what’s coming to her.
Last night, I read about Shallowater High School, a school near Lubbock, Texas that was in the news because of a controversial assignment that got complaints. An English teacher, who was teaching “Beowulf” and the works of Chaucer, had a tradition of having her students explore the concept of chivalry. The boys were expected to dress in suits and ties. The girls were to wear dresses and heels. For one day, the men would help ladies to their seats and open doors for them, and they were supposed stand when a lady or person in authority entered a room. The ladies were expected not to speak unless spoken to, not to complain or whine, and they were supposed to walk behind the men.
The first time I read about this assignment about chivalry, it was in an article for a television station that was short on information and long on media bias. My initial impression was that it was kind of a silly assignment that sounded ill-conceived. But then I read more about it in The New York Times and learned that the teacher who had made the assignment had been doing it for a long time. Many students actually looked forward to taking part in it, which made me want to learn more about what it entailed.
In the course of reading more about the assignment, I learned that those who were uncomfortable with it were allowed to write a one page essay on chivalry. I also learned that the intent was of the assignment was to show students that chivalry was actually promoting male chauvinism and marginalizing women. The message was that chivalry, which is often touted to be “good” and is now “dead”, is not so much about promoting good manners and courtliness. It was about keeping women in their so-called place, according to the men who wanted to stay in charge. Apparently, past students who had taken part in the assignment got the message, even if it sounded kind of “sketchy” in practice.
This year, the assignment made the news, because some parents complained about it, claiming it was “sexist”. I will admit, my first thoughts, when I read about it was that it did seem a bit sexist. But then when I read that a lot of students actually enjoyed doing it, I changed my mind. Having been an English major and read “Beowulf” a couple of times myself, I appreciate anything that makes that story more engaging for young people. Moreover, I figured there had to be something more to the assignment than what was being put out to the masses. According to the New York Times:
“I really don’t think it was the teacher’s intention to have it be such a sexist lesson,” said Hannah Carreon, 18, a senior at the high school. “There were girls that were excited to get to do this finally and get to dress up.”
And those who didn’t want to participate didn’t have to. Seems fair enough to me. Nevertheless, thanks to the uproar, the school district superintendent, Dr. Anita Hebert, said the assignment was canceled, adding “this assignment has been reviewed, and despite its historical context, it does not reflect our district and community values.” Very fine, and she’s certainly within her rights to have the assignment changed.
Given how thin skinned many people are these days, I think it would be difficult for teachers and administrators to teach, especially in a creative way, without offending someone somehow. I don’t have a quarrel with the school administrator’s decision to revise the assignment, even though some students may have been disappointed. Schools have to evolve with the times, and nowadays, people are less inclined to be open-minded about alternative methods. Most people won’t even bother to read a news article before exploding with outrage, after all.
But then I went into the comment section and there were many outraged reactions left by people who obviously hadn’t read the article. One person wrote that the teacher must be a “misogynistic man” and went off on a screed about racism and misogyny.
I know I should have kept scrolling, but I was lonely, irritated, and bored last night. So I commented that the teacher who had made the assignment was a woman who had been teaching this particular lesson for years. It was a long-standing tradition in her class that, apparently, had been well-received in years past. The teacher was actually trying to show the students that so-called “chivalry” wasn’t actually chivalry. From The New York Times:
The exercise had been scheduled to take place on Wednesday. Female and male students, who had been reading “Beowulf” and the works of Chaucer, were given assignment sheets that described 11 “rules for chivalry.” They would be awarded 10 points for every rule they followed.
Boys were asked to rise any time a female student or faculty member entered a room, to avoid profanity or “vulgar words” and to “allow ladies to leave the room before they leave.”
Girls had to walk behind men or “walk daintily, as if their feet were bound”; address men with “a lowered head and a curtsy”; “clean up” after their male classmates; and “obey any reasonable request” from a man.
According to Colin Tynes Lain, 18, a senior, the teacher had anticipated backlash and said students who were uncomfortable with the assignment could write a one-page essay instead.
In the past, Mr. Lain said, the teacher had given parents and teachers a written disclaimer explaining that the goal of the project was to show how the chivalric code was used to obscure chauvinistic principles that harmed women.
“That’s what she was trying to pull our attention to,” he said. “That this was not chivalry in any way.”
But to read the comments, the teacher was perceived as some boneheaded cave dwelling man who was trying to suppress women with a backwards assignment meant to push them down. And when I gently pointed out that the teacher was a woman who was trying to teach about how chivalry was actually not so good, I got a lecture about racism and misogyny from several “woke” ladies who felt I needed a “schoolin'”.
I commented again that many of the students had been looking forward to the assignment. And they also had an alternative assignment they could do if they didn’t want to participate in the teacher’s lesson on chivalry. But that comment only served to further inflame the “woke” woman who hadn’t bothered to read the article, along with a few others who felt this assignment was so damaging. So my parting shot, which got lots of likes, was something along the lines of.
“Y’all can spare me the lectures on misogyny. I’m simply reporting what was in the article. I didn’t say I liked it or agreed with it. If more people would read before commenting, the world would be a better place.”
I often complain about conservatives. But you know what? Sometimes liberals are just as bad. Some of them have this agenda they just feel compelled to push, often without any critical thinking or forethought applied whatsoever. They often make judgments without knowing all the facts or context. And, just like conservatives, they often make perfect asses of themselves.
I will admit, I have read about some assignments that appeared to be especially tone deaf and ill considered. For instance, just last year, a high school teacher in Iowa was placed on leave for asking students to pretend they were “black slaves”. The assignment was made for an online learning program. A surprising number of teachers have attempted to teach kids about slavery via role play, which is bound to be a bad idea.
Role-playing can be an effective pedagogical tool, but teachers have to be very careful that they are not reinforcing negative gender and racial attitudes, said April Peters-Hawkins, a former sixth-grade teacher who is now a professor of school leadership at the University of Houston College of Education.
“What we typically see is marginalized groups continuing to be marginalized,” she said. “Black kids being asked to play the roles of slaves, Jewish kids being asked to play the role of victims of the Holocaust and girls being asked to be subservient.”
I think some people felt this assignment would make some girls feel uncomfortable, so they brought up their concerns. Unfortunately, it then became international news and, I think, it got blown entirely out of proportion. And now, the narrative has become completely distorted from the facts.
It’s easy to react to inflammatory headlines without actually getting the facts. People are often eager to promote a progressive agenda, but are loathe to think first. On the surface, this assignment about chivalry seems like it would be offensive and wrong. It sounds like the teacher’s methods might wind up marginalizing girls. And no, it’s not a good thing to teach females that they are to be subservient to men, especially in the year 2021. But if you actually read about the intent of the assignment, it sounds a lot less offensive. Especially since participation was entirely voluntary.
I will grant that the chivalry assignment probably should be reconsidered, but not necessarily because it will damage or offend students. I think it should be reconsidered because of the court of public opinion, our culture of people who don’t want to read before they react, and people who claim to be open-minded but actually aren’t. Frankly, it’s very irritating to get lectured by people who can’t even be bothered to read before they comment. They’re usually people who feel like their (often uninformed) opinions are so very important to share, but don’t care about anyone else’s opinions. And you can’t have a discussion with them because they refuse to consider all sides of an issue. It’s like the thinking has already been done, and not by them, personally.
The teacher who made this assignment is described as “caring and well-liked”. I wouldn’t want to see a good teacher who is caring and well-liked canceled from her profession because of uninvolved people who are hell-bent on thinking the worst about her intentions. I hope she hasn’t been harassed, and I’m glad her name has been kept out of the media.
I know how much time, money, and training goes into making good teachers. I also know that a lot of them don’t get the respect and consideration they deserve. It’s a shame that some of them are punished for thinking outside of the box, even if the lesson ends up being a flop. I hope this teacher will continue to try to teach students the truth about so-called chivalry, even if this particular role playing method is now off limits.
Kinda reminds me of how people have been offended by this classic Randy Newman song… which isn’t actually about “short people”.
Incidentally, I have some people on my friends list who are notoriously bad about reacting to headlines and not actually bothering to read. Yesterday, I shared the video that was in yesterday’s post about Gloriavale Christian Community. Two people left me sad reactions, even after I commented that it wasn’t a sad post. Seriously. Watch the video. It’s not a sad tale– it’s a triumphant tale about a STRONG woman who left a truly oppressive and sexist cult. But people are gonna react… and I say, if you’re going to form an opinion and make a public comment or reaction, isn’t it better to actually know what you are reacting to? I think it is.
This review originally appeared on Epinions.com on September 11, 2011. I am reposting it as/is.
This review deals with the subject of rape. If you are squeamish about such things, please skip this review.
I have a problem trusting doctors, especially gynecologists. My issues stem from the very first pelvic exam I ever endured. The woman who performed this very intimate procedure traumatized me by being way too rough and physically hurting me. At the time, I was too inexperienced and shocked to say anything to the doctor about the violation, although I know she could tell that I was very upset. She treated me with condescension and disrespect. Consequently, to this day over sixteen years later, I still fear most doctors. Perhaps for that reason, I should not have read Jack Olsen’s 1990 book, Doc: The Rape of the Town of Lovell. As it turns out, my curiosity trumped my squeamishness and I did read the book, which I first heard about on Recovery from Mormonism, a Web site for former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doc was of interest to members of exmormon.org because it’s about the crimes a trusted family doctor committed against some of the women of Lovell, Wyoming, a town heavily populated by Mormons.
Dr. John Story… trusted family doctor and rapist
For over twenty-five years, Dr. John Story practiced family medicine in Lovell, Wyoming. Though he was a strange and egotistical man, he was a much loved and trusted practitioner. A staunch Baptist, Dr. John Story knew the Bible and appeared to live by conservative Christian ideals. He came to Lovell in 1958 because the town badly needed a doctor. Many of Dr. Story’s patients were female members of the LDS church. He delivered cradle to grave medical care for all of Lovell’s citizens and did everything from delivering babies to looking after elderly patients.
Although Dr. Story appeared to be the very picture of propriety, he had a few quirks. For one thing, he was biased against people of Mexican and German descent. He held them in contempt, along with those who were indigent or received welfare. For another thing, he took issue with Mormon doctrine, which he considered false. He would banter with his LDS patients about religion and appeared to be tolerant of their differences, but deep down, Dr. Story hated Mormons. Thirdly, Dr. Story seemed to be overly eager to give pelvic exams to certain patients, particularly those who fell into certain groups that he didn’t respect. A woman might show up at his office, presenting with a sore throat. She might have tonsilitis, but Dr. Story would somehow convince her that she was overdue for a pelvic exam. And then he would deliver what seemed to be an overly thorough and painful exam with his penis instead of gynecological instruments. Only she wouldn’t necessarily understand that she had just been raped by her trusted doctor.
Why did he do it?
On page 319 of Doc, investigators took stock of all of the women who had made claims that Dr. Story had raped them. At that time, they had interviewed two dozen victims and had the names of several more. Of the two dozen victims, four were Hispanic Catholics, one was a Lutheran of German heritage, and the rest were Mormons. One of the investigators surmised that the numbers made sense if one remembers that rape is a crime of hatred, violence, and rage. Rape is not about sex or passion.
Dr. Story had openly disparaged Mexicans, whom he’d often referred to as “those people”. He felt that Mormon doctrine was “satanic” and was enraged by what he considered their blasphemous beliefs. And for some reason, he had always had a chip on his shoulder about Germans, referring to them as “those damn Germans!” to one of his nurses.
How did he get away with raping women for twenty-five years?
It’s hard to believe that a woman who is not under the influence of drugs or alcohol could be raped, yet unsure of what happened. Most women who have ever had sex with a man know what a penis feels like. At the very least, a woman should be able to tell the difference between hard flesh and hard metal or plastic. In order to understand how this might happen, one has to consider that Lovell, Wyoming is a very insular community that is home to many Mormons, a religious group that forbids premarital sex and masturbation. Many of the women who accepted Dr. Story’s services had never been sexually active or had only been intimate with their husbands. Quite a few of the women were apparently very unsophisticated about sexual matters. They trusted their doctor implicitly; he had been faithfully serving the people of Lovell for so many years. Many of the women were not entirely sure about what had actually happened; they only suspected they had been raped. Moreover, Dr. Story typically delivered his exams without a nurse present.
Dr. Story’s crimes against the women of Lovell came to an end when a small group of courageous LDS women finally decided to bring him to justice. A couple of the women had even had children that they suspected might have been fathered by the family doctor. But Dr. Story had many supporters in Lovell and the brave women who came forward to put a stop to Dr. Story’s abuse suffered backlash. This case, which was finally tried in the mid 1980s, divided the tiny town like no other.
I hesitated before I started reading this book, mainly because I find the whole topic of gynecology to be creepy and unsettling. The idea that a family physician could be so brazenly violating so many women makes me very uncomfortable. It was shocking and infuriating to read about some of the things Dr. Story did to his patients. Nevertheless, as horrifying as this story was to me, it was also fascinating. Dr. John Story is, in my mind, the very picture of a sociopath who believes he is above the law. Even in prison, he demanded deference and held everybody to standards that he did not himself observe.
The late Jack Olsen spins this complicated tale masterfully. His words are engrossing and fascinating, as if they were written for a thriller instead of true crime. There are no pictures in this book, but I had no trouble picturing the people involved. Olsen assigns inflections to his dialogue, turning the subjects into characters. His writing is very engaging; I could tell that he was heavily invested in doing this story justice.
Doc is now out of print. There are plenty of used copies available on Amazon.com. This book might be somewhat offensive to members of the LDS church. Olsen does not present the faith in the most flattering light. I didn’t think he went out of his way to be disrespectful, but he does occasionally quote people who have negative opinions about Mormonism. Doc is also a very complicated story that takes time and effort to read.
While I can’t say Doc makes me eager to get over my gyno-phobia, I do think it’s a fascinating story. The subject matter is grotesque and distasteful, but it’s also amazing, mainly because Dr. John Story was able to get away with his crimes for so very long and so many people were willing to support him, even though he was accused of such ghastly crimes. It’s often said the truth is stranger than fiction… when it comes to the story of the women of Lovell, Wyoming and Dr. John Story, I definitely have to agree.
As an Amazon Associate, I get a small commission from Amazon on sales made through my site.
Ever heard the term “knuckle dragger”? I never had until I met my husband, Bill. Apparently, it gets used a lot in the military, and for good reason.
A few days ago, I read about Florida state Representative Ted Yoho’s misogynistic comments toward New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Last week, Yoho, a Republican male, allegedly called Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat female, a “fucking bitch”. I didn’t get this news from CNN. I got it from a liberal friend of mine who used to live in Florida and is now an English professor at a small college. My friend has horses, and for years, Yoho was her veterinarian. He took care of her horses. She hadn’t seen this side of him when she knew him in his professional role as a veterinarian.
Now, here he is an elected official, tasked to work for the citizens who voted for him, as well as the ones who didn’t. And here he is, accosting another congressperson, calling her an extremely offensive, misogynistic name. Prior to calling her a fucking bitch, Yoho supposedly called her “disgusting”, “crazy”, and “dangerous”. The video below is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s commentary about the incident.
I watched the above video and was very impressed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very powerful speech. I think it’s a pity that we can’t vote for her for president in November. She is very articulate and brave. She said, “I do not need Representative Yoho to apologize to me. Clearly he does not want to. Clearly when given the opportunity he will not. And I will not stay up late at night waiting for an apology from a man who has no remorse over calling women & using abusive language towards women.” Amen to that. Shame on Yoho for being an abusive yahoo. And shame on people who admire him for this behavior.
Anyway… as I was reflecting on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s speech, I ran across an article on the Military Times about one of the policies she is championing directed toward military recruitment. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told Vice.com that “It’s incredibly irresponsible for the Army and the Navy to be recruiting impressionable young people and children via live streaming platforms…” In other words, she doesn’t think military recruiters should be allowed to find recruits via esports or platforms such as “Twitch”. I’ll admit, I don’t know anything about Twitch, nor do I have a personal interest in this particular fight. My comments are toward the people reading the Military Times piece, which was also shared on Army Times, who decided to air their thoughts on Facebook. Behold, a small sampling:
I’m always kind of dismayed when I read hateful, sexist, and ignorant comments from veterans. I’m even more dismayed when veterans pull out that tired old “when did you serve?” bullshit. By that logic, the veterans should only be allowed to have an opinion about military issues and nothing else they have not personally experienced. Besides, there’s more than one way to serve one’s country. For instance, someone who has served in the Peace Corps has not only served the United States, but also another country. Someone who is an elected official or works for the government is also “serving” one’s country, as are people employed in helping professions. So I don’t know why so many military folks have this idea that one has to wear a uniform to serve. That’s bullshit of the lowest quality.
I was kind of tempted to leave a comment on this article, which went on for many more threads beyond the sampling I’ve posted here. But then I realized that if I did that, I’d be piled on by some real knuckle draggers… guys like that one dude who said Ms. Ocasio-Cortez should go back to bartending and giving blowjobs. I would bet money, too, that that guy probably never gets any blowjobs himself and is very bitter. It’s my experience that the men who have such anti-woman sentiments are guys who can’t get laid and are mad at the world about it.
As AOC pointed out in her very articulate and beautifully delivered speech, this kind of language usage not new. Most women have heard this kind of talk. Believe me, I’ve been called things like “bitch” and “cunt”, generally by men who really shouldn’t be talking in such terms. It always surprises me when I hear guys talk like this– particularly since so many of them espouse the so-called “family values” party, the Republicans. Don’t these men have mothers, wives, sisters, or daughters? Would they like it if someone called their female loved ones names like “fucking bitch” or “cunt”? Would they appreciate hearing that their female loved ones are only good for giving blow jobs and slinging drinks in a bar? As she so eloquently pointed out, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is someone’s daughter, too.
I think it’s a shame that there are so many “knuckle draggers” in the military… and elsewhere, like in the hallowed halls where laws are made. I wonder where it is that these folks learn these attitudes. Were they born this way, or did they fail to get any adequate home training? I wonder why their parents didn’t teach them to have basic respect for other people rather than dehumanizing them with disgusting language.
Oh, I know… they were angry… or they were annoyed, or frustrated by the woman… and she “had it coming” somehow. I’m sure that was what one revolting government service employee said regarding a discussion he had with me. This man is married and has two daughters, yet he had on his public Facebook page memes that read “Fuck me like you hate me”, and other charming sentiments. And yes, he called me and other women “cunt”. I’m ashamed for his wife, who willingly made daughters with this vile representative of the male species. I can only imagine what kinds of reprehensible things he says to them when no one else is listening.
Count me as extremely grateful that my husband’s parents made sure he knew better and raised their son to respect all people, including women. I only wish we could have had a child together. I know he would have cherished and protected him or her and served as a fine example of how someone should behave. Representative Yoho should be deeply ashamed of himself for verbally abusing Representative Ocasio-Cortez, especially since he used misogynistic insults. I can only guess that his parents didn’t raise him properly, and that he’s served as an equally poor example to his daughters. And the people– mostly men– on Army Times who air their shockingly ignorant and offensive opinions about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other strong women like her, should also hang their heads in shame, as should their families, who failed to raise them properly. Unfortunately, I think they’re too ignorant to see the errors of their ways.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.