A recent Livescience.com article appearing in Yahoo! News highlighted a study by psychologist Gordon Hodson of Brock University in Ontario in which a nexus is supposedly found between being unintelligent and conservative and being racist. I presume then that, as conservatives and morons tend to be more racist, the dots between them are connected? The story not only provided an overview of the study but also links to other similar studies which appear to back up Hodson’s conclusions. Well then, there it is. We always knew that liberals are smarter and more tolerant. We just needed a study to prove it.

Gordon Hodson

At best, psychology is an inexact science, as the human brain is the most complex system in the known universe, and to try to understand what makes it tick is daunting if not impossible. But layer on top of that the possibility that the researchers themselves may harbor a bias that leads them to subconsciously steer their studies towards reaching pre-determined conclusions, and you have the makings of a sham science project … with predictable results.

Hodson’s complete study is not available for free online, so I readily admit I only know what has been made public. Apparently the researchers offered a list of questions which would measure participants’ left or right leanings based upon the answers. For example, one measure in defining “conservative” is gauging one’s level of agreement with the statement “schools should teach children to obey authority.” Then they overlaid these results with responses to questions with overtly racial overtones such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people of other races.” I guess if you answer “yes” to authority and “no” to working with others not like you, you are a conservative racist. Conversely, if you replied “fight the power, maaan” and “I want my office to look like a rainbow, my brother,” then you are a tolerant and cognitively well-adjusted liberal. Oh, if only the world were so simple. (more…)

Earlier today on Twitter Media Matters’ readers targeted Dana Loesch for her suggestion that women be more responsible for their bodies as an alternative to abortion. How shocking! The Soros and SEIU-funded website, which endorsed the violent Occupy movement, and whose editor engaged in a bitterly misogynistic rant against Loesch a couple of weeks ago, is now seeing readers make troubling suggestions towards Loesch.

Image provided by Loesch of Twitter stream.

Is this a suggestion of rape? Failure of birth control? Noting MMFA’s past associations with violence and their refusal to condemn the multiple rapes reported at various Occupy encampments, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see their readers take a cue from the propaganda site’s endorsement of a violent movement where such crimes occurred.

Is this a new part of their mission statement yet published?

(more…)

FishBowlDC’s Peter Ogburn needs to correct a post in which he attributed a seemingly damning, but ultimately inaccurate, quote to Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller.

The quote below (emphasis added) is incorrect, and gives the reader the impression that Fields said that people want newspeople to tell them what to think. Ogburn writes:

As the interview winds down, [C-SPAN founder Brian] Lamb asks where Michelle would like to see her career go. She says she would like to be “in the media. As a journalist. Maybe an anchor.” Let’s not get carried away, Michelle. Reality can be a dear friend sometimes. Lamb asks if America is ready for an anchor who gives opinions and Michelle doubles down on her journalistic philosophy. “I think people want opinions. People want someone to tell them what to think.”

What Fields actually said was (fast forward to 56:34–emphasis added):

I think people want to see–they want opinions. Well–look at the Occupy Wall Street video that I did. I felt that I wasn’t being biased whatsoever. I showed–didn’t agree with my opinions, but I showed it. And I got so much negative attention from it. People were upset that I had done that. So I think people want biased journalism. They want something–they want someone to tell them what they think.

What Fields said is exactly the opposite of what Ogburn attributes to her. She understands that the public enjoys journalists who make their own opinions clear (what they think)–not journalists who prescribe those opinions (what to think).

Ogburn’s misquote is especially ironic, given that he also questioned Fields’s lack of formal education as a journalist in what amounts to his latest sexist hit piece on her–while he himself was busy committing a cardinal journalistic sin.

Ogburn in the background.

Ogburn’s initial sexist attack on Fields was posted on December 14th. John Nolte responded to it at Big Journalism on the 16th of December:

The level of cruelty with which the leftist media attacks conservative women never seems to hit bottom. Again and again, we’re told by leftists that the sexual revolution liberated women to be women. Burn your bras! Sleep around! What they forgot to tell women, though, was that there would be a price for straying off the Liberal Plantation and daring to think for yourself. For if you do, Missy, we will use the power of our platform and words to publicly and sexually humiliate you.

A Bill Press protégé, Peter Ogburn seems to be developing a creepy obsession with Fields. Throughout, Fields has revealed herself to be thoughtful, substantive and accomplished, albeit still relatively young. But that isn’t what FishbowlDC wants you to think, or know of her, obviously. Ogburn writes:

”What we’re doing is almost like citizen journalism. Which is basically when an individual who doesn’t have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event, but doesn’t’ have a background in journalism.” Hear that kids? Screw school and hard work. Get an iPhone and go capture yourself a job in journalism. Really, Michelle. You’re off to a super start. There’s 58 and a half more minutes to go.

(more…)

I can’t wait for the day when progressive males can evolve to a higher intellectual level and debate conservative women on facts, not on sex.

(more…)

Yes, you read that correctly.

I supported Christine O’Donnell’s senate candidacy and I felt that some of the attacks waged against her were due specifically to her sex. That being said, I thought the way she handled her interview last week with Piers Morgan was ridiculous and equally ridiculous are her claims that Morgan was sexist towards her.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sexism does exist and when a woman falsely claims that she suffered discrimination as a result of her sex when in reality, she did not, it lessens validity given to actual claims of sexism and hurts all women. She wasn’t a victim of “sexism” in this interview, she was a victim of being a poor sport.

(more…)

This past Newsweek cover of Presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, shows the unfair portrayals of female politicians in the media. While Publisher of Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy, reasonably displays Bachmann as a lady of office, Newsweek Editor-in-Chief, Tina Brown’s choice of an unflattering picture depicts Bachmann as an insane politician. As if the photo isn’t weird enough, the article entitled “Queen of Rage,” presents a propagated notion of instability and lunacy, whereas “Heartland Warrior” better describes her candidacy.

Bachmann’s Newsweek scandal is only the most recent of sexist subjections. Rooted in what seems to be the Madonna verses whore syndrome, society continues to allow the media to degrade women without concern. Thankfully, the National Organization of Women declared the cover misogynistic, but where are the rest of the feminists?

The list of unfair projections is growing with every women who steps into the political arena. As soon as a powerful, strong, intelligent woman surfaces as a leader, the media immediately attempts to destroy her reputation. From the 1st Vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, who was thought to have mafia relations, Hillary Clinton, who was portrayed as an unattractive obscene Presidential contender, and Nancy Pelosi, who’s facial features have been criticized, to Sarah Palin, who’s intellect and family life was demoralized, Christine O’Donnell, who was characterized as a promiscuous witch, Meg Whitman, who was unjustifiably called a “whore” by political opponent, Jerry Brown, Jan Brewer, who was  labeled a racist for wanting to protect her state from illegal immigration, and Nikki Haley, who was accused of extramarital affairs during her 2010 campaign – these women have been torn apart on matters unrelated to the real issues they were fighting to solve.

(more…)

Sunday night we told you about Newsweek’s unflattering cover of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and how the magazine gleefully promoted it on Twitter with the hashtag #QueenofRage. (It sparked our own caption contest using an unflattering photo of Newsweek’s editrix, Tina Brown.)

Sexist shots at conservative women (of conservatives, period) by the media have become so prevalent that we hardly page so-called women’s groups any more because their support for female conservatives is non-existant. From the female equality industry, one group has been somewhat present, although vocally inconsistent: NOW.

(more…)

I don’t know about you, but when I want articles on women that read like bitter Summer’s Eve scripts, I turn to Newsweek. Under the editorial control of Tina Brown, the rice paper magazine barely struggles against its bias towards conservative women to view them with anything other than contempt.

Check out Newsweek’s latest cover, which they happily Tweeted out minutes ago:

When your premise is an unflattering photo (and if you don’t have them you’re a liar or Miranda Kerr) to sell your bias, you just might be a chauvinist.

So because Brown thinks bad images are fair game, let’s have fun with an image of her, taken from MSNBC. Bragging rights, kudos, and hopenchange to the pithiest commenter who can best CAPTION THIS:

(more…)

If one read’s this Mother Jones hit piece, you’d think there’s rampant homophobia in Rep. Michele Bachmann’s home school district and it’s somehow Bachmann’s fault. Nonsense. Also, the Southern Poverty Law Center, choosing politics over integrity, has filed a federal lawsuit. Funny how it was timed to her rise in the polls.  Imagine that.

The Teen Suicide Epidemic in Michele Bachmann’s District

The reality is, the issue surfaced in the news purely as a matter of teen suicide in general and the district’s numbers are not at all out of line with national averages. Factually, there is no suicide epidemic at all, let alone one for gay teens.

Furthermore, there have been several recent health-related staff and student deaths, a murder and a car accident in the district. Professionals felt those might put surviving teens at risk; so, they’ve instituted a Summer care program.

Sadly, that didn’t stop Leftist activist organizations and publications from trying to make political hay out of it. These elements have no shame and are disgracefully exploiting a well-known at risk group, teenagers as a whole, by twisting the facts to suit a purely political agenda. (more…)

Bill Maher recently complained that “We can’t throw around the word [sexist] just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michele Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, is a dangerous nincompoop.” Hmm, sort of sounds like the argument of “racism” used toward Obama detractors doesn’t it?

(more…)

NPR’s Nina Totenberg joins the ranks of feminists who are prostituting themselves – excuse me, sex worker-ing themselves – for Weiner. On Friday’s Inside Washington, Totenberg had the utter gall to spew the following drivel:

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I finally felt sorry for Anthony Weiner at that press conference with people heckling him, making him a further spectacle. I mean the guy was finally resigning. You should be able to resign in public with a little, without, and control it a little bit without having people treat it as a spectacle. He’s gone, and it just seemed incredibly mean.

First, forgive me if I don’t take etiquette lectures from someone who wishes AIDS on people and their progeny. Totenberg finds it perfectly acceptable to  wish AIDS on someone, and their grandchildren, because she thought his politics icky. But heckle a sexual predator who, in order to try to cover his own depraved arse, also lied and demonized innocent people for merely reporting on his reprehensible behavior? How gauche. And super mean! This isn’t actually surprising, coming from the same oh-so-unbiased ‘journalist’ who claimed that Michelle Obama gives out ‘warm and fuzzy’ feelings and asserted that another serial sexual harasser, Bill Clinton, is ‘the most gifted politician she’s ever seen‘.

Since I’m not a liberal feminist willing to sell myself and all other women out for an agenda – an agenda that is itself anti-woman – maybe I can explain a little something to Totenberg. Representative Weiner used and abused his power to harass women online to the point where he sent naked crotch shots to women, unsolicited.  He further had no way of knowing the ages of the women to whom he sent these photos, which he referred to as ‘jokes’. From his demeanor and his own words at his first press conference, he did not even seem to care, either. He referred to his phone sex, which by all accounts was done from a congressional office phone on our dime, as ‘fun and frivolous.’ He referred to his sexting in the same way. Perhaps Ms. Totenberg should take a gander at his ‘fun and frivolous’ sexting chats, wherein he exhibited not only predatory behavior, but misogynistic and abusive behavior as well.

When caught, he preyed on the women further by first refusing to tell the truth, invading their privacy even more. Then again by trying to lure them into lying for him, a man in power. He made the trifecta of reprehensible by then also adding shameless and vile demagoguing of Andrew Breitbart and his team of writers for doing their jobs and reporting the truth about the atrocious behavior and actions of an employee of we, the people. Heckling was the very least that he deserved.

(more…)

Ed Schultz apologized today to Laura Ingraham and to those watching for his repeated use of the word “slut” to describe a conservative female with whom he disagrees.

I wish Schultz’s behavior was more the exception rather than the rule but sadly, it isn’t. The majority of progressive males with whom I come in contact always seem to exhibit a vicious hatred for conservative women, one I can’t explain, one that transcends rational disagreement and goes deeper than the basic chauvinistic stereotypes. It’s disturbing and it’s especially disturbing how our society, for the most part, looks the other way. I could spend a week daily highlighting the various examples here on Big Journalism but the time wouldn’t be enough.

When I heard Ed Schultz’s remarks, I heard an angry, older man lashing out at a woman because she thinks differently about politics than he. I heard in him the voice of the many progressive males who send me hatemail daily, telling me I should suffer any number of indignities, some of which I am obligated to report to the police and the cyber crimes division. It’s not just me – every conservative female of my acquaintance with a voice in politics endures the same political cat-calling. It’s despicable.

Disagreement is par for the course with this business. Sexism and outright neanderthal behavior is not.

(more…)

The takeway from this is Vivian Schiller’s remarks that she’ll be back –

”I’m not done. I certainly plan to stay in journalism. I feel too passionate about it, and so yes, I will be back in some position at some point in the not too distant future.”

– but the remark, or question rather, that floored me was when Schiller was point-blank asked if her troubles resulted because she was a woman.

“There’s been six months of tough things you’ve had to deal with … did you find any time during that that being the woman executive made a difference maybe had a harder kind of pressure on you that a man in that wouldn’t have as much criticism or as much pressure on them?”

(more…)

On Friday night, the abhorrent idjit known as Bill Maher used a crass and offensive slur about Sarah Palin. It is one that I will not repeat here, but suffice it to say it is a favorite misogynistic epithet of the lofty, oh-so-enlightened leftist set. I’ve been called it many times in hate emails and even on Twitter. It is usually prefaced with “dumb” and is second only to their top favorite term used to describe women; a term that starts with the third letter of the alphabet. Frankly, this isn’t very surprising coming from the trollish Maher. He clearly has women issues, as he’s shown many times in the past. As well as, I suspect, “compensation” issues. Hello, small man’s complex!

What was more infuriating, although also not very surprising, was the lack of media response. John Ziegler, quoted in an article on FoxNews.com, said the following:

“If a conservative used that language to describe Hillary Clinton, we wouldn’t be hearing very much about Japan or Libya,” said John Ziegler, creator the documentary “Media Malpractice.” “If they said it about Michelle Obama, the media would be going 24/7 with the story.”

Absolutely true. Sexist slurs against The One’s wife would not be tolerated. It’s only okay if you think the subject of the slurs is super icky, like that “chick from the sticks”, bitter clinger Sarah Palin. The Fox News article went on to explain that the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) at first chose not to comment on Maher’s grossly misogynistic remark. The reason given was that it is a “known fact that NOW does not correspond with Fox News.”

Oh, really? They hold women who merely watch Fox News in such contempt that they won’t even deign to try to speak to them? Well, you know what is a “known fact”? The fact that N.O.W. does not give a rat’s patootie about women.  Matthew Vadum, also quoted in the article, said the following:

NOW really ought to change its name to National Organization for Liberal Women because as far as it’s concerned conservative women aren’t real women at all.”

While it’s true that N.O.W. has nothing but disdain for conservative women, I don’t think the above is entirely correct. N.O.W. might be an organization of Liberal Women, but they certainly aren’t for them. A better name would be the National Organization for Useful Idiots. N.O.W. proved that themselves with the statement they eventually grudgingly gave in response to Maher’s vile comment. They were shamed into giving some sort of response due to the cries of “Where is NOW? What does NOW have to say? Will they denounce this?!” This infuriated me further.

(more…)

“Sometimes I say things I wish I could take back … it was not my intent to demean her because she’s a woman.”

What a non-apology. Unacceptable. He didn’t mean to demean her? With a remark like this?

(more…)

“Vitriol” incited Saturday’s horrific shootings in Arizona.  Or so we are told by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and Dick Durbin.  Sheriff Dupnik revealed his newly acquired forensic psychology expertise, declaring Arizona the “Mecca for prejudice and bigotry” and echoing Dick Durbin’s plea to tone down political vitriol because mentally imbalanced people “are especially susceptible to vitriol.”

I agree with the plea to tone down the politicl vitriol, most particularly against women politicians.  For the past two years especially, it has been vicious and hatefilled.  In this past election campaign, major media sources repeatedly demonized and dehumanized women political candidates as “whores” and “bitches” who were “going to hell“, one even joked about the rape of a woman politician’s daughter, another posting a salacious and sickening story of a supposed sexual encounter with a female political candidate, and a member of Congress impuning Republican congresswomen saying  “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.”

To be clear, I am not specifically blaming Jerry Brown, Joy Behar, David Letterman, the Gawker, or Congresswoman Sontany for the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords.  Certainly, though, no one can disregard their deliberate and vicious smears against female politicians solely based on their gender and their political viewpoint.

Frankly, finding a convenient scapegoat (other than the obvious – that the shooter is a violent nutjob) has proven difficult given the tragic array of victims – a female Jewish Democrat Congresswoman, a conservative Bush appointed Federal Judge, a young Catholic girl, etc.  Personally, I have no answer or explanation for the horror other than a man motivated by evil.  Seems vitriol is an equal opportunity assassin.

Vitriol these days seems to be a favored tool of the Left these days, especially when it is directed at women, specifically conservative Republican women.  As Michele Malkin describes:

Women who put an “R” by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As Republican officeholders and conservative public figures who are women have grown in number and visibility, the progression of Conservative Female Abuse has worsened. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.

Maybe Media Matters could apologize for suggesting Sarah Palin plays the victim card.  (Alan Colmes has scrubbed his post calling Palin’s pre-natal care into question – Where is Alan Colmes these days?  Oh yeah, he’s in Liberaland…literally).

(more…)

Why you shouldn’t call ladies “sweetheart,” “a–hole,” or “sugar.” Although, I’m sure the a-word was said in the same tone that most men say the other words.

The incident occurred in a pre-game production meeting also attended by ESPN announcers Ed Cunningham and Rod Gilmore.

When the conversation turned to the subject of Gilmore’s wife Marie being elected mayor of Alameda in California, Edwards tried to join in but was cut off by Franklin, according to reports.

(more…)

By now I’m sure everyone is familiar with Democratic congressional candidate Krystal Ball’s reindeer games (NSFW photos here). Now Ball has a missive up at the Huffington Post comparing herself to Hillary Clinton and bastardizing history on why Bill Clinton was impeached in the first place.

(Hint: it wasn’t because he was serviced by a Gap fan in the Oval Office. Lying under oath in a sexual harassment case is illegal.)

Politics is a nasty game. I knew that coming in. I thought I could take it.

Facepalm.

The left is having more of a tantrum in pushing this issue than the right. They used this tactic successfully to knock the path clear for then-Senator Barack Obama. For a party that loves to preach about Uncle Sam not turning the bedroom into a federalized threesome, progs love gossiping about the sex lives of married people. Honestly, who CARES what you did at a Halloween party with your husband years ago? So what, the photos made it to the press, if I were working Ball’s campaign I’d release the photos, Demotivational-style and titled them: “KEEPING THE LOVE ALIVE.”

This isn’t politics. This is Ball embarrassed and freaked-out and trying to boost her campaign by crying wolf. She could have easily said: “So what? My husband and I had some racy photos on Facebook. And? We were married at the time and I was pretty young. What does this have to do with the issues?” (more…)

Government media is wringing its hands at the predicted losses their party will suffer at the hands of an informed electorate this fall. All options to fight back are on the table, including spinning the failure of liberal policy into a yarn about rejection of female candidates.

From Politico:

Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.

[...]
Even if female GOP hopefuls like Sharron Angle in Nevada, Carly Fiorina in California and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire make it to the Senate, the elections will still quite likely bring a net loss of women in Congress.

But the impact will be more than just a gender numbers game: It could have broader implications for policy and the political culture of the Capitol in an era in which women have made a significant impact on the House and the Senate, ranging from passing legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to establishing a Democratic Women’s Working Group and holding key committee leadership positions. The impact of more women in Congress has also trickled down to smaller, cultural changes, like installing breast-feeding rooms for new mothers on the Hill.

The article makes no mention of the history being made on the other side of the aisle – also in the name of women.

(more…)