Dreams and Swords on tumblr
This, so much.
But Tryndamere is sexualised! I can hear someone somewhere insisting. He has all that bare skin! Ladies like bare-chested men right? That’s totally sexualisation! Stop complaining!
No. I won’t stop because Riot keeps perpetuating the long-standing problem of females as eye-candy first in gaming. Tryndamere isn’t sexualised; he’s a male power fantasy.
Do I enjoy looking at muscular men with no shirts? Yes, I do, but Tryndamere was not designed to be eye-candy for female players of the game. He was designed this way because it denotes both a lack of “civilised” living, as he’s a barbarian king, and his physical power; it’s intended to show off his unreal physique. He is not bare-chested as a sexual focus, though yes, women can enjoy it (and then have someone complain for “sexualising” the champions at all).
Compare, then, Leona. Leona is fully clothed! You can’t complain about bare skin if she doesn’t have any! Look, I adore Leona, but her design is no paragon of non-sexual intent. Leona is wearing something that looks largely ornamental, including some kind of armour bikini top to accentuate her bust and tassets so impractically long they’re a skirt. And of course, she wears high heels as well. None of this jives with her background as a Spartan-expy warrior. Her armour is Solari in origin! Yes. And the Solari aren’t a warrior culture like the Rakkor, so far as has been established (though they are incredibly intolerant of people who refuse to step in line), so we can excuse them for being too dim to think that perhaps they shouldn’t send their champion into battle wearing a metal bra, skirt, high heels, and a body suit. I have trouble thinking that Leona, who grew up among the Rakkor, wouldn’t take one look at that costume and wonder where all the missing pieces went.
Contrast Kayle. She lacks a cuirass to protect her midsection, but other than that and her oversized pauldrons, her full plate armour is largely sensible. It also is not designed to draw attention first to her feminine assets; her design reflects an intent to make her look formidable and imposing first, something important for a millennia-old warrior who goes by the title of the Judicator. Breasts are not moulded into her breastplate; she has no pointlessly bare midsection nor inexplicable high-heeled shoes.
Both of these women are powerful in-fiction, but from an external standpoint, only one of them is designed to convey that power first and foremost. Sejuani’s recent rework has gone a long way to giving her the same points as Kayle: she looks, above all else, intimidating and powerful. The fact that she has breasts is a secondary factor in her design.
The ladies of the League are absolutely plagued by designs that suffer from all the same pitfalls as Leona’s. Katarina: pragmatic, deadly, professional, military. She’s a woman who knows her business, and her business is death. She’s a mêlée combatant; she knows she’ll be in close with opponents. Why, then, from an in-fiction standpoint, does she need a bare midriff and cleavage? Why does Ashe, queen of a frozen tundra kingdom, wear a mini-skirt and leave the core of her chest bare to the sub-zero temperatures? Why can we have a walking tree for a “male” plant-themed champion, but the “female” plant-themed champion is a nearly-nude, very humanoid woman wearing high heels? Nothing in the character concepts explains these anomalies. These designs objectify and commodify the female body. That is the difference between Tryndamere’s bare chest and Fiora’s breast-moulded armour.
I can’t speak for all players, but here’s where I ultimately stand: I like sex in my entertainment. I just want that sex to make sense for the fiction. I enjoy this game very much, but so many of the character designs don’t make sense and in fact annoy me or make me uncomfortable. The fact that the ladies of the League can be – and too frequently are – reduced to crude nicknames like “Foxtits” makes me uncomfortable. This is the background radiation of my gameplay; this is what I’m expected to tolerate or even accept every time I login. As a player of the game and a customer of Riot Games, I have all the right to voice my discontent with the situation as every detractor has the right to tell me I should just uninstall.
Do I want the men of the League to be sexualised as much as the ladies? I think some balance wouldn’t hurt, but frankly, I’d rather the characters all were designed without any intention of reducing them to their body parts. I would rather players and staff admit that “yeah, these designs are pretty much just eye-candy”. I would rather players stop acting as though they’ve a right to the female body. That would go a long way to making me happier with the community.
This isn’t the post for me to go off about how disgusting and harmful the male power fantasy image is for guys. I should do that, though; I need the vent.
When you discuss the wage gap, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Only white women make $0.77 to a man’s dollar.
- Black women make about $0.68 to a man’s dollar.
- Latina women make about $0.58 to a man’s dollar.
Intersectionality matters.
Re-posting because it’s always new to somebody. Truth bombs are full of truth.
(via darkpuck)
- Assistant had worked for James Knight for 10 years
- Claims she wore tight outfits and was irresistible
- Assistant Melissa Nelson said she was happily married with no interest in an affair and only wore scrubs
- Knight’s wife demanded the sacking after finding texts exchanged between her husband and assistant
- Decision was made on the advice of Knight’s pastor
An Iowa dentist acted legally in firing a long-time assistant because he - and his wife - viewed the married mother as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 bosses can sack employees they see as an ‘irresistible attraction,’ even if they have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong.
Appearing on CNN Friday night, assistant Melissa Nelson said the decision was deeply unfair.
‘I don’t think this is fair,’ she said from her Iowa home by phone. ‘I don’t think this is right.’
Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, and not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
But Nelson’s attorney said Iowa’s all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination women see routinely in the workplace.
Nelson insisted she was never interested in Knight romantically, regardless of his own feelings.
‘Absolutely not,’ she said. ‘I’m happily married.’
Since Knight fired her she has worked as a waitress six nights a week.
While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.
Asked if she saw herself as irresistibly attractive, Nelson laughed at the question.
‘I’m just an ordinary girl,’ she said. ‘Just an ordinary mom.’
Also appearing via call-in, her attorney, Paige Fiedler, said it was unlikely they would seek an appeal because of the way the case was filed as only interpreting state law.
‘These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,’ Fielder said. ‘If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.’
Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, ‘that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.’
Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said.
Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.
Knight argued Nelson was fired not because of her gender, but because her continued employment threatened his marriage. A district judge agreed, dismissing the case before trial, and the high court upheld that ruling.
Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman.
He said the decision was in line with state and federal court rulings that found workers can be fired for relationships that cause jealousy and tension within a business owner’s family. One such case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner’s firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.
Mansfield said allowing Nelson’s lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.
Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said the court got it right. The decision clarified that bosses can make decisions showing favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor his wife’s wishes to fire Nelson, he said.
Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.
‘While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman,’ he said. ‘The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.
‘I don’t view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law.’
So a man finds himself attracted to a woman who shows no interest in him. He makes lewd jokes about her, acts inappropriately towards her. His wife finds out and he gets in trouble with her. Their solution—at the urging of their PASTOR— is to fire the woman in question.
And this is apparently ok.
I can’t even like… fathom how this makes any sense.
And once again a woman is being held responsible for the actions and feelings of a man. This man is taking 0% responsibility for his actions and insists the only way to save his freaking marriage is to fire this woman who isn’t interested in him anyway.
And the STATE SUPREME COURT AGREES.
Sexism, everybody.
fuck everything.
Yeah, I feel as if this firing was more Knight being upset at being both snubbed AND caught, so he felt the need to flex power in some form or another.
What a douche.
(via darkpuck)
final for my 2D foundation class.
i wanted to approach the issue of society vilifying women for their sexual decisions.
things may or may not change before i print them on sunday, idk.this. is brilliant, i mean on a completely different level of brilliant. The idea is so blunt but so positive to what woman should think and i really really like this.
(via descomic)
what you fail to realize is that video games shouldn’t cater to females in the first place. It’s largely known that it’s targeted towards the MALE demographic and has been for so many years, so why would they ask for something like that to be handed to them on a goddamn silver platter?
that’s like a guy walking into the women’s department of clothing at a sears and demanding that there be more clothing for men there. Separation of sections be damned.
that’s not how it fucking works
no not really
the game industry is more like walking into a regular department store and seeing that all the clothes are only men’s clothes
and when you ask the cashier where the women’s clothing section is, they wheel out a small rack of cheaply made tutus, g-strings, and high heels all in bright pink
and then when you go “wow really that’s it” you get called an uppity bitch and everybody assumes you want all the focus on you when in reality you’d just like to be considered a worthwhile demographic since you also like to wear clothes, it’s not like you want some ridiculous getup, you just want a solid shirt and pair of pants that fits you alright.
I mean hell you even sort of like men’s clothes and you have no problem wearing them. They suit you well. But it’s very obvious once you throw on a pair of men’s pants that they were not made for you.
^^^
Perfect metaphor is perfect.
T H A N K Y O U
(via slackeremeritus)
Emily Maguire in ‘Like a Virgin’ for The Monthly (via monocled—misanthrope)
basically, young (cis) boys are taught to be predators. young (cis) girls are taught to be prey.
(via deliciouskaek)
Yep, and cis girls who speak of their own pleasure as a priority are immediately demonized for the temerity of seeing their bodies as their own. Meanwhile cis boys are supposed to seek pleasure at every opportunity.
(via karnythia)
(via invisiblemoose)
And by that I mean the whole stupid, foolhardy concept. I’ve said before that if you really believe there’s a horde of attractive women faking interest in nerdy things just to get your attention, you have a massive case of unwarranted self-importance, and I still believe that. I also believe you’re incredible insecure, and threatened by some ‘enemy’ who is no such thing.
The world of comic books, sci-fi, videogames, all these things, is no longer a boy’s club with a “NO GIRLS ALLOWED” banner hanging on the door, and it never should have been (indeed, I suspect it never really WAS but for this very idea - girls aren’t REAL nerds, especially attractive ones! And then the internet came up and holy shit look, women came out in droves to discuss their interest in these things, going back to the 1980s and earlier like the rest of us). If you insist somehow that it should be, that you should act as some kind of gatekeeper - he is a real nerd, she is not - then quite frankly you are just one of the saddest specimens we have to offer. Many of us grew up being picked on for having a non-mainstream interest, and now that this interest is spreading you attack and snarl and demean and exclude instead of actually being happy that you have new people to share these wonderful interests with.
You complain about games being rehashes, comic book reboots that are just retreads, but actively keep out the new blood and perspectives that could actually offer something you haven’t seen or considered before.
You demean women who cosplay as attention seekers in skimpy outfits, ignoring that they didn’t create those outfits, WE did.
Who cares if someone’s exposure and love for The Avengers came from the movie, and not the comics first?
Who cares if someone plays Angry Birds more than Dark Souls? What, you never fucking played Tetris? Don’t give me that non-game crap.
Oh no, she watches Thor because he’s tall blonde and built like a brick shithouse and isn’t afraid to comment that the guy’s a stud and so’s his brother? Yeah, because you read Tarot: Witch of the Rose for the riveting storytelling and characterization, right?
Oh no, someone’s writing fanfic about Tony Stark and Steve Rogers buttfucking! What a demeaning thing to do to the characters, you say as browsing the pictures I’ve been hired to draw of the women of X-Men having a lesbian orgy.
At the core of it all, for some insane reason, you are so threatened by the presence of women in your interests that you insult, you cajole, you harrass, and you embarrass the rest of us who are just happy to share. You slam women who are attractive and cosplay as NOT REAL NERDS, THEY’RE PREYING ON US POOR WIDDLE MENZ! And when they’re not as attractive as you’d like, you slam them for not meeting your standards. Or you slam them for daring not to give you the time of day when you grope and harass and hit on them. And if you look like me while doing it, that’s even more hilariously hypocritical and out of touch with reality. She’s not there for YOU, bro.
She’s not there for you.
She’s not there for you.
Let that sink in, guys.
She’s not there for you.
She’s not dressing up for you.
She’s not interested in comics for you.
She’s not playing games for you.
She’s. Not. There. For. You.
You are not the center of the universe, you never were and you never SHOULD be. It’s time to share your toys, guys. It’s time to be more mature. It’s time to drop the entitled attitude that insists our standards and our standards alone should be met. You do not hold the keys to the kingdom, for the kingdom has no lock.
My friend Kat - a geek with a cool job making awesome videogames like NFS The Run and mad cosplay skills - said something on Twitter earlier that summed the whole Fake Geek Girl BS up perfectly;
“That’s just it- “fake geek girls” DO NOT EXIST. There are only WOMEN WITH VARYING LEVELS OF INTEREST IN DIFFERENT HOBBIES.”
Many of the women cosplaying at these conventions probably know more about the current state of comics than I do, but I’ll never be asked to prove my nerd cred if I roll up in a Superman tee - and I haven’t bought an issue since the New 52 launched.
Fucking afford them the same courtesy. Don’t be a douchebag.
(via owldee)
Wow, I’m never buying anything Tony Harris does again. Disgusting.
(Ex Machina, Starman artist: his wikipedia page. Click the image to be taken to the Facebook thread where he posted this.)
Since somebody sent this to me, because it fits some of the themes this blog has touched on in the past, here are my thoughts:
1) I like how he thinks he’s stumbled upon our secret plan, and also that this is some sort of amazing new idea. I’ve heard this accusation from my geek guy friends going back a decade. The “you’re just there to get attention because you want to be the big fish in a small pond” accusation to femalef geeks they find attractive, is not new.
2) I like how he’s a mind reader. Maybe it’s true of some girls, maybe it’s not, how do you know by looking at them? The only thing you know is how YOU’RE attracted to us, and therefore it must be our plan.
3) Yay body shaming! Your boobs are ugly! I bet you’re just here because you think you’re thin!
4) Insulting “real” geek girls by implying that he thinks they’re ugly and fat.
5) This still doesn’t make sense. So any woman he thinks is semi-attractive, but not model hot, is a fake geek girl SIMPLY because there’s no other reason she’d be there? He can tell just because she falls into some definition of attractiveness for him that’s in the middle?
6) Maybe they’re in skimpy costumes because a lot of heroines in video games and comics are in skimpy costumes? Even the ones who aren’t are in skin tight costumes. If they were in non-accurate costumes, they’d probably be accused of being not real geeks because the costumes weren’t accurate.
7) More mind reading. IT PISSES ME OFF THAT I AM SO SURE THAT THIS TERRIBLE THING IS THE THOUGHT PROCESS GOING THROUGH THEIR MIND AND THAT THEY SECRETLY WANT TO JUST FEEL LIKE A CHEERLEADER AROUND A BUNCH OF MALE GEEKS WHO HAVE NEVER TALKED TO A WOMAN BEFORE. I KNOW IT. Again, even if this were true of some people (women, *gasp* are not a homogenous group), he seems to “know” this only because he thinks the woman is semi-attractive to him. And also, you can’t disprove his theory, since he’s already said if we talk to guys at cons, we’re just lying liars who lie, and would never do it outside, so that’s not even proof we’re just there to have fun. I guess the only proof is he’d have to follow us home and make sure we’re sleeping with a guy he considers geeky enough to count to our cred?
8) Male geeks are apparently all the same, and they are completely pathetic lonely guys who need protection from evil geek girls who wear costumes. Do male geeks actually like white knights like this guy “standing up” for them? -_-
9) Who cares even if people are in cons just to get attention? People go to baseball games just to get attention and get on TV. Are cons some sort of “pure” place now where people’s money to attend is only accepted if the purity of our soul is weighed against a roc feather to see if we’re true geeks?
10) Why does it matter how “geeky” one is anyway? I thought these things were supposed to be fun. Miss Martian is my favourite character and I cosplay her, but I have never seen the TV show. I’ve read a few of the comics when she debuted. Should I turn in my geek card? I’ve been accused of being a “fake geek” SIMPLY for being Asian, because “Asian girls know white men want them”. Should I strip off my skin now?
11) What’s wrong with wanting to feel attractive anyway? Is he saying some women aren’t ALLOWED to feel attractive? Only women who look like models are allowed? This reminds me of a guy I knew in high school who literally said that any woman with stomach pudge shouldn’t be allowed to wear tight clothes. Like government banned, because he felt that “fat” girls shouldn’t be allowed to feel sexy.
Nitpicking aside, I think the big issue here is how guys like Harris seem to think women exist entirely for men, and our entire world and thought process is all about them. If I walk into a comic book store wearing clothes that they think make me attractive, I must be there to seduce them. My hair must be done to attract them. My glasses are probably a front to make me more of a sexy geek girl. I’m Asian so I must be thinking “I’m a sexy exotic Asian girl lalalalala look at me boys!” constantly, and I can’t just be thinking “I wonder if they have All Hail Megatron in yet?” If THEY like me, then everything I do has to be meant for them, and my thought process is all tailored to them. Because THEY want me, and THEY don’t feel they can “have” me, this is my fault. I’m a temptress, I’m a Jezebel.
It’s very similar to other attitudes in which society views certain groups of people and their bodies. Fat people are accused of flaunting their fatness to disgust others. Gay couples are accused of “shoving” their sexuality in people’s faces simply for holding hands. Trans people are accused of trying to “trap” cis people who are attracted to them. (We can add this to the above scenario, where if a guy in a comic shop is attracted to me and finds out I’m trans, it’s my fault if he freaks out.) How OTHER people react to our bodies is not something they are told to take responsibility for, instead we get told it’s OUR fault. If a man assaults a woman, it’s her fault for what she wears. If a guy at a con is bitter that he’s attracted to a girl who he’s afraid to talk to, it’s HER fault. She MUST have known this, and MUST be trying to make him miserable. If she talks to him she’s leading him on, if she ignores him, she’s being cruel to him.
Ultimately, I think this is really insulting to everybody. Geek girls are all fakers who just want to be the sexy fish in the small pond, and we have active evil thoughts in our brain, and geek guys are all agency-less children who can’t have an attractive woman near them without having a brain aneurysm, and need Harris to protect them. How about, people go to cons to have fun. Some people go to get attention (including the guys), and good for them. What’s wrong with that? It’s a place where people can feel free to dress up in ways they normally could not. Who cares their motivation? If them being attractive to you bothers you, then stop looking at them. Go do something else. Talk to somebody else. Go have fun, and let us have fun. :)
An excellent response to this BS.
Also: why is it that guys are never labeled ‘fake geeks’? A non-comic-fan guy sees the Captain America movie and dresses up as Cap? Awesome! A girl sees “The Avengers” and dresses up as Black Widow? Oh, she’s a fake, because she’s never read a comic in her life.
Look at all this truth.
(via owldee)
INB4 MRAs: Yes, the study accounts for undergrad major, grades, profession, number of hours worked, etc. And ‘choices’ like wanting to have a family don’t explain the gap because the researchers looked at women and men who were fresh out of college.
Women earn less than men at comparable jobs with comparable effort due to sexism. The wage gap starts early for women and follows them for the rest of their lives.
(via darkpuck)
Why Mandatory ‘Rape Babies’ Are the GOP’s New Normal | Alternet
I wish that this would be talked about more—because people cast aside the idea that a huge amount of people could be getting abortions because of rape—but in all reality, with most rape, the rapist is well known which stands to reason that the majority of people getting abortions because of rape are dealing with incest (or spousal violence).
if we admit that incest is a huge fucking problem, then we’d have to admit that rape is a huge fucking problem. and it makes me mad that not only is the abortion “debate” so heavily influenced by the far right rhetoric—but that discussions on rape are ALSO being subtly influenced by them as well, whether it’s shutting down any discussion at all on rape (i.e. the “method of conception doesn’t matter” tactic) or the casting aside of the idea that incest matters is any part of the discussion at all….
this is not a “debate” between the “good” rape victim and the bad one—this is a covering up of the reality of rape especially as connected to the “family” unit and the ‘solution” to the problems of the world as presented by the christian far right…
(via illegalmmm)
(via darkpuck)
fucknosexisthalloweencostumes:
Rebloggable by request.
Finally, someone who fucking gets it.
THIS
THIS IS THE PROBLEM
complaining about and ridiculing sexy costumes is not because we think it’s stupid for women to dress up in sexy costumes
it’s because the fact that there are ONLY sexy costumes for us is RIDICULOUS, especially when the male equivalent is totally normal and ours is a quarter of the size and paired with a garterbelt
thank
Case in point: I had to get a costume from a fandom I’m not even in to get a “non-sexy” option.
Chipped nails betray nerves while bright red lipstick gives impression candidate is power-crazed
“Too little make-up also raised employers’ concerns.
A shortage of mascara suggested the woman could be an emotional wreck who wastes no time in putting on what will inevitably be cried off within hours.
A trace of lipstick on a woman’s teeth could imply carelessness, while a strong line of foundation hinted at a lack of attention to detail.
A drawn-on fake beauty spot could cause an interviewer to doubt the honesty of the candidate.
Even a woman appearing in immaculate make-up could ring alarm bells - telling the interviewer to watch out for their own job.”
The interview beauty blunders that could cost you your JOBSee also:
My Boss Told Me My Hair And Makeup Were Holding Me BackSo basically, the only way to win this game is to not play, because no matter how you do your makeup, it could reflect poorly on you.
And people wonder why I get so angry every time someone tells me I should put a bunch of cosmetic crap on my face for job-hunting/interviewing/what-have-you. “You’ll look more polished.” Someone tell me why the fuck I have to put all this shit on my face to look “polished” when all a guy needs to do is shave and comb his hair neatly.
(via descomic)
(via sentientcitizen)
Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a “method of conception.”
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape —RAPE! — is now a “method of conception.” You know, like love-making, just without the love.
There could be no greater testament to the utter abdication of responsibility by what passes for a “news” media in America in 2012 than that, despite the grotesquerie of this cavalierly callous comment, chances are better than good that this is the first you’re hearing of it.
Here, watch it — and try to figure out why this has gotten NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA play (not even here at the Huffington Post) despite it being, to my mind, a far more offensive remark than Todd Akin’s imbecilic blurt of last weekend. What, are we tired of stupid remarks about rape now, so Ryan gets a free pass?
Given the demands for Akin’s resignation from a mere Senate race when his musings on “legitimate rape” were publicized, what do you imagine the reaction would be if people were as familiar with VP wannabe Ryan’s stunning statement? Might there be a cacophony of outrage? Might there be calls for his resignation from the ticket? Might there be a focus on how fundamentally oblivious these people who would make our laws are to not just women’s but humans’ rights and dignity? Sure, there might, but then of course people would have to have heard about it.
According to the man who would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the White House, and who in any event would — given Romney’s utter hollowness — have an inordinate influence on the judicial appointments that will determine how much freedom our children get to live under, RAPE = “METHOD OF CONCEPTION.” And yet, unless you’re a frequenter of one of a dozen or so lefty blogs — or my friend on Facebook — you probably knew nothing about it.
I truly despair for the country my 14-year-old daughter is inheriting. That a remark this intensely revealing of the danger posed by this ticket can go basically unreported is as nauseating to me as the quote itself.
(via darkpuck)
