Jessica Winter claims that women need to engage in sex - and subsequently need birth control - in order to be regarded as intelligent humans who can vote, have jobs, and live in apartments. This is the strong implication in her article titled "Subject for Debate: Are Women People?" criticizing the people who are against the contraception mandate in the healthcare program. Such a title over such a topic reveals her belief that women need birth control to be regarded as people. Such a title over such a topic reveals that women need to engage in sex to be regarded as people.
All my adult life, I’ve been pretty sure I’m a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote; I make regular, mostly autonomous decisions about what to eat for lunch and which cat videos I will watch whilst eating my lunch. But in the past couple of months, certain powerful figures in media and politics have cracked open that certitude.
So, according to Jessica Winter, tied into having birth control (and the sex which makes birth control necessary) is women's ability to vote, to be considered sentient and semi-competent, to have jobs and live in apartments. Tied into having birth control is women's ability to make any type of decision at all. Jessica Winters complained about the protest over the contraception mandate by beginning her complaint with women's sentience, jobs, living quarters, etc.
So, according to Jessica Winter - for women to lack a provider would be to doubt and hold into question a women's ability to vote, hold jobs, and live in apartments.
Here is some shocking news...
Women have never needed to have sex and subsequently never needed birth control to make any important decision in their lives. Why would women need to engage in sex to be able to vote? I adhere to celibacy, and I have voted many times in the past without complications. Why would women need to engage in sex - and subsequently need birth control - to be able to vote?
Why would women need to engage in sex to have jobs or live in apartments? I received my job without engaging in any sex at all. I also received a safe shelter over my head without engaging in sex for that shelter. I have kept my virginity, and I vowed to remain celibate. Women have never needed to engage in sex - and subsequently never needed birth control - to vote, have jobs, pay bills, eat meals, or have a place to live.
Sex is irrelevant to voting, working, and living safely. What does Jessica Winters mean exactly when she began her complaint against the protest over the contraception mandate? What does Jessica Winter mean when she began her demand for birth control with:
All my adult life, I’ve been pretty sure I’m a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote;
So, according to Jessica Winter - for women to lack a provider would be to doubt and hold into question a women's ability to vote, hold jobs, and live in apartments. According to the false feminists, if women cannot have birth control, then women would be incompetent and incapable of many decisions about anything. If women cannot have sex, then women must be incompetent and incapable of deciding what to eat for lunch. If women cannot have sex, then that means women would not know how to read or vote. I simply do not understand what the hype over birth control is, but then again, I love celibacy, so I never need to buy birth control.
The one thing Jessica Winter and I do have in common - we love cats. Although I set my cat off my lap to type this.
I wish women would understand that if they compel others to buy contraception for them, then they are abdicating responsibility over their own bodies. Women should pay for the choices they make with their own bodies. If they do not pay for their choices - if they do not take responsibility, then they are abdicating their own bodies. Instead, they are compelling others to take responsibility for their own decisions.
Some of these false feminists argue that their sex lives are private matters, but they do not realize that they are transforming a private matter into a public matter. What receives public funding is a public matter. Furthermore, with the government paying for contraception through citizens' tax dollars, the government becomes involved in private sex lives. The government holds a vested interest in whatever uses taxpayer dollars.
Why are these mainstream false feminists so obsessed with sex and contraception? There are numerous things plaguing women in our nation. Women from Mexico are smuggled and trafficked into this nation for sex slavery. Even American nationals become victims of this prostitution. Where is this outcry?
Where are the feminists cheering for Abolition International, an organization founded to help victims of sex slavery? Instead, the false feminists remain silent over the problem of sex slavery. And the false feminists have kept silent over Lady Gaga whose music videos involve lesbian rape, heterosexual rape, women as sex toys, etc, There is never an outcry from the false feminists over the song "I wanna be your Hooker," and its video that glorifies sex trafficking and portrays women as wanting to be sex trafficked.
Why do mainstream false feminists ignore the sexist and degrading portrayals in the media? The popular television series How I met your Mother features Barney Stinson, a womanizer who sleeps with women for one-night-stands and then forgets about them except to keep count of his score. A few years ago, while watching television, I saw a commercial for an episode in which he cheered, "I've had sex with 200 women!" and his friend said, "you should celebrate. you should get tested, but you should celebrate."
Why do mainstream feminist not feel offended that a well-known character in a popular TV series regards women as things for his own pleasure, his own personal use and satisfaction? Women should feel offended!
The Internet Movie Database quotes Barney Stinson as saying:
Attention Canada! I am Barney from America, and I am here to fix your backward a** country. Number one, get real money. Don't know what board game this came from, but it's a joke. Number two, and this is the biggy, quit letting awesome chicks, like Robin Scherbatsky, get away. Because, guess what, you don't want her, I'm planting my flag in her, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't, and getting the hell outta here, you may now return to being pointless.
Does Jessica Winter object to a popular character declaring women as territories or lands for male conquest which Barney Stinson alludes to by saying "I'm planting my flag in her"? If Jessica Winters does not object to Barney Stinson's statement, then she has no valid reason to object when Rick Santorum called his wife, “the rock which I stand upon," a biblical reference about strength and endurance, determination and reliability.
Psalm 31 goes:
"Be my rock of refuge,
a fortress of defense to save me.
For You are my rock and my fortress
For You are my strength
Into Your hand I commit my spirit." (Psalm 31:2-3, 4-5)
For a Christian to refer to his wife as his rock is an incredibly mighty and empowering compliment. Instead of acknowledging this awesome compliment, Jessica Winters objected to the word "rock" at the end of her article. Apparently, Jessica Winter and all the other false feminists do not want men to talk about women as strong, enduring, determined, and reliable. But the false feminists feel perfectly fine with women as lands and territories for men to plant their flags into as male conquests. If the so-called feminists rallied together and protested the character of Barney Stinson, that character would have vanished in a heartbeat. Instead, they keep quiet over Barney Stinson, protest the empowering use of the word "rock," and campaign for free birth control.
Just imagine if all women either adhered to celibacy or had sex only with their husbands, what would happen to the actual men and the Barney Stinson characters who used women as sex scores, then? Maybe he would learn to appreciate them as individuals rather than trophies to take score. But it would also completely change the character whose main objective is having as much free sex as possible without responsibility. Characters like Barney Stinson would disappear, and so would the flag-planting of male conquest over women.
If you read this and want to object, "only a TV series!" well, then... African-Americans protest racist portrayals in the media because racist portrayals encourage and further racism. Racist people cheer at racist portrayals. Likewise, sexist portrayals encourage and further sexism. Sexist men enjoy sexist portrayals. For a character like Barney Stinson to be so popular means that people in this society cheer at women being used as scores in male conquests.
According to these false feminists, it is horrible for a man to compliment women's strength, endurance, determination, and reliability. A false feminist objected to Rick Santorum calling his wife “the rock which I stand upon." According to these false feminists, it is acceptable for men to use women as territories for the flag-planting of male conquests. I have never heard a single objection from a mainstream feminist about Barney Stinson.
Why do these false feminists refuse to pay attention to the real threats to women in our nation? Why do false feminists not object to the Twilight series? I saw the second movie New Moon. The central character Bella is dependent upon men. When her vampire boyfriend abandons her, she falls into a lifeless depression until she finds another love interest - a Native America werewolf. The Alpha male of the werewolf pack lost his temper and slashed his wife's face, but somehow that is romantic?
And yes, the younger generations do consider the Twilight series romantic. So, false feminists, consider what the younger generations are learning.
Marcia Montenegro's review "BREAKING DAWN, PART ONE, THE MOVIE: BLOODIER THAN EVER" discusses even more domestic violence. In the next story, after the wedding of Bella and Edward, the vampire assaults her and brutalizes her during sex.
Bella and Edward arrive at their honeymoon destination. The marriage is consummated that night. The next morning, when Bella awakes, she discovers the room is wrecked (apparently Edward got carried away). Later, Edward discovers bruises on Bella’s body, made by him during the lovemaking. The movie has softened this from the book because in the book, the description depicts more severe bruising than what is shown here.
That description reminds me of a recent PETA ad. How is brutalizing a woman romantic? How does brutalizing women empower women? Why is there no feminist outcry?
Take a look at what you see, feminists, and tell me if this is what you want. Do you want popular culture to regard women as things for a sex score? Do you want young girls to grow up thinking that domestic violence is romantic? Do you want young girls to sing and to role-play about being hookers for men?
But at least, you can have contraception without taking responsibility for the decisions you make over your own bodies! At least, you can abdicate responsibility over your bodies by making other pay for your contraception!