The Contraception Mandate: Liberal Feminists Don’t Know What They Are Talking About
Arianna Nation contributor, Soraya Chemaly, has apparently renounced her Catholic religion, if she was ever an actual Catholic to begin with. She has no problem with her, or the government forcing its will on the Catholic Church, but dare the Catholic Church push its doctrine on its own members and that pisses Soraya off. The contraception mandate, and the Catholic Church’s handling of it, particularly its refusal to be intimidated by the Obama Administration, and goaded into doing something that is perpendicular to its teachings, irks Soraya, all liberal feminists, immensely. She is probably clicking her heels over the rejection of the Blunt amendment which would have protected the Catholic Church from government intrusion and unconstitutional force into its religious freedoms.
Soraya’s liberalism, and her liberal feminism, has blinded her so severely she believes that what the Catholic Church is doing is tantamount to sexism, being anti-woman and trying to control a woman and what she thinks she has the freedom, the choice and the Constitutional right to do with her body.
Writes Soraya:
“At its core, this debate is about control. And not just birth control. Either you are willing to support and participate in a culture in which men, refusing to accept women as fully human, use a perverted claim of divine right to control women and their bodies, or you don’t.”
Liberal feminists insist, for reasons that are either impossible to understand, or for the simplest of explanations, that men, and male politicians in particular, are using birth control and contraception as a means to control women, and that is the one, the only explanation for why the GOP in the House and Senate, which is predominately male, is opposing Obama’s contraception mandate.
We, as conservatives, who think not with our penises or vaginas, but with our brains, don’t accept Soraya’s premise. It is childish, foolish and inconsistent with rationality and the real world.
In fact, Soraya’s statement is so stupid and idiotic, incredibly wrong-headed and ridiculously easy to explain in the plainest of contexts – namely that the contraception mandate is being opposed not to control women (and presumably their sexual habits, wants, desires, etc. which liberal feminists wrongly fear is at the center of this debate) but rather to control an out of control government attempting to dictate and force its policies, unconstitutional by the way, on the American people and on religious institutions which do not want government forcing them into providing services they find morally objectionable.
Soraya, like all liberal feminists, think with their vaginas, rather than their brains. Conversely, conservative women and feminists tend to use their brains more often than not. (which is why we, as conservatives, tend to win the debates more often than not) To Soraya, because she is a liberal feminist, and a perverted one herself, having access to birth control and contraception, including abortion is an absolute necessity in her bleak world. Liberal feminists, like Soraya, thinking only with their vaginas, cannot accept they are already “fully human” unless they are able to have all the free sex they want without having to endure the consequences – pregnancy, in other words. The Catholic Church frowns upon that kind of sex, and so it has become an enemy of Soraya.
Contraception and birth control means, to liberal feminists, they can engage in any type of risky, unsafe, loose sexual behavior they may desire and crave and want to participate in, and if pregnancy does occur, if a baby is created, unplanned as it were, killing it, disposing of it from her body must be a “woman’s right” and for her “health”. And the “freer” that contraception is, the “freer” perverts like Soraya are to throw their bodies lustfully and passionately into the arms of strange men without clearly thinking about what it is they are doing to themselves and their bodies in the process – because all they hear, all they sense, all they feel is wrapped up and intertwined deep within their vaginas.
Writes Soraya:
“For me, equality — for everyone — and the way I want my children to understand their place in the world outweighed my commitment to a faith, which, no matter how much real good it does in the world, does more harm by its failure to recognize the fundamental humanity of its female adherents. This isn’t about freedom of religion; it’s about freedom from religion.”
In other words, “equality”, to Soraya, means being just as sexually perverted and demented as men can be, and that the Catholic Church does not recognize or accept her, or any woman’s prerogative to be a sexual pervert frustrates Soraya – and it is more than just sexual frustration. The “failure to recognize the fundamental humanity of its female adherents” is not at issue. It’s “failure” to be co-opted by the federal government and forced into providing services which will ultimately kill an unborn child already created in the womb is the issue. Soraya, thinking only with her vagina, has abandoned her faith because it dares to have morals when Soraya desires to be immoral. And presumably she will be teaching her children to be immoral as well.
Soraya asks:
“But seriously, how obviously violent do things have to get before we learn the lesson that powerful, all-male environments with perverted notions of sex, sexuality and gender have damaging and corrosive effects on the whole society?”
The more liberal feminists, like Soraya, open up their vaginas, freely, to men, the more men will come to disrespect women, and the more “perverted notion of sex” men will have. Women also. Men who come to expect women will be loose and immoral will naturally act more violent towards them, especially those women who refuse them. Women, like Soraya, are giving men mixed messages about women and women’s sexuality. Either women want men to behave as perverts towards them, or with respect and dignity.
If Soraya wants men to treat women with dignity, that will only happen when more women begin to respect themselves and their bodies as equally as they demand men do. Which means, keep your clothes on, your legs closed and don’t worry about the Catholic Church or government refusing to acquiesce to your sexual delights by accommodating you with free contraception and birth control – you won’t be using it anyway. But if you, as a woman, still choose to engage in behavior that is unbecoming of a woman, which does lead to “perverted notions of sex” nobody, not the government, the Catholic Church, nor right-wing conservatives are going to tell you what to do with your body and your vagina. But the aftermath, the consequences, should there be any – if you, as a woman, expect and demand equality, stop running to “the man” to provide you with something to make the problem go away. Woman up!
Soraya sums it up for herself this way:
“For me, it’s simple. Why on earth would I continue to pay any attention to men — and they are all men, even when they have conservative lay women fighting their battles — who expect me to not only believe wrong, perverted, ideas about me, my gender and sexuality, but also ask me to transmit that information to my children? To stick with the pre-modern theme at hand, I’d sooner flay myself.
If the Catholic Church is wrong in its belief, that means killing an unborn child is moral, and making the Catholic Church and the American taxpayers pay for that killing is also moral. And since that is irrational on so many levels, we must conclude it is Soraya who is the pervert. And Soraya is both sexually perverted and morally perverted, as are all liberal feminists who only think with their vaginas.
Women who want men to treat them as women, and as equals, ought to think with their brains – that is something both men and women have in common. Men may want to get into a woman’s vagina, but an intelligent woman will know how to subdue his masculine urges. But for those women who open themselves, and their vaginas, up are of course opening themselves, and their vaginas, up to more than they can comprehend or probably deal with.
For Soraya, being “equal” to men means being just as sexually perverted as men and not having to deal with the consequences of a one night stand and sex with multiple partners. For Soraya, being a woman means thinking with her vagina, rather than her brain. For Soraya, it’s birth control rather than self control.
What kind of man with any respect for women would want to be married to a woman who has less respect for herself than he has for her? How would that marriage work out?
Related articles
- Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her A Virgin (neosecularist.com)
- If Women, Like Sandra Fluke, Don’t Want To Be Called Sluts – Don’t Be Sluts (neosecularist.com)
- To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control (neosecularist.com)
- Respect for Women Means Being Abstinent And Pro-Life (neosecularist.com)
- Liberal Feminists Complaining About The “War On Women” Ought To Keep Their Mouths Shut (neosecularist.com)
