One the brighter side, approx. 1500 poor women per year will be able to be referred by Planned Parenthood to breast cancer screaming service providers.

For those Americans who understand that abortion is the murder of the most helpless and only guaranteed innocents in the world – and who are actually against it even if childbearing inconveniences some females, Komen’s rapid capitulation to the abortionists in painful and maddening. There are, however, other points to consider in this matter.

Do Not Act As They Do

Komen For The Cure’s mission is stated as the eradication of breast cancer, not the ending of on-demand abortions in America.  The two things are not related beyond the simple fact that both are “women’s issues.” It just doesn’t make sense for Komen not to reverse their decision in the wake of the Feminists’ shrill and strident objections because not doing so could jeopardize the success of their mission.

Anger should be directed at those Feminists who placed on-demand abortion above women’s health, not at Komen.  Remember always that it was exactly these Feminists who called for Komen’s destruction for not supporting abortion. Americans should not sink to their antisocial level and similarly put the fight against breast cancer in jeopardy.

Market Forces In Action

Utterly irrespective of whether we, as Americans, like Komen’s giving in to the abortionists, this was a direct case of free market forces in full operation. It was empirical proof that, in the absence of governmental intervention and meddling, people can directly impact and change the course of business. Certainly, we don’t have to like this specific occurrence but we must respect it for what it was.

Enough of Komen’s consumers were against the new funding policy to potentially negatively impact Komen’s revenues enough to make a difference. Komen responded as is required by the free market and, unless we’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have to understand and accept that.

~*~

Many of us donated to Komen For The Cure when they donated approximately 0.17% of their annual outlays to Planned Parenthood, which funded only 4% the breast cancer screenings Planned Parenthood provided, and I can’t see the point in turning away from them just because they tried to change that and failed due to market pressures.

Our domestic enemies might be comfortable behaving that way, but we should be better and more intelligent than that.

The Feminists or, at least those who publicly define the movement, will willingly throw any other plank of their platform on trash heap along with scalded and dismembered corpses of their murdered unborn children in order to further their ability to kill those unborn children at any time for any or no reason at all.

If you want a synopsis of the Feminists’ instantaneous hysteria and vitriol, it can be found here. Alternately, you can go to the cited WaPo article, Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood, and grind your way through the earlier comments (Sort Oldest to Newest).

NOTE: Some of the later negative comments were more rational and thoughtful, touching on other aspects of how Komen For The Cure conducts business. None of my rage is focused on them.

Those earlier comments and the general knee-jerk reaction across all the Feminist websites definitely show that these sorts don’t care about women’s health, only their continued privilege to terminate their pregnancies at will.

Some very basic – and grim – statistics follow. Based upon them you tell me if these Feminists who were so quick to rant at- and call for the destruction of Komen For The Cure are at all interested in women’s health.

Pregnancy & Abortion

22% of American pregnancies end in induced abortions. Only 3% – 12% of those were reported by the women having them to have been due to concerns about their health and we have no statistics on the sources or severity of their concerns. Even this low percentage seems inflated since the US has only an approximate 0.024% maternal mortality rate.

Breast Cancer

12.5% of women in America will be diagnosed with one form or another of invasive breast cancer during their lives. Another 3% will be diagnosed with one form or another of in situ breast cancer. 17% of these women will die from the disease within 5 years.

~*~

It seems to me that, if one really cares about women’s health, one doesn’t immediately call for the end of America’s largest and most successful breast cancer awareness organization just because they’ve shown insufficient ideological purity by moving away from the very politically and socially controversial Planned Parenthood.

To be fair though, I’m both very pro- breast cancer awareness and research and staunchly anti-abortion and am, thus far less likely than these Feminists to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But About Komen…

As I noted near the beginning of this post, while there’s no excuse for the early rants against Komen, some valid questions were raised later, both about Komen’s business model and continuing usefulness.

There’s a huge intellectual and ethical difference between instantly seeking the destruction of an organization over their not adhering to ideology only tangentially – at best – related to their mission and having that ideological divergence be the last straw on a pile of disappointments.

Changes in affiliation and funding aside, is Komen For The Cure a good charity? Some data follows:

Charity Watchdog Ratings

• Charity Navigator gives Komen it’s highest ranking, 4 stars, and gives them an overall numeric score of 66.20 (higher than Planned Parenthood’s 61.03 score)
• Charity Watch lists Komen in their Top-Rated Charities and gives them a B+ rating (same as given Planned Parenthood)
• Give Well doesn’t have a rating for Komen but one of reviewers expressed disappointment with Komen (and the American Cancer Society)  because they spent more on education, awareness and treatment provisioning programs than on medical research, but she implied that this was because public education and provision of existing treatments in the “Developed World” don’t translate well into global improvements, which seems to be Give Well’s focus.

Those seem like pretty strong ratings from the groups devoted to monitoring the behavior and efficiency of charities.

Komen’s Financials

• Total 2011 FY Revenues: $439,451,449.00
• Total 2011 FY Expenditures: $408,977,824.00
• Expenditures – Research: $75,301,537.00 (19%)
• Expenditures – Education: $181,092,283.00 (44%)
• Expenditures – Health Screening: $54,089,036.00 (13%)
• Expenditures – Treatment Services: $23,251,563.00 (6%)
• Expenditures – Operating Costs: $75,243,405.00 (18%)

Data is derived from Komen’s 2010 – 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements prepared by independent auditors (Ernst & Young)

Both Komen’s research and education expenditures are larger than their operating costs and their operating costs, at 18% of total expenditures, are far below the national average of 24%.

Komen also spent over $54 million on breast cancer screening services, of which only the $700 thousand they had previously given to Planned Parenthood has been reassigned.

It is, however, obvious that Komen’s focus is on education and awareness programs, not screening or treatment programs since their education expenditures are more than double the combined screening and treatment expenditures, and are more than research, screening, and treatment expenditures combined.

Some Achievements Komen Has Been Part Of

• Almost 75% of women over 40 years old now receive regular mammograms as compared to less than 30% in 1982.
• the five-year survival rate for breast cancer, when caught before it spreads beyond the breast (60% of diagnosed cases), is now 98%, compared to 74% in 1982
• US Federal government expenditures for breast cancer research, treatment, and prevention now exceed $900 million per year, compared to $30 million in 1982.
• At 2.5 million, breast cancer survivors are now the largest the largest group of cancer survivors in the US.

Those are some substantial achievements. True, Komen was only a part of them but I believe that it can’t be truthfully said that Komen and their pink ribbon weren’t the leaders in these efforts.

~*~

Looking at the data it seems that Komen For The Cure is a lean, highly focused charity that has to-date done a great deal of good and who will do what is necessary to ensure that they can keep doing so. If that means shuffling some small amount of their grants away from a controversial entity that could bring political pressure down upon them by association, they’ll do it in order not to jeopardize their mission.

There is the question though of whether or not Komen’s mission is still worth pursuing in the manner that they’ve chosen to do so. Their focus is on awareness and is there a continued need for such efforts and monies to be spent on such awareness?

“Pink Ribbon Fatigue” is real. Some, such as medical sociologist Gayle A. Sulik, Ph.D even go so far as to claim that the “Pink Ribbon Culture” has reached the point where it has built a “breast cancer industry” which many pharmaceutical companies are profiteering from.

And they have a point. America is very much aware of breast cancer, so continued extensive efforts in that area might be – and could definitely be seen as – more self-serving or inertia-based than truly useful.  It’s also quite true that the sentimentalism of Komen’s “Pink Ribbon Culture” keeps breast cancer at the forefront of what I choose to describe as the “cancer maintenance industry” instead of refocusing medical science on the less profitable curing of the disease.

Personally, I’d like to see them shift some of their money away from education and awareness programs and into more research and/or treatment and screening programs. It’s not, however, enough of an issue to me that they’re not doing so would cause me to stop donating to them, just as whether or not they work with Planned Parenthood never affected my donations to them.

Sadly, the rabid, infanticidal harpies who’ve managed to become the public and political face of the Feminists have dramatically differing priorities.

Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world.

– Kenelm Henry Digby
The Broad Stone Of Honour

And chivalry’s greatest lasting boon was always it’s idea of gallantry and courtliness, not it’s mandates for courage and martial ability. That a man be better measured by his comportment with women than his zest for battle is why the concept of chivalry lasted well into the 20th century.

Chivalry Didn’t Die; It Was Murdered

The rise and inevitable corruption of Feminism killed off chivalry – or, at the very least, beat it into a coma from which it is not expected to awaken. The 2^nd Wave Feminists viewed all examples of courtly behavior and gentlemanliness as examples of “The Patriarchy” and oppression.

There are, however, some few women who appreciate chivalry and who, by that appreciation, deserve to always be shown such. It is just a matter of finding them in latter cultural dark ages.

As for the others, these self-disgendered “womyn” – grant them their oft-spouted wish and let them look to themselves for succor, treating them no differently than any man who might take the field.

With the changing face of the American workforce and the breakdown of strict gender roles in employment isn’t it about time for a new paradigm in smut and porn? Isn’t it about time, if not past time, for their to be more eroticism centered on blue collar or working women since we’ve now plenty of them?

Why keep strictly to the old stereotypes and the old imagery when they no longer hold as even remotely close to universally valid or relevant?

Why not sexy women as blue collar workers? The old porn standbys of the plumber, construction worker, repairman, and mechanic can work with women in those roles as well as men, and without much thought needed to modify tableau.

They’re Seriously Working It

Since a recent poll I conducted showed mixed but overall positive responses to truly muscular women – without indicating a bias towards dominatrices – it’s not as if there’s no sexual market for stronger women.

Nobody in the right mind would call me a Feminist – not with what that movement degenerated into – but it does not seem to be a good thing for the porn industry, already not a bastion of societal benefit, to continue to promulgate a set of gender roles that are no longer applicable to society. Doing so only reinforces the idea that women can’t be sexually attractive if they work blue collar jobs previously relegated solely to men.

It’s for a new paradigm to be added to the mix. Prurience is adaptable; the market will bear – and bare – the addition.

By her own pride-filled admission she’s not even limiting this, as many do, to cases of rape or endangerment to life of the mother.

No; this infanticidal monster is talking about abortion on demand for the sake of women’s convenience being a good thing, a moral choice!

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

The one in three women in America who decide that abortion is right for them deserve to be recognized as people, as full moral agents, and not to be treated like children to need to be taught right from wrong. Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.

Until abortion is recognized as having value in and of itself, we’re going to continue to battle the Mike Pences, Chris Smiths, and Scott Roeders of the world.

– Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup

There is one portion of this creature’s drivel that can actually agree with, that the women seeking abortions should not be treated like children who need to be taught Right from Wrong. They are, in fact, full moral agents, are fully culpable for their choices and actions, should be recognized as such by Americans, and deserve to reap the full consequences of those choices and actions.

Gina D’Andrea Weatherup Thinks This Is a Good, Moral Choice

I firmly believe and advocate that, while creatures like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup are allowed to walk free among people of America and promulgate this infanticidal ideology that killing unborn babies is a good thing, our nation needs more people like Mike Pence, Chris Smith, and Scott Roeder. It especially needs more heroic martyrs such as Mr. Roeder who sacrificed himself in order save countless babies from Late-Term Abortion aka Partial-Birth Abortion.

Don’t get me wrong; I have some pity for the girls and women who have either chosen or been coerced by Planned Parenthood’s “Counselors” into choosing to abort their children as a horrible, but still lesser, evil. I don’t even have a strong hatred for Planned Parenthood as a whole; the bulk of their services being necessary gynecological care for poor women.

Things like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup, however, do not deserve pity, compassion, or mercy from anyone and should not be considered just as valid targets, but as primary targets in Americans’ battle for the unborn.

~*~

I can’t help wonder if, while in their nice, shady backyard watching their cute little daughter play, Gina and her husband, Chris – I’m assuming that they’re married since she appended his surname to her own – discuss when to have that talk with her. You know, the one about “the birds and the bees, and the D & C’s.”

I also wonder if they’ve preformulated an answer in case their daughter ever asks, “How many of my brothers or sisters did you kill, mommy?”

~*~

But she is, in a twisted sort of way, right. Abortion has value. Gina and Chris’ house looks like it probably cost around 500K and abortion and her depraved manner of advocating for it helped pay for it.

Of course sometimes they’re nice but useless, a jaded European populous being uncaring of the message the women are trying to present along with their bodies.

Other times, however, the topless street protests seem completely misguided because what the young women are protesting would seem to actually be served by the women’s naked antics rather than opposed by them. The Ukrainian street protest group, FEMEN falls, in my opinion, into this latter category.

FEMEN states that some of their goals are: “To develop leadership, intellectual and moral qualities of the young women in Ukraine” and “To build up the image of Ukraine, the country with great opportunities for women”

It may just be my American prudery, but I don’t see how what they’re doing develops these young women’s intellectual and moral qualities. I’ll easily grant that they’re building up the image of Ukraine, but I don’t think they’re building it up the manner that they wish to…

As beautiful and attention grabbing as FEMEN’s street protests are, when an organization is protesting against against sex tourists, international marriage agencies, sexism, and other real or perceived social ills, perhaps topless young women carrying our various provocative actions aren’t exactly the best means by which to protest.

Frankly, it seems to me that FEMEN is the best advertising for sex tourism and international marriage agencies that Ukraine could come up with.

The thing is, once you get past their mindless cants, they have an valid point when it comes to lesson taught by these characters and the sorts of role models that they are.

There’s actually little that is good to be said for the “Princesses.”

They all, even the more modern iterations, tend towards the insipid; have few talents and little to offer beyond their beauty and – presumably – virginal sexuality; and always end up needing a “Prince” to save them and/or bring them fulfillment.

Frankly, the “Damsel in Distress” is a piss-poor role model even for an anti-Feminist woman and her daughters. Such a character brings little or nothing of her own – we’ll ignore the wealth or power her lineage might bring a would-be suitor or husband – to any lasting relationship she might enter into.

Shocked that I agree with the Feminists? You shouldn’t be; I’m a life-long supporter of the core components of their original movement before it was first hijacked misandrous radicals.

Fortunately for us all, the story artist and character designer, Jeffrey Thomas has kindly chosen to add some “twisted” reconstructions of Disney’s Princesses to his portfolio:

Perhaps Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger should look at Mr. Thomas’ artwork and talk to his producers; they might just come up with more interesting and acceptable female protagonists.

Yes, I know; some, perhaps many, of what passes as Feminists today would still find grievous fault with- and complain about the depictions of the Disney Princesses above.

Those sorts would nigh on instantly decide that the characters were too “sexualized” and too dark, therefor equating strong women with evil and/or insanity and just proving, having been drawn by a man, that their delusion of the Patriarchy was existent and unadulteratedly evil.

Like all right-thinking members of society, including tens or hundreds of millions of women who refuse to identify as “Feminists” because of these harridans, I choose to ignore them since they’ve done absolutely nothing to earn the privilege of anyone entertaining their opinions.

It would certainly be nice if Disney could come up with some female protagonists that were actually good role models for girls who will grow up in a world far different from what existed when Snow White first went to the theaters. I’m not going to hold my breath though.

Hie Yourself Back To Yon Kitchen, Wench

Forget the race-baiting by Liberal proponents by illegal immigration; it’s not the immigrant population, illegal or otherwise, that will bear the brunt of these “corrective” measures. It will be American women.

Women comprise 46.8% of the total US labor force – 13.46% above the global average of 40.5%. Therefor, if they can convince or coerce 19.23% of those women to leave the workforce America’s official unemployment numbers would be 0%, though a more realistic goal of getting 12.8% of the currently working women out of the workforce would net America an approximate 3% unemployment which is considered far healthier than 0% and would be easier to achieve.

Even just culling enough female workers to bring America down to the current global average would drop our nation’s unemployment figures down to around 6 – 7%, which is not too far above the the US average (5.65%) since 1948.

What makes this prediction most likely and most dire is that it can be actualized without the conscious effort or machinations of any individual or group. It only requires that people do not actively work against various economic and societal pressures that will achieve this resulting reduction of women in the workforce.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that I think this is a good thing.  I may not have the knee-jerk antipathetic reaction of the Feminists but that doesn’t mean I like what see coming.

Yes; I can see some net benefits, both economic and societal, from moving back to more traditional gender roles but the long-terms costs, again both economic and societal, are likely too high for my comfort given our historical track record for getting such things wrong – in the worst fashion  possible.

This is, if my prediction is correct, going to be brought about “organically” and due to a number of unrelated pressures and goals.

Religion & Family Values

One of the stronger, or at least more noticeable, forces that is going to be luring women out of the workplace is religion, specifically fundamental and quasi-fundamental Protestant Christianity. Those varieties of Christianity – like it or not, the de facto faith and sets of sects within America - is steeped in assigned gender roles that place women squarely in the home, as opposed to the workplace.

As the times grow tougher and people find less solace in their material situation people almost inevitably turn to or, as is more often the case, return to spirituality for that solace. That’s going to lend a greater audience to the preachers who tout the not inconsiderable but also not without cost benefits of what are called Traditional Family Values.  Some portion of the women in that greater audience will choose to become homemakers.

Educational Decline & Home Schooling

America’s public school system is in shambles and both the depressed economy and deficit rectifying measures are likely to only make that trend accelerate downward. This is, perforce, going to make home schooling more attractive to a larger number of families. What is now largely the bailiwick of affluent urban elites and the Religious Right may well see larger acceptance among the population at large.

By and large, if history is any indicator, it will be women who end up choosing to stay home to educate their children. This will pull women out of the workforce, though I believe that it will have more effect upon women returning or seeking to return to the workplace as opposed to explicitly pulling currently employed women out of it.

Dismantlement of Daycare

Increasingly heavy, complex, and arguably onerous regulations – ironically coming from the “Nanny State” contingent – on diet, licensing, children per daycare worker, etc.. are poised to cause many daycare centers and professional babysitters to either go out of business or raising their prices past the point where many families can afford their services.

The effects of this will be compounded geometrically if the States, due to ongoing massive budget shortfalls, have to curtail or eliminate their various respective child care subsidies for lower income families.

This will, if the phenomenon trends upwards, have the dual effects of removing those predominately female daycare workers from the employment rolls and causing many mothers to either choose to or have to leave the workplace in order to care for their children.

Increased Work Demands

When unemployment is high, especially if it has stayed high for any length of time, employers tend to demand more from- and are less accommodating to their workers. This is due to the natural human trait of greed and the necessities of keeping the company afloat in harsh and hazardous times.

Women tend to be negatively impacted by these increased work demands more than their male counterparts, which will end up driving a certain percentage of them out of the workforce, either through termination or through “voluntary” attrition.

~*~

A Perfect Low Pressure Zone

This won’t be a “perfect storm” of events that pulls women out of workforce. It will be, in my opinion, more like a widespread low pressure zone with a number of unrelated or only slightly related “storms” within it.

It’s not a single cause, binary toggle. It’s not just going to be Christian mothers dealing with unavailable or more expensive daycare, poor and/or dangerous public schools, and jobs that keep demanding more and making fewer allowances for their familial needs who are going to be affected if the current economic situation continues unabated. Other women, perhaps a majority of them, are going to be hit by one or more of these forces and trends.

If one in five opts out or is forced of the workforce, there’s the reduction needed to reach 0% unemployment. If only one in eight opts out or is forced of the workforce, America would enjoy a slightly over 3% unemployment rate.

After reading my opinion of the forces that will come to bear upon working women in America do you really believe that, if the job market and the economy don’t recover, at least one in eight (12.5%) women will leave the workforce or, in the case of young women not enter it in the first place?

As perfectly befits Hooters, their solution was, “delightfully tacky, yet unrefined.” It will also likely work given the agendas involved.

Playing directly into the raison d’être of the Feminists, Hooters has decided to start producing and providing to all children brought into their restaurants very specific cookies!

Hooters’ New Fetus Cookie – Kid Tested and Feminazi Approved

Fetus cookies would promulgate exactly the message that NOW holds as its core function, that the unborn should be killed at whim – as long as that whim belongs to a nominal female. Infanticide / Abortion is the foundation of their whole movement, as the behavior of Feminists during the 2008 elections proved beyond a shadow doubt to any sane American.

This brilliant, if immoral, tactic should get NOW to rethink their position on continuously attacking Hooters. After all, to a Feminist, what’s a few hot babes in skimpy clothing compared to getting children desensitized to the death of the unborn?

A spokesman for Hooters who asked to remain nameless informed said,

We’re not pleased with the idea of these cookies; they’re really sort of sick and creepy. They’ll probably do the trick and get NOW off our backs, at least for now, though.

When we showed the local NOW chapter samples of the cookies they really seemed to love them. I mean really love them. It ended up looking like the “Bake Sale From Hell”

The way those women started drooling and crunching on the fetus cookies was kind of scary, especially when they starting cooing and petting each other while stuffing their faces. Ugh!

We were..ah, how do I say it? We were getting pretty scared and disturbed by the end of it. It sort of looked like something from Shakespeare or one of those old Greek plays.

Obviously, we’ll have to wait and see how this pans out. The Feminists are not monolithic – except often in physical form – and some might not want to back off from their attacks upon Hooters since some might be hetero and be more hurt and scared by the beautiful girls at Hooters then others, while many are lesbians and, hence, less personally concerned with indoctrinating children into accepting infanticide as a woman’s “right” than with just attacking any heterosexual display.

All in all though, these fetus cookies are probably Hooters best shot at placating NOW and getting them to cease and desist their paper terrorism.

Is it just another hysterical fit by the feminazis or a concerted effort to misuse the American legal system in an act of paper terrorism?

NOW and similar cabals of stridently screaming, embittered Feminists have hated Hooters since the company was formed and have periodically tried various methods of harassment in an attempt to close them down. This latest ploy isn’t really that much of a shock.

After all, their “issues” with Hooters and the young women who make a good living working there are quite apparent to any with eyes to see.

Envy And A Lack of Self-Worth Are NOW’s 2nd Greatest Tools
The 1st Being The Hitachi Magic Wand Vibrator

One has to expect that a bunch of females that are unable to get or keep a man – assuming some fraction of NOW’s roster aren’t dykes – would be envious of any women who actually could and hateful towards any company that provided them with exposure.

The Beautiful Babes Of Hooters – Annoying Feminists Since 1983

In any other state but California this would be just another pathetic example of the utter failure of feminists. In California, however, things are handled differently than in America, so NOW’s paper terrorism may well cause problems for Hooters. This is, after all, the region that banned McDonald’s Happy Meals!

How They’re Doing This

What has happened is that, in more litigious areas such as California, Hooters has had to incorporate as an “adult entertainment” venue so that they could avoid having to hire male and/or ugly female servers. Classing the wait staff as “entertainers” allowed them to circumvent multiple lawsuits for employment discrimination – lawsuits that most likely trace their roots back to NOW or some other coterie of Feminists.

• Sexual Discrimination – Yep, some dude wanted to be a Hooters Girls. Was he queer or a shill for the Feministas?
• Weight Discrimination – Yeah, because a fat broad in skimpy, overly tight clothing is such a good way to sell mediocre fried chicken wings

Once the servers as classed as entertainers these malicious and frivolous lawsuits are impossible. Entertainers can be hired based upon just about any criteria that the “producer” wishes, as casting Will Smith as the lead in Wild Wild West clearly shows.

The dykes and harridans of NOW are capitalizing upon this and claiming that, as an “adult entertainment” establishment, it is illegal for Hooters to allow minors into the restaurant at all.

I wonder how long it will be before Michelle Obama starts jabbering on this issue. She’d be wildly out of place at Hooters and hates fried foods being fed to children.

Not that I would recommend taking your children to Hooters for meal. Hellfire! I wouldn’t recommend taking yourself to Hooters for a meal. Their food is mediocre at best and most of it doesn’t even rise to that level.

It’s a transparent gambit that would be laughed at anywhere but the Left Coast but one still worthy of reprisal, especially if things escalate or it looks like they might suborn enough of the California legal system to succeed in whole or in part.