Women want to believe that they’re impervious to things like age and ovaries. So, during peak creative years, women push their energy into relatively time unlimited endeavor–career–instead of a very time limited endeavor–having babies.

Young mothers are scorned for being stupid, giving up their potential, subjugating themselves to a man’s world.

Ironically, by subscribing to a dirty man’s definition of success — rutting like animals and climbing the corporate ladder by any means necessary — women deprive themselves of doing the one thing that is essentially female–giving birth.

Newsflash: Only women can do it. There are requirements. A woman must have a functional uterus, fresh eggs, good health and it’s really helpful to have economic and emotional support. In old-fashioned terms, that was called a husband.

Imagine the shock, then, when women find out that they’ve been lied to about their reproductive ability:

A decade ago, a fertility ad campaign on public buses in several big cities sparked a vicious backlash. It featured a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass, to warn women their time was running out. But women’s rights groups called it a scare tactic that left women feeling pressured and guilty.

Another ad campaign? Sure, says Mingo.

“And it needs to come on when men are paying attention,” she says. “Heck, put it on in the middle of a football game or something!”

Women are afraid of losing career opportunities. It’s not like there is one choice or the other. I’ve always worked while having kids.

Still, it helped that because of medical training waiting to have kids was no option because it limited options.

When you know you want kids, and maybe a big family, two things should be a priority:

1. Getting married.

2. Getting pregnant.

So, women in their 20s need to strike while their hot body and biology work to their advantage. This, of course, is very politically incorrect advice.

Telling a woman to carve out time to date, join social institutions (like, horrors!, churches) that encourage marriage, etc. just seems so old-fashioned.

Well getting married and having kids young has many biological and sociological and cultural advantages.

Women need to be told the truth about their limitations so they can change their life choices accordingly. Many who want and should have children won’t be able to because of the lies they believe and they’ll find out the truth too late.

Used to be, that a woman was reduced to her bits and pieces by the creepy old guy in the office who didn’t know better. You know, he was from the older generation, like Bill Clinton.

This nonsense is being foisted on women by Reebok. It’s supposed to be an encouragement to what? Wear more revealing tops so guys don’t stare at a girl’s fabulous butt?

The video is so stupid, condescending and sexist that it makes me completely disinterested in ever buying anything Reebok again. The thing is, I’m not prudish. I also get the notion that “sex sells”. But the flaw in this video is the substance as much as the form. Reebok indulges in the worst of stereotypes–competitive petty women angling to get the most male attention–and turns a woman against herself. She competes with herself. That is, her boobs want to best her butt. What the hell?

It’s stupidity.

Via @Ziggy_Susan on Twitter

Why don’t gay people get mad at the President? It’s simple, really. They know he’s lying.

President Obama knows that the issue is a political loser. So do gay activists. For the greater good, gay activists won’t push the President. They will hypocritically maintain their silence. They will be willingly silenced by the President because it serves the Democrat’s purpose.

Is anyone astonished and appalled at the hypocrisy around this issue? We shouldn’t be. The Left has a long record of political expedience around this and other social issues. Remember President Clinton’s treatment of women? Yeah. And they love, love, loved him!

Maybe President Obama isn’t lying. Maybe he really does hate gay people. The first rumblings of this notion are up at Kos:

So why is Obama silent on gay issues? Is it because he has too much to do? He’s had a change of heart and now is anti-gay? In an effort to be “bipartisan” and “compromise” with the far right wing, he’s the throwing gays under the bus? He just faked support of gay rights since Hillary Clinton already had the “conservative Democrat” vote locked up in the primary anyway?

Nah, patience friend. Your cream frosting dreams will come true. Consider: President Obama wants to get re-elected. He needs the support of blacks and Catholics, two very solid Obama voting groups. He wants to keep them happy. And after re-election all the campaign promises will be be fulfilled.

It’s politics. I’m actually surprised that there is one idealist on the left who doubts this.

This is the future: hyper-sexualized ignoramuses. The worst part? They won’t know anything, but they’ll know how to creatively copulate and procreate.

So a post caught my attention last night about Justin Timberlake. The title of the post was, “How Can Justin Timberlake Still Objectify Black Women And Get Away With It“. Hmmm… The song and music video in question is called, subtly, “Love Sex Magic”. It’s not the best JT song by a long shot and the real star is Ciara. Timberlake is more of a background singer. Ciara’s career has been spotty and this “duet” has put her in the Top 40. She made a very good business decision partnering with the golden boy.

The video, as one might imagine, is, like many these days, soft porn. Watch it here. Ciara is,….limber. Clearly, she enjoys her body and would have a good back-up career as a stripper. Here’s what Ro of Soul Bounce says:

It’s not even his song but in the video he’s in the opening scene, pulling on a chained Ciara. Whenever the two are interacting she is doing all kinds of sexy acrobatics for him–crawling over him, stick out her ass for him to lean on, bumping him with her breasts–but he can barely be bothered to look her in the face half of the time…and he’s on screen a lot. She looks desparate, and he looks like a pimp. As the video progresses and their roles become more evident it gets more disgusting.

Well, I watched the video and what I found disgusting was that teenage girls were watching a woman portray herself that way. She’s free to do it. She’s a grown woman, an “artist”. Like Madonna or Britney Spears or the rest of the slutty pop tarts, she’s liberated to express her sexual nature.

Why don’t the same people who pushed for this liberation own the results? How is it Justin Timberlake’s fault that he enjoys a woman bumping and grinding? And I heard Oprah once give black rappers a hard time for having scantily clad women dancing around in their videos–objectifying women. And then, the same Oprah, had Beyoncé on to teach her how to shake her butt.

Just so I understand the rule: It’s okay for a woman to act like a sexpot but it’s not okay for a man to enjoy it? A woman can climb a pole in her own music video but if it’s a male artist’s music video, the women should be prim and proper?

It’s time for women to own their choices sexually. That’s what this revolution business was about. Blaming men for being objectified when women choose to portray themselves in a provocative way puts women in the one-down position again. Women are now equally skanky as men. Rejoice.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News