Q: What are those pink two-eared baby hats all about? 24

A: They are on the silly heads of grown women who go out and gather together to complain about something.

Q: To complain about what?

A: They don’t know. Nobody knows.

Katy Grimes writes aptly at Canada Free Press:

What rights do these women not have as Americans? Is there something in the Bill of Rights that prevents them from voting, working, mothering, marrying, or even marching?  …

The good women of America aren’t buying the faux delirium of the pink-hatted hysterics, and I’m one of the good women of America. We are married to gentlemen, and we raised strong sons who are gentlemen. We work, we are employers, we contribute, and we faithfully vote because we are diehard American Patriots. And they are simply entitled haters, whiners, and losers who can’t articulate, in a single sentence, why they are marching.

Which makes this the best picture of the young year 2018, and it will be hard to beat:


(Hat tip to Cogito for the “dinner” picture)

Posted under Feminism by Jillian Becker on Monday, January 22, 2018

Tagged with

This post has 24 comments.

  • Don L

    Nineteen eighty-five is considered to be the tipping-point year: Then-after, increasingly, more than 50% of married women with children had to enter the work force – HAD TO. And, year-after-year-after-year no one ever questions that prices, in general, NEVER DEFLATE (a mis- but populist-use of the word).

    No one ever seems to question why there is any unemployment at all; if nobody’s wants and needs aren’t satisfied … no work? Because it doesn’t happen, people can’t explain how my getting rich denies anybody else money or wealth – wealth IS NOT a fixed ‘pie’ with only so many slices.

    And, I think a big part of this womens’ movement is a diversion to distract from the fact they have to work. Don’t ask why you have to abandon your kids, ask if you can have the same scent in the ladies as in the boutique across the street; as a right!

    Ever notice all leftist germed rights always necessitate someone else to give up time, money, intellectual property, labor … you know, somebody else’s unalienable rights?

    • I have noticed. And I have had those thoughts about such women myself. But they really do fantasize (one cannot say “think”) that it is far superior to be a CEO than to be a mother.

      The “fixed pie” fallacy is hard to eradicate. But how can an even half-sane observer not see that WEALTH IS CREATED? (Rhetorical question.)

    • Jeanne

      Uh…no, Don, I think the biggest part of the “movement” is that these women and men believe that what left-leaning women must have (I suppose the rest of us must have it forced upon us) is total and free access to abortions, birth control, and have equal salary…with affirmative action so that women will be hired and move up the ladder before any man who might be as qualified or more qualified. Maybe some are pissed that they “have” to work at paying jobs rather than be non-paid child-care providers and homemakers, but not most.

      They believe the “unequal pay” fairy tale. They believe the “abortions are not killing human babies” lie. They believe that Conservatives want to keep woman “bare foot and pregnant and in the kitchen.” And…now they blame Trump for everything that they believe is wrong in the US that affects women.

      I don’t care for the “dinner” plane banner. That is playing into the idea that men need women to take care of them and we know that is total bullshit. Okay…so maybe your BIL does, but he is just special.

      There are women who need to do more than rear children and keep homes. It doesn’t make them bad women, just different from me. We arranged our lives so that I am at home…with the chicken houses, as well as with the children, but that works for us. My DIL needs to work or she goes a little bonkers, and who wants a mom like that. That works for them.

      I don’t like what they say and do and am embarrassed by them, quite frankly. But…they believe their cause is real. So who makes them think they have to behave this way? For what purpose really? We know what it is? Right?

      • Don L

        Howdy Jeanne

        The Dinner Banner … Thought that was Al Bundy piloting; Red was in the crowd?

        Argh, X-ian guy, Earl Nightingale, IMO, said it best: “Success is the progressive realization of a worthy ideal (self-determined). And, success is predicated on attitude – [my addendum] having nothing to do with a god but one’s personal character. Whether housewife or mother, CEO or plumber – individual choice & do your best.

        The ‘movement’ began before the 1985 tip point; a convenient diversion once reached. For decades universities have been youth storage facilities; awaiting the jobs the left cannot produce – free tuition was easy. Everybody needs a degree – buy a house after. And, in storage all manner of lefty indoctrination opportunities exist – even targeting young ladies; delusion heaped on delusion upon delusion – burn bras -to- false equality laws – pink hats representing a word they find offensive – HUH? Of course, being a guy: women. go figure? LOL Yes, Dear!

        • I partly agree. “Rights”, yes. Things granted by LAW – not “God” or nature actually. (Much as I revere the Constitution, a difference of opinion there). I don’t care for having a”right” to … Would rather be “free to …” Destroying human life is murder. Civilized people treat murder as a punishable crime. Women have the choice of conceiving or not conceiving. Once they conceive, there is another body inside theirs. It is no longer a woman’s “choice” to destroy that other life. Every person is a world. A fetus is a world about to be born. To think of a developing person any other way is to think sociologically.

          • liz

            Well said!

          • Don L

            Here I go getting in trouble again.
            Rights, not even law granted – and nature only in the sense that you have them merely because you are a human. Primarily deists, logic, reason and rationality were revered more than mystics – English Common Law was the basis of America Constitution and English common law never included religion/christianity whereas there was no christ when it was formulated – hence no christian nation. And, it is a term “god of nature” not god as, especially, foisted today. Jefferson initially wrote “inherent and inalienable” then realized the difference and changed it to unalienable – inseparable from the person. Lefties, along with democracy, mislead with only using inalienable – seperable by self or government.
            Continuuing. I do not accept in any form the idea that the world begins at conception. To impose this and reject that it IS cells reproducing is the equivalent of ascribing human emotions on a pet. The ideas are personal, emotional, physiological and what a woman does with her pregnancy is absolutely nobody’s business. What one person thinks a fetus is vs another’s is irrelevant. Acribing rights to the UNBORN is the same as believing in ghosts. To turn one’s personal disgust or sense of horrid immorality into law is to think sociologically – engineering morality is no different than engineering currency – for the good of the people. By what is it no longer a woman’s choice? Is there mystic in this? I do not see logic; only maternal emotion and … not buying it.
            How is a pregnant woman’s choice to be denied or punished – pre-emptive rights violated. C’mon, you can’t mean government violence. I haven’t got much more to say on it. Sorry, but I disagree with your sentiments on the topic. I respect your feelings; hope they are never law.

            • liz

              I know we’ve argued this before, but I’ll say it anyway – it’s not just a “maternal emotion” – its a biological fact that life begins at conception.
              A fetus is not part of a womans body – it is the body of one individual developing within the body of another individual.
              If human life is to be protected consistently, it should be protected at every point along the spectrum, from beginning to end.

            • Don L

              Well, It seems to me you have an emotional thingamabob you call ‘life’ and you are skewering it to a fetus. Define this “life”. Bet it is different than anyone else’s definition. To you it is a fact this undefined life begins as you believe; you imagined the idea you can have it mean anything. It is in reality, however, NOT a fact. A person is alive when they are born. This “life” is concept of mind not something of science. Are cells alive that can grow into a person that will be born. Yes. That does not in and of itself constitute someone alive. Without any question … no imagineering necessary … life does begin at birth. OK … I’m done; And, this is why it cannot be a thing of government in any and all events.

            • liz

              If something is growing, its alive. Just as much alive on the inside of the womb as on the outside – only the location has changed!
              Cells grow into a person that will be born, yes. If that person is legitimately alive at nine months, but not before, what are they then if born prematurely, at 4 or 6 months, finishing their development outside the womb? An emotional thingamabob?

            • Precisely. Thanks again for saying it so well, liz.

            • “Does with her pregnancy”! Pregnancy is not a thing. It is a condition. The “thing” is a human life. Or do you think “life” enters the body of a child somewhere along the vulva as he emerges from the womb?

            • Don L

              Of course I understand that pregnancy is a condition … please, degenerating to that? Now, please define this life … the miracle is it? Do you truly not recognize your use of the word as purely emotional … Oh, wonderful miracle life and god and fairytales and flowers and pink.

              Children have obviously been a tue joy in your life (is that a different meaning of the word?) that began after you were born. I can’t say it is only a female experience as men too love their children. Great joys …yeah!

              Again, still awaiting an explanation of the “It is no longer a woman’s “choice” to destroy that other life.” How does this choice get taken away? Who’s rules? There’s that “life” thing again. Define it. Is it like soul?

              The FACT IS: Once there is birth – on it’s own (even with support) it is a living being with unalienable rights ascribed. It can start living and create a life.

              Before, just so much poppycock lacking any reality whereas there are no definable truths: life is just a bowl of cherries, life goes on, …but for the life of me…

              When does it begin, don’t have a clue, At 40? But, again, once you’re born you are in fact alive – that can be defined. That Is scientific.

              With utmost and greatest respect – immovable objects; agree to disagree?

            • You cannot follow the explanations already given. You are all at sea here, Don. When it comes to Economics, you are a voice worth listening to. On this subject, no.

            • Jeanne

              As for me, I accept that abortion kills a recently conceived human being. I do not want abortion outlawed, but I want it regulated. I agree with Trump that very early abortions, if absolutely needed, are acceptable, but not used for birth control. Personally, I would push the time to 12 weeks, when after that I feel the woman has an obligation to the developing fetus. No fairy tale belief here that spontaneous abortions do not happen all the time.

              The mother’s well-being must always be considered, but abortions have become a habit of grotesque proportions in our society. What is living and growing inside a woman’s womb will not turn out to be a gecko; it has always been growing into a human being. For pity’s sake, doctors perform surgery upon these unborn creatures that they call “babies” not masses of fetal cells and they celebrate the fact that the “baby’s life” was saved even within the womb and way before it was birthed and became a “living” human being.

              Maybe I am a sentimental woman, but maybe I am realistic when it comes to the charge I reason women were granted by nature. I reason that females should not fail that charge, nor should they toss it off like so much garbage, nor should they be irresponsible with such power.

              Sorry for taking up space with my two-cents worth and side-tracking the topic.

            • Thanks for that valuable comment, Jeanne! You are more than welcome to the space.

      • liz

        The banner is a good mockery, I think. Only problem is, if you’re stupid enough to believe the B.S. that results in wearing a “pussy hat”, you’re probably too stupid to realize you’re being mocked!
        You’re right – their main reason for protesting is for abortion ‘rights’, which they’ve been brainwashed into perceiving as a noble cause.
        Very sad commentary on our society that so many women are able to completely suppress and live in denial of their own biological reality, and believe the lie that they should aspire to displace men.

        • Jeanne

          The banner plane was cute, but unfortunately when the mockery intent is misunderstood, there it is again women being told they belong in the kitchen by those who disagree with the marchers…you know, the Republicans/Conservative/Men. The picture made the rounds in many circles and it is the understanding in those circles that I am uncomfortable with.

  • Jeanne

    They do not represent me. I have had female relatives tell me that “of course” they are going or “of course” they support the marches. Why exactly? I am so sick of pink…

  • Zerothruster

    The angry ladies are protesting the Handmaid’s Tale clause of the Constitution, Article 9, Section 9, Title 9.

    Also, I’ve never figured out what it is about the design of those pink hats that’s supposed to make them resemble you-know-what. Isn’t that ridiculous?

    • liz

      Yes, what a joke! Just like the entire left has become, (well really always has been) but don’t know it. Ignorant, shallow, brainwashed hypocrites.
      ‘Antifa’ – a bunch of cowardly dweebs who think their black masked get-up makes them look tough. Overgrown brats throwing tantrums.

    • It’s a pun on “pussy”. Scintillating brilliance!

      • Don L

        meow … purr … HSSS! A rose by any other name …

        I think I’m funny.

      • Zerothruster

        Oh, you mean like the Tom Jones song, What’s New Pussy Hat?
        Or the scene in Guys and Dolls where Adelaide and her fellow chorus girls are (barely) dressed up as sex kittens?
        So, the pussy-hat protestrogens are making sex objects of themselves !