Oh, Ann Althouse, you wife-beating drunk.
I am hurt. You and I, Ann, we go way back, and Wayback. And to even earlier! But in your latest, I am only "the blogger." Sniff...
Since the blogger is a lefty blogger, and lefty bloggers stereotype me as a righty blogger, the blogger could not perceive any feminist critique in what I was saying. His idea was that I'd just said the "stupidest thing [he'd] ever seen Ann Althouse say."
This is so fucking boring. But whatever:
His idea was that I'd just said the "stupidest thing [he'd] ever seen Ann Althouse say." He proceeded to make a huge deal out of the mundane fact that a woman who'd had children — and thus was a "mom" — would still use birth control to stave off unwanted additional pregnancies. At that point, she couldn't "avoid motherhood" — my phrase — because she would already be a mother. Crushingly obvious fact noted.
And by you, ignored.
"Birth control moms" is still an awkward term, containing a distracting contradiction. You're distracted even if you stop and think about the way some women with children use birth control not to avoid acquiring the status of mom, but to avoid additional mothering responsibilities.
Right, so my point stands, dummy. "Birth control moms" describes probably all actual moms -- that would be the point. "You're distracted" here means "Ann Althouse realizes she has said something crushingly dumb and wants you to pretend otherwise, and she thanks Christ her moron commenters have had their thumbs surgically attached to their asses, probably via their nostrils."
The rest is not so much silence as it is a lost winebox-muddled halfwit struggling with the concept of subordinate clauses. Watt is up with that anyway!
Oh wait.
This.
Apparently, we're talking about women who are not merely going to be manipulated by scaring them that the government might ban birth control, but who are adamant about their entitlement to have their insurance fully cover birth control pills and who hate the idea of giving exemptions to the religious organizations that are portraying the proposed insurance requirement as a violation of their religious freedom rights.
Yeah, that's good English.
