fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
And When Dorothy Peeked Behind The Curtain...
Published on April 14, 2005 By kingbee In Current Events

if the title sounds sorta familiar, there's a reason.   a post with a similar title appeared briefly in the political forum for a short time.  in that one, the 'skanks' of the national organization for women were judged in need of:

a. being slapped around

b. the author declaring a jihad against them

for joining with their 'selfish bitch' feminist sisters to force their anti-implant beliefs on the pure flower of american womanhood.  wait..sorry, now's real crime was hypocrisy.  the ultimate hypocrisy of demanding the right to choose abortion for themselves while arrogantly denying 'real women' the right to risk their health to enhance their bustline.  to make it all even more despicable, these so-called minority representatives--with their shrill leftwing emotional demands--caused all women to look bad.

the author's righteous condemnation was echoed in the thread by a chorus of equally right-thinking, rational, valiants who clearly saw the dangers of such outrageous foolishness manifesting itself in making a stink over  bob packwood's innocently affectionate gestures of endearment for which the poor man was martyred. it almost goes without saying--altho it was eventually said--NOW engages in collusion with such enemies of freedom as the aclu.  those who happened to avail themselves of this collective wisdom were reminded all of this was just one more proof of conspiracy to turn us--male and female--into floppy breasted prisoners of the state.

so far so good, right?  nothin like a lil misogyny among friends and in a good cause.

except...i'd heard a half-dozen reports on the issue, seen it encapsulated on national main stream media (politically correct for 'soviet') tv broadcasts and read about it in two major daily news publications.  clearly i seemed to be losing what slight connection i still have to reality because i didnt recall any mention of the national organization for women.  nor, for that matter, did i remember any mention of other feminist groups.  i'm pretty sure i woulda noted aclu involvement, if nothing else.

so i went back and found the articles i'd read and began paying much more attention to broadcast news.  my efforts weren't rewarded however.  even running a google news search using "national organization for women" + silicone implants  as keywords fell flat.

folks i can only assume this is some sorta feminist coverup conspiracy of massive proportions.   or i could if didn't pretty much decide the author made it all up outta whole cloth.  the best i could turn up was some sorta vague or supposed reference to now...and some vague allegations presented by 'moderate' to 'rabid' rightwing bloggers about now's massive campaign to criminalize implants..  without a link to a source, your guess is as good as mine.

so now...we've covered the breast implants, the national organization for women and skanks, but what part do boobs play in this travesty? 

well, one of em created the vitriolic and totally unsubstantiated crap pile of bombast.  the others jumped on the issue, took it all to be gospel truth since it so conveniently fit into their belief system and enthusiastically, gleefully donated to the cause.

and that's how ya put ideas into ideology. or to paraphrase the late eloquent johnny cochoran...if there aint no links, it prolly stinks.  


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Apr 14, 2005
You aren't this slow, kingbee. No one ever said the ACLU ever had anything to do with it. I just mentioned the ACLU as another hypocritical organization that just wants to supplant one set of values with another, all the while pretending to fight for people's "rights".

Please, damn, it doesn't do your arguement service to keep saying that I said something about the ACLU not liking breast implants. That's dabe tactics.

"so i went back and found the articles i'd read and began paying much more attention to broadcast news. my efforts weren't rewarded however. even running a google news search using "national organization for women" + silicone implants as keywords fell flat."

Did you misspell something? I came up with 1832 results for "breast Implants" "national organization for women".

on Apr 14, 2005
Or you could have just gone to NoW's site....
on Apr 14, 2005
hopefully this screen capture (which i cropped in order to avoid having the page scroll outta control) will show i spelled it correctly and the number of resulting hits. this is google's news search page. of the 4, none is significant...i believe 2 of those are blog sites and another is an op-ed thing. (those 1832 related hits are unlikely to be relevant; 1832 hits is a very small number using the standard google page to check out a relatively large, relatively active organization.)

now seems to be goin thru the motions at best (even at their own site, i didnt get a sense they were doing anything deserving of being smacked around or issuing a fatwa.

my point--and i realize you were just tossin in the aclu because it seemed to fit--is the original article is titled by chicken little and ultimately filled with nothing but the author's obvious dislike of women and liberals in no particular order (except for lesbians willing to let him watch) followed--for the most part (and i'm not including you in this group--by a motley assortment of kudos by the rank n file of ju's angry old man contingent.

on Apr 14, 2005
I'm sorry King, maybe I misunderstood. You said you hadn't found any references to NoW and Breast implants. I found 1800+. In addition, there were two links on NoWs main page to their stance.

One relevant quote I saw was:

"`Choice?' asked Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, who helped coordinate the group. `The choice is to be sick.'"


I must have missed the article you are talking about. I didn't get that the author of the one I posted on had any overt dislike of women. Maybe I just wasn't primed to read as much into it...
on Apr 14, 2005

I got a hit in about 15 seconds.

From the old nags mouths, here it is:

http://www.now.org/lists/news-releases/msg00109.html

Enjoy!

on Apr 14, 2005

Or you could have just gone to NoW's site....

Should have read your post before posting the same thing.

Hey, KB, are you google impaired?

on Apr 14, 2005

Of course, NOW is going to be against implants of any type, seeing that most of them are gotten simply to please and/or attract men.

Yea, and one of their pioneers, Andrea Dworkin, who just passed away was fond of saying that all sex is rape, and tha tthe institution of Marriage is just rape institutionalized.

on Apr 14, 2005
I'm just having fun with King, poking him about the 1800+ thing. Everone does stuff like that from time to time. To me, though, it is kind of disingenuous to write a blog about a "vitriolic and totally unsubstantiated crap pile of bombast" and then spend the time mischaracterizing people's ideas about something without any citations yourself.

I don't think he can really make the original article into a bunch of men in smoking jackets degrading women and talking about floppy breasts. That wasn't what it was about at all, and it is kind of goofy to twist a perspective that hard while trying to lambast others for supposedly twisting NoW's perspective.
on Apr 14, 2005
What's funny I think is how some people want to pretend that abortion does not have any very damaging risks, but silicon implants, which granted, can cause problems, has been exonerated of causing lupus, cancer, or any other serious illness, cannot be allowed, even if women are given information of the risks involved (give them the most pessimistic percentages) and are informed that silicon implants, like a tampon, does not last forever, and will require more appointments. In fact, it seems that most of the problems come from women who have silicon in them for around a decade without going for the occasional maintenance.

Of course, NOW is going to be against implants of any type, seeing that most of them are gotten simply to please and/or attract men.


Actually, I think most implants are not done to please men, but to build confidence themselves and/or to impress their female peers.
on Apr 14, 2005
With all the bickering back and forth, the fact remains, there is no medical purpose for breast implants. The only reasons any women get them are based on low self esteem and a pathetic need for attention so strong that they are willing to risk their lives to get it.

If I am wrong, please, someone explain to me where I err in my assessment? ;~D
on Apr 14, 2005
Parated: If you have your penis removed due to cancer, I'll be willing to bet you won't be satisfied being neuter. There's nothing pathetic about breast implants, any more than any other plastic surgery is pathetic.

Taken to an extreme, sure; when it is needless, sure, but "needless" and "extreme" are a matter of personal opinion. You don't give women the right to kill unborn children and then "protect" them from breast implants. If their womb is "their body", then I assume their breasts are too...
on Apr 14, 2005
With all the bickering back and forth, the fact remains, there is no medical purpose for breast implants. The only reasons any women get them are based on low self esteem and a pathetic need for attention so strong that they are willing to risk their lives to get it.

If I am wrong, please, someone explain to me where I err in my assessment? ;~D


You're right. It's unnecessary, but so is liposuction, piercings, tattoos, smoking, drinking, etc., and all of those things have either risks or detrimental effects (i.e. a tongue piercing causes more gum recession).
on Apr 14, 2005
"silicone implants........fell flat."

hahahahahahaha
on Apr 15, 2005
said you hadn't found any references to NoW and Breast implants. I found 1800+. In addition, there were two links on NoWs main page to their stance.


not exactly what i said. admittedly, i should have chosen clarity over yet another opportunity to make a silly, if unintentionally misleading play on words. what i shoulda said instead was this: running a google news search using the keywords '"national organization for women" + silicone implants"' provided 1832 hits, 4 of which (not counting the syndicated duplicates) actually included at least one full sentence about the organization.

One relevant quote I saw was:

"`Choice?' asked Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, who helped coordinate the group. `The choice is to be sick


that musta been in the article written by the american heritage institute scholar who may have been so overwhelmed by ms gandy's militant riposte that she wisely chose to get the hell outta there prior to gandy delivering this breathtakingly provocative ultimatum to a less prudent reporter for the kansas city star:

“I'm not a fan of plastic surgery, but that's really up to the patients. Our real concern is, is it safe or is it dangerous,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.
on Apr 15, 2005
I must have missed the article you are talking about. I didn't get that the author of the one I posted on had any overt dislike of women. Maybe I just wasn't primed to read as much into it...


i was offering my take on the first now/implants ju post. perhaps i read too much into it. on the other hand, i've just run across these two statements he offered in comments in the past 24 hours (one here and one in another blog thread):

If a woman walks through the city at night without being entirely aware of her environment and gets raped, it's her own fault.


silicon implants, like a tampon, does not last forever, and will require more appointments. In fact, it seems that most of the problems come from women who have silicon in them for around a decade without going for the occasional maintenance.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last