Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Barbara Kay would like to remind you she's not getting any.

This post was originally titled: "Why does Barbara Kay hate women's freedoms?" Then I took another look at the churlish, sour puss decorating her column and reconsidered. Because there's really no other reason for writing such a resentful, gynophobic screed.

It's a bizarre spin about a relatively reliable contraception. Does she really believe that contemporary women are so shallow that their 'happiness' rests on medication? Clearly Babs misses the pharmaceutical fog that Valium gave her peers, back then.

Instead of putting the focus on the fact it allows women to plan when to be pregnant (or not to be, ever) and couples to control their reproductive abilities so they can parent the children they want as best as they can, Kay quotes skewed research from the obscure Timothy Reichert - you could at least spell his name correctly, toots. As you can well imagine, Reichert's bloviations have become akin to the New Testament, over at LifeShite.

But in the final analysis, Babs is shrieeekkking at all those selfish, selfish, selfish!!! young women who turned down her son's Jonathan's invitation to be his baby mama, and to give her the grandchildren she wants, dammit!


Kim said...

Jane Taber is liveblogging the governments anti abortion stance right now. Go vote.

fern hill said...

It is over now, but the comments are open. Here's a link.

KC said...

BK's really on a roll with crap 'we've become a society of godless heathens' articles lately. Her "cult of sexualization" article from a few days ago was actually even worse than this one.

ck said...

Got the link to that, pls KC? Thanks

deBeauxOs said...

Oh, but I'm sure she managed to blame women in that one too.

Barbara Kay would like to remind you WHY she's not getting any.

deBeauxOs said...

ck/sister sage, there appears to be two of them. Take your pick.

k'in said...

Had the misfortune of being trapped listening to a msm radio interview with this wingnut today.

Pretty much her thesis boiled down to sex for procreation only = "good/happy" girls. Sex for enjoyment is for those shameless trollop "bad/unhappy" girls.

And---she singled out the Catholic Church as the lone, lasting beacon of virtue for encouraging women to resist their animal urges, score a proper husband, and get thee-self ensconced barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen.

Strange she didn't mention the "happiness" (or not) status of the victims of said virtuous Catholic Church's gratuitous sexual abuse.

Post a Comment