Leggings ARE pants

I'm so tired of the bullshit coming out of the pantriarchy shaming women for wearing leggings at all or "improperly". Leggings count as pants for all practical purposes, and I don't care if they're immodest, see-through, revealing or whatever. STFU.

In this post by Tammy Swift:

"Please, people. Just put on some pants already.

Remember zippers? Remember construction? Remember natural fabrics that wouldn't stretch to accommodate a manatee?"

Yes, remember those things that HURT? That make pants not FIT? Remember the way that rigid pants contribute to fat-shaming?

" Enough already with the leggings. Enough with the boots. This trend has been in for at least five years and has become as omnipresent in American fashion as the counterfeit designer purse."

OMG, FIVE YEARS? But you want people to switch to 100+ year old jeans and pants???

" Believe me, I do understand the appeal of leggings. They're extremely comfortable — sort of like wearing PJs to the office. They don't wrinkle. They go with many items of clothing, such as big, blocky sweaters or that drirt (shirt-dress hybrid). They can help you transition seamlessly from fall wardrobe to winterwear."

Sounds AMAZING!!! No downsides!

" But there is a whole population of us who cannot pull off leggings. (No, really. We literally cannot pull them off.) We may belong in that segment of people who have been labeled "pear shaped." The baggy sweaters that jibe so perfectly with leggings simply cover our small waists. The spectre of tight, multicolored leggings makes us look like equestrian oompa-loompas."

I am the goddamn platonic ideal of pear-shaped, and leggings look great on me! Not to mention, what are the alternatives? Pear-shaped people sure can't wear rigid pants! And if you need to bring out your waist (more likely your ribcage if you're pear-shaped), wear a belt with a tunic. Leggings offer more to pear-shaped women than any other women!

" As we also tend to have larger calves, boots don't work for us. Like disgraced Clydesdales, we are banished to the "wide shank" section of the boot store."

YES, I feel your pain, but wide-calf boots are more available now than at any other time. This has nothing to do with leggings.

" Another challenge for the human pear is the Tragedy of the Fallen Crotch. For some reason, our bodies simply aren't engineered to hold up a pair of leggings. Our waists are too small; our trunks too junky. Before we know it, the waist of the leggings will have migrated to mid-thigh and the crotch will sag to the knees. This look immediately transforms the wearer into a comical, long underwear-clad figure in a hillbilly spoof."

WHAT? I have never seen this. WTF kind of leggings are you wearing?
This woman doesn't know shit. 

In this post by Heather Riggleman:

"Comfortable as they may be, think of leggings more as a warmer alternative to tights than a stretchy alternative to work pants. Unless you’re headed out for a run, tight spandex pants should never be worn with a cropped sweater, T-shirt, or any other top that doesn’t cover your glutes."

Don't care. I'll show my ass if I want to.

" 1. Your no-no zone, which is about from your belly to about 3 inches below your glutes, should not be seen in close form ever, at least in public. This means I should not know the contour and shape of your thighs, glutes and hips in one glance. I have yet to see a no-no zone that’s cute except for toddlers in cloth diapers.

Your no-no zone should be covered by a long shirt, dress or tunic when worn with leggings. Yoga pants are not to be worn in public either — except at the gym, but even then: Leggings are not pants."

Are you FIVE YEARS OLD? A no-no zone? And what does she think regular pants do? Has she never seen tight jeans?

"3. If I can see the pattern of your underwear, you have mistaken leggings as pants. Go home and change into a pair of jeans, please. Leggings are not pants."

I will absolutely never wear jeans. STFU. Don't care. Maybe my panties are pretty.

"listen girls. Little T-shirts, yoga pants or leggings with fuzzy boots is NOT, I repeat, not an outfit. Please go home and search Pinterest for more figure-flattering ideas. "

It is very much an outfit. Don't care what may be flattering to you.

 "6. If I’m taking my 9-year-old son to the store, and he runs into an aisle and explains he saw your “bouncy bootie,” we have a problem. For the safety of my child, review the ways leggings are to be worn. I have already been teaching my son’s eyes how to “pingpong off the thong.” Once again: Leggings are not pants."

HERE we have it!!! It's modesty culture. You don't teach your son to not look at butts in that way unless you have fucked up ideas about lust.

Leggings are pants. Yoga pants are pants. Soft pants are pants. Down with Pantriarchy!!!

Skirts Above the Knees and Other Wickedness

Courtesy of FSTDT, comes this little gem:

"One of the most evil sins in America is the use of sexual suggestiveness in advertising. What prompted me to write this article was doing some research on the evils of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). I noticed that the female CCM group “Point Of Grace,” on their album cover titled “A Thousand Little Things,” are pictured suggestively. For obvious reasons I can't show you the album cover, because it's inappropriate. They're all wearing skirts above the knees. This is wickedness."

So Christian music isn't Christian enough for him because they wear skirts above the knees? THE HORROR!!!!!

"Although modest by today's immodest standards, it is immoral by God's standards. The woman in the middle is sitting suggestively, subtly invitingly. The album cover is sexually suggestive, period. They know exactly what they are doing. All men who are normal and healthy have to battle continually against sexually impure thoughts. An honest homosexual told me that all men are sex pigs. Every man is either carnally minded and doesn't care, or he's a Christian who's trying to please God by bringing every thought into captivity unto obedience to Christ (2nd Corinthians 10:5). "

I like how he knows God's standards and contrasts that with a cultural standard. I also like how he seems to know what's in these women's heads. And why the nod to the gay guy in there, as if he is an authority on straight male sexuality?

" Immodesty is a dangerous sin. Many men who have denied this truth have lived to reap what they have sown, proving my point. It's not uncommon to hear a pastor berating a relative or church member for committing sexual sins, and then one day they are guilty them self, on the other side of the fence now bearing the reproach of their sins. If that's you, know that the blood of Jesus cleanses all sins away. You'll never understand the grace of God until you mess up and people point their hypocritical finger in condemnation against you. Then the blood of Jesus will become sweeter than you have ever known. "

Yes, it is interesting how people rail against sex and then are exposed as committing it...very interesting indeed, author...

 "But my teaching still stands, that is, women ought to cover their bodies thoroughly, dressing modestly and behaving ladylike. Modern female singers have impudent (a look of casual disrespect) faces, and they speak with authority like men, and they wear blue-jeans or miniskirts, shaming themselves and dishonoring the Lord they claim to serve. Immodesty is destroying our nation. Shame on any co-called Christian woman who wears her skirt above her knee, exposing her thighs for men to lust upon. Showing any part of the thighs invites a man's mind to think about her female reproductive organ. Why is that so hard to figure out? God judge this wicked generation!"

I like having an impudent look. I'm too busy to fully disrespect you, so I'll just do it casually.
And speaking with authority like a man, the HORROR!!! Because women can't possibly know anything.

Thighs make dudes think of a female reproductive organ? Like an ovary? Fallopian tubes? Uterus? Which one?

By the way, this is the horribly immodest album cover:

Bask in its immodesty!

The Scary "Gender Agenda"

Dale O'Leary has very helpfully set out the "Gender Agenda" for us to follow.

Let's dive right in!

"Twenty years ago I attended the United Nations’ Beijing Conference on Women. The focus of the gathering was the definition of “gender”. The word appeared at least once in almost all of platforms over 300 sections. While many people believe that the words “sex” and “gender” are interchangeable, the goal of the Beijing conference was to change radically the definition of both.

Until then, sex had described to the totality of what it means to be male or female, and gender was a grammatical term. But gender theory downgraded sex to the biological level only. In normal usage sex was to be replaced by gender, and gender would describe socially constructed roles that could be changed. A male could have a female gender identity."

Yes, there are very good reasons to not conflate sex and gender, namely the existence of trans people. "Biological sex" is also a construct, as intersex people are much more numerous than perceived and sex is much more complicated than we think:

From Dori Mooneyham's blog

"Biological Sex – There is no such thing. While many believe sex is an immutable biologically-determined characteristic set at birth, it is actually just another socially constructed binary based entirely on infants’ genitalia. There are frequent and naturally occurring variability of all aspects of what we socially lump together as someone’s “biological sex”.

Primary and Secondary Sex Characteristics all play a factor in how someone experiences their body in comparison with their Gender Identity."

Back to Dale O'Leary:

"According to gender ideology, all the psychological and cultural differences between men and women are artificial constructs that not only can, but should be eliminated so that men and women participate in every activity of society in statistically equal numbers."

We have NO WAY to even start determining what differences are genetic vs cultural until multiple generations grow up with less sexism.

"The obvious enemy of this agenda is motherhood. If two people have sexual relations, only one gets pregnant and it’s always the woman."

The fact that half the human race gets pregnant and the other half doesn't is basically the source of sexist oppression. We need to use technology and culture to overcome what evolution has done to us, just like we do with everything else.

"The UN is inhabited by people who believe that what the world needs is:

1)    Fewer people"

Yes.

"2)    More sexual pleasure"

Yes

"3)    The elimination of the differences between men and women"

Yes. As long as you mean how we treat men and women based on physical differences/identification.

"4)    No full-time mothers"

No. How does that even follow?

"These people recognize that increasing sexual pleasure could increase the number of babies and mothers. Therefore, their prescription for world salvation is:

1)    Free contraception and legal abortions"

Yes.

"2)    Promotion of homosexuality (sex without babies)"

I would say "acceptance", not promotion, but ok.

"3)    Sex education courses, which encourage sexual experimentation among children; which teach them how to get contraception and abortions, that homosexuality is normal, and that men and women are the same."

"Encouraging" sexual experimentation is a strawman, but otherwise yes.

" 4)    The elimination of parental rights so that parents cannot prevent children from having sex, sex education, contraception or abortion"

Yes

"5)    Fifty/fifty, male/female quotas"

I wouldn't go that far, but extreme gender imbalances can't be attributed to sex alone in our culture. Awareness of this and steps to rectify it are good.

"6)    All women in the workforce"

No. And not all men in the "workforce." Why is homemaking not work?

"7)    Discrediting all religions that oppose this agenda."

Yes. I'm fine with that.

" The Gender Agenda cannot be defeated until people are willing to stand up and say, “No more inclusive language, no more politically correct speech.” We must refuse to say “gender” when we mean “sex”. Those who are offended by reality and human nature will just have to live with it."

Yes, stand up to inclusive language! Make your stand on excluding the minority! Die on the hill of treating sexual minorities like crap!

" During the Beijing conference, at a meeting sponsored by pro-family, prolife NGO’s, two lesbians spoke up. They were crying and said that all they wanted was to get married. The pro-family, pro-life spokespersons had no compassionate answer and I knew that this would be next major challenge."

There's no compassionate answer to telling people they have to be oppressed? Imagine that!

"In the intervening years things have gotten worse. People who should know better use gender when they mean sex. Others go along with the fantasy that a man can become a woman, or that the relationship between two people of the same sex is a marriage. Selling unborn baby parts is defended on the floor of the US Senate."

In the intervening years more people have accepted trans people, gay marriage, and fetal tissue research? SCORE!

"Let us hope that people of good sense will follow their lead, wake up, realize they have been conned, and stand against gender theory in all its forms."

Yep, stand up against the "theory" that people have gender identity, that trans people exist, that biology is complicated, etc... Methinks you're the one against reality.

Nonreligious "reasons" to be anti-choice

As the Nones rise, anti-choicers are changing strategies to try to include them. Besides Secular Anti-choice, even places like Lie Action News are getting on the bandwagon:

1. Science

" To debate “personhood” is a spiritual, moral, or philosophical argument. There’s no data to define personhood. If the preborn can be denied personhood, what’s to stop personhood from being removed from other groups of people?"

This is why I NEVER use personhood arguments. Personhood is vaguely defined, highly philosophical, highly technical on brain development, and most everyone is not qualified to discuss it.

 "While “personhood” is an abstract argument, “life” is not. Undisputed science, from a host of sources, states that life begins at conception."

This point goes on to tell a bunch of facts about fetal development.  The thing is that just because something is alive doesn't mean much in the way of whether it's ok to kill it or not save it.

2. Pro-life Laws Improve Women’s Health

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES

"If the fear is that abortion’s illegality would make the procedure more dangerous, then why object to laws that hold abortion clinics to higher standards and consequently protect women’s health?"

Because TRAP laws don't have anything to do with health.

"A Stanford University study shows lower rates of abortion complications for American states with those same types of laws."

I went and perused the study, and the association is small and doesn't take into account TRAVEL for abortions, especially 2nd-trimester ones, so it's worthless.

 3. The Constitution

Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Pace v. Alabama. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong before.

“Abortion” is not mentioned in the Constitution. The procedure was legalized by determining that it fell under an implied right to privacy found within the Fourteenth Amendment. “Privacy” is not mentioned in the Constitution either.

The constitution can be wrong and women's equality should be in our laws, so I don't really care what you want to say about Roe.

 4. Slippery Slope

"If personhood can be removed from preborn lives, what’s to stop us from removing it from others?  We live in a world where “post-birth abortion”, the murder of newborns, is gaining popularity."

The slippery slope is a named fallacy...It's not always fallacious, but I would reconsider my titles here. This is one of the reasons why bodily autonomy is a better argument. It's very clear-cut about how we don't have to allow others to use our bodies. That doesn't lead to willy-nilly killing people.


So the reasons here are flimsy and have little to do with making abortion illegal.

Atheist "Church"

 In the past several years, alternative meeting formats for atheists have become more popular and captured the media's attention. Many atheists have objections to meetings like the Sunday Assembly, Community Mission Chapel, and Oasis.

Objection: I don't like it.

I don't care. You don't have to go.

Objection: Why don't they just meet at the bar or have a lecture?

If you're not plugged in to the atheist community to know that's the STANDARD format, you need to STFU about anything in the atheist community.

Objection: The word "church"

You'll be glad to know that they don't even use the word church. It's Sunday Assembly, Community Mission Chapel, and Oasis. "Church" is a media term.

But what if they did use the word?

If your objection is anything out of the dictionary, that's prescriptivism. I don't care that the dictionary defines it as a Christian congregation. The word can be used as a format label. These meetings are churchy, they have singing and testimonies and fellowship behavior.

What word does illustrate the difference between groups that use a churchy format and groups that just do lectures and pub meetups? Because I dare you to find another label.

Objection: Confusing Christians about atheism being a religion

I DON'T CARE. I don't care about your internet debates with Christians. How dare you tell atheists not to do things that help them because of your debates?

Meeting together is not the definition of a religion, that's trivially easy to point out to a Christian.
Atheists are people with social needs,and many ex-Christian atheists enjoy the churchy format. Any Christian who pretends to be confused with this explanation is not confused, they're LYING and HATEFUL.

Objection:Something about brainwashing and groupthink

STFU, please. Getting atheists together is like herding cats. Nobody's going to be brainwashed by having a fun little meeting.

Objection: Atheists shouldn't have to get together as atheists, we have nothing in common

Thank you, you little privileged asshole who probably doesn't live in the bible belt. Or you might be asocial, in which case, STFU about something that's for socializing.

Why can't I just go to a local knitting/hiking/blah group to get friends? Because if you live in the bible belt or many other places, you will get asked where you go to church, not if you go to church. You don't want to make a scene, you don't want to keep your mouth shut, and you don't want to hang out with people who think you're going to hell.

Objection: We need to get beyond churches/evolve/give up these formats

Religion does not own community, potlucks, singing. talks, fellowship or any of that. Don't let them have it.

The ONLY thing anyone can say about these meetings is if they would go or not. Any other assertions are baseless.

Perhaps you ask why my answers are so mean. Well, I am hostile to what are essentially subjective preferences being wrapped in a cloak of objectivity. I'm hostile to the outsider nature of such questions as why should atheists get together or talking about their preferences for bar meetups without realizing that they're already catered to. I'm hostile to the denigrating of ex-Christians when it seems like lifelongs are voicing these. I'm hostile when it seems like antisocial basement - dwelling trolls are asking this of "normal" people.

 If your first impulse is to put down something fun that other people are doing, without a damn good demonstration of harm, I basically don't trust you. So perhaps you should rethink your objections if you've said these things before.

Lie News Lies about Ultrasound and Informed Consent

Lienews lives up to its appellation by attempting to rip apart a well-done piece by Catherine Rampell on Politics in the Exam Room, which concerns abortion and other issues.

"As always, pro-life measures or what women-helping groups provide for pregnant women are dismissed because the appropriate “experts” disagree."

Yes, those would be ACTUAL MEDICAL EXPERTS.

" For example, for all the reasons that we’ve written about for years, which begin with basic biology, an induced abortion will increase the risk that a woman will subsequently be stricken with breast cancer. That is not, as Rampell insists it is, “junk science.” It is rather science that offers an inconvenient truth and therefore must be mocked and dismissed and shoved into the corner."

The American College of OB-GYNs thinks it's junk science to link abortion and breast cancer.

"If “junk science” is the second way “states are trying to politicize medicine,” what is the third, according to Rampell?...“Ultrasounds,” for one, “mandatory waiting periods for abortions,” for another. Hmmm.

Is having an abortion without seeing whom it is that a woman is obliterating a “data-driven” decision? Hardly."

Anti-choicers think women who view an ultrasound are less likely to abort, studies show that isn't true.  And 60% of women having abortions are mothers, so they've seen some ultrasounds!

Fetal development has no bearing on whether a woman can undergo a pregnancy, so why force them to look at an ultrasound?

"The whole point of the assembly-line abortion machinery is to keep the woman (or girl) from considering her options; from taking a deep breath; and from allowing her to heed the better angels of her nature."

LIES! Women in Texas are waiting 20 days for an appointment on average. Most women have considered their options in the event of unplanned pregnancy before it happens. Most women are driving miles and miles where they have plenty of time to ponder.

 “Look, there obviously is a role for policymakers to play in setting laws that promote public health,” Rampell concludes, in her best pretend middle-of-the-road manner. “But those laws should be grounded in scientific evidence, not attempts to reward campaign donors, appease the political base and shame women.”

So, to be clear, there are no reasons to pass any of these laws except to “appease the political base and shame women”?"

CORRECT!

" Are legislators “appeasing the political base” when they pass a law that says you can’t abort an unborn baby who is capable of experiencing excruciating pain, a capability which an abundance of scientific evidence says begins no later than at 20 weeks?"

Fetuses don't feel pain at 20 weeks.

"Are they “shaming women” when they pass legislation to prevent dismemberment abortions–abortions that twist off little arms and legs by the use of brute manual force, using a long stainless steel clamping tool? You know, the kind of “technique” that if used on an animal would rightly cause an uproar."

Those fetuses can't feel pain, and that's how 2nd-trimester abortions are done, only 10% of abortions.


LIE news lives up to its name...

Are fetuses the enemy?

Ben Carson, potential Republican party nominee, is extremely anti-choice and loves to pontificate on it.  He recently opined on how pregnant people should feel about their fetuses:

"“In the ideal situation,” Carson said, the Blaze reported, “the mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be looking to terminate the baby.”

He then spoke of mothers’ protective instincts and the line pregnant women are being fed to believe – “that the baby is their enemy and that they have the right to kill it,” he said."

Why shouldn't a woman think of a fetus as an enemy? It can kill her, it can maim her, it can make her sick, it can stop her from pursuing her dreams even in more supportive societies. 

What Carson and others miss here is CONSENT. 

Think about a penis penetrating a vagina. What is the moral significance of this act? Is it a heinous and violating act or is it an act of intimate and beautiful love? The presence or absence of CONSENT define the act. 

A fetus in a uterus can be an enemy, it can be a treasured baby and that hinges on the CONSENT of the person who owns the uterus. A lot of people are deeply uncomfortable with the fact that women's consent has the power to transform the moral significance of something.

One may argue that fetuses don't have intent. So? Cancer doesn't either, but yet we can call it an enemy.

If you recoil at any comparison between an unwanted fetus and a disease, you might be a little infected with the naturalistic fallacy, you might not appreciate the gravity of the health risks of pregnancy, and you might not be valuing consent as much as you should.