Category Archives: Feminism

CNN Analyst: Women Wear Skirts and Dresses So They Can’t Carry Guns

Tom Fuentes, CNN’s Senior Law Enforcement Analysis thinks female teachers can’t carry guns because they wear a lot of skirts and dresses. Yes, you read that right.

Darn those skits and dresses!! There’s just nowhere to hide a gun. WRONG.

What Mr. Fuentes doesn’t know is there are entire clothing lines dedicated to female conceal carry and they do a pretty good job of hiding your weapon on your person. There are even some amazing workout clothes, which fit much tighter than skirts and dresses, that allow you to discretely conceal carry.

The Well Armed Woman is full of amazing resources for ladies who carry and not only do they connect ladies to gear and purses, but they have a wealth of knowledge for women who are thinking about buying a gun but don’t know which type of firearm they should go with.

Alexo Athletica  is a newer company that focuses on athletic apparel. Their mission is to “never back down from supporting a woman’s right to choose how she defends herself while striving to bring the best in fashionable, functional active carry-wear to the market.” Their workout pants have multiple pockets that fit pistols, magazines, smart phones, knives, keys and/or all of the above.


Style Me Tactical is an entire fashion blog dedicated to “blend[ing] women’s fashion and self-reliance. Style Me Tactical is a resource and community for women to become inspired, informed, and encouraged to live a lifestyle where being prepared and having the ability to defend oneself can coexist with a woman’s desire to be fashionable.”

There are even special conceal carry bras!

And if that’s not enough, then there’s always the good old fashioned thigh holster, which conceals nicely under a loose fitting skirt or dress.

So there you have it Mr. Fuentes, it looks like there are plenty of options for teachers (or any woman for that matter) who want to conceal carry AND wear a dress/skirt.

It was pretty sexist of you to suggest otherwise.





Hillary Clinton Protected Campaign Adviser Accused of Sexual Harassment

The New York Times is reporting that in 2008, a senior adviser to the Clinton presidential campaign was kept on staff despite sexual harassment accusations against him from another campaign staffer.

Burns Strider served as Clinton’s spiritual adviser, but despite urging from other staff members, was not removed from his position per Clinton’s request. Instead, he was docked several weeks pay and sent to counseling. The staffer accusing Strider of repeated sexual harassment was moved to a different job on the campaign.

From the article in the New York Times:

Those familiar with the accounts said that, over the years, a number of advisers urged Mrs. Clinton to sever ties with Mr. Strider, and people familiar with what took place did not want to see Mrs. Clinton blamed for the misconduct of men she was close to.

Strider never completed his counseling and in 2016 was again accused of harassment and was fired from Correct the Record, a PAC formed to support Clinton’s second presidential campaign.

Clinton campaign staffers including the young woman accusing Strider have not publicly commented on the matter (until now) as all were required to sign a NDA which barred employees from publicly discussing internal dynamics within the Clinton campaign.

Today, Hillary tried to smooth things over with these two tweets.

Anyone familiar with the Clinton’s history shouldn’t be surprised by these revelations. Bill Clinton has been accused of rape and sexual harassment nearly his whole life. And when the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, Lena Dunham claimed she warned the Clinton campaign in 2016 that he Weinstein was a rapist and they ignored it.

Wonder if Clinton supporters, in light of this new revelation and with the timing of the #MeToo movement, will still be with her?



Turns Out, People at Saturday’s Women’s March Didn’t Really Know Why They Were Marching

On Saturday, the women marched again. Some wore pink hats , even though those are supposed to be insensitive to trans women – guess they didn’t get the memo? They were armed with signs supporting Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, pay equality and immigration. Others made fun of conservative women, called for the impeachment of Trump and his cabinet.

The Hulk went. Halsey read a poem about a friend who’d been raped and Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, shamed white women for not being a part of the “sisterhood” and praised black women for saving the country from itself.

And then they literally littered in DC (so much for loving the environment) by leaving all their signs in front of the White House.

But probably the funniest thing on the Internet today was from YouTuber Fleccas Talks who went down to one of the Women’s Marches and asked a few people exactly what they were marching for.

Most couldn’t answer. One guy said he hated conservatism and that Trump wasn’t qualified because he’d never been President before. (That’s every President we’ve ever had serving a first term in office.)

Another felt shame for being a white male. Some women wanted to kill both Trump and Pence. Others were unhappy because he’s “repealed stuff.”

Pure brilliance right there! For a lot of laughs, check out the video below. (Thankfully he also talked to a few sane people who were out there just to watch and actually seemed to have some smarts about them.)



Feminist Turn on Margaret Atwood

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard about the Handmaid’s Tale – a classic book written by acclaimed author Margaret Atwood and turned in to an award-winning TV show by Hulu.

Over the past year, feminists have been using the show as a cautionary tale of what America is becoming at the hands of conservative men who just won’t stay out of their uteri. Some have even staged protests, dressed as handmaids from the show.


But now, in the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movement, Atwood has had some very sane things to say about due process. In her op-ed in Sunday’s Globe and Mail, Atwood, she states:

My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They’re not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn’t need a legal system.

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we’re back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote.

Then goes on to talk about her support of due process because of some claims made against a Professor in British Columbia:

A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds.

…they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.

A common sense approach to the situation, but feminists weren’t having it, torching one of their idols because she wouldn’t fall in line with the rest of their hive mindedness.

Always an interesting time when feminists decide to turn on their own, especially when it’s someone so revered in the movement at Atwood.


Pay Gap Outrage as Mark Wahlberg is Paid More than Michelle Williams when Re-Shooting Movie

A story broke today that Mark Wahlberg was paid 1,500 times more than Michelle Williams when they did re-shoots for the upcoming movie, All the Money in the World. Originally, Kevin Spacey starred in the Ridley Scott flick, but when the sexual allegations came out about the award-winning actor, Scott promptly dropped him from the movie and decided to re-shoot his scenes with a completely different actor.

Williams decided that as an act of solidarity for victims of sexual abuse, she would not take any money, only making a per diem $1,000 over the nine days of filming.

“I said I’d be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me,” Williams told USA Today in December. “And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort.”

Wahlberg on the other hand, decided to take the money, getting paid $1.5 million for the re-shoot.

Now, he’s taking quite a bit of heat, with the typical response from others in the industry as well as the media being that this is a prime example of wage inequality.

Here’s the thing: this is not wage inequality. This is one actress making a choice not to get paid and another actor choosing to do so. Women absolutely should be paid the same amount of money as men if they’re doing the same work – or in this case, sharing the same amount of screen time.

Mark Wahlberg is a huge star. His movies make millions at the box office and he’s currently the highest paid actor in Hollywood. Michelle Williams, a great actress in her own right, does not command the same kind of box office presence. So all this re-shoot nonsense aside, an argument could be made that she’s not an equal draw to the box office and paying Wahlberg more, even though they are co-stars, is still actually not pay inequality because he’ll bring in revenue for the studio, whereas she won’t.

That’s all hypothetical of course because the issue here is the money made during the re-shoot. And in this instance, it’s Williams own fault, not Wahlberg’s, that she wasn’t paid. She could have brought home a paycheck just the same as him, but chose not to as a statement.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Michelle.



Trump, GOP big reasons for Oprah candidacy buzz

Hollywood held one of their biggest self-righteous, self-congratulatory nights, The Golden Globes, this past Sunday evening. It’s a night set aside for the Hollywood Foreign Press (all three of which Pres. Trump seems to be thoroughly against) to recognize the year’s best in film and television.  However, it often devolves into an evening of predictable wins, pretentious, woke speeches and oh so clever jokes directed at the most prominent Republican politician at the time.

Don’t worry, Hollywood didn’t disappoint, they delivered on all fronts. But the biggest takeaway wasn’t a quick-witted swipe of Pres. Trump by this year’s mundane, forgettable host, Seth Meyers. No, instead the biggest moment, the one that still has everyone still talking came courtesy of none other than Oprah Winfrey.

Ms. Winfrey was honored with a lifetime achievement award and delivered a speech that was seemingly, absolutely breathtaking, marvelous and stupendous.

Now, I unlike apparently hordes of other people couldn’t care less what the woman says, does or thinks, including her showstopper Sunday evening speech. But now the media as well as all the celebrities are talking about Oprah Winfrey as a potential 2020 presidential candidate.

WARNING: Up until this point, you’ve likely been reading along in silent agreement, maybe even slightly nodding your head “yes,” but this is where things are probably going to go south. I’m probably going to lose you, make a few of you mad, but it must be said: Pres. Donald Trump and the GOP share a fair amount of blame for all the Oprah 2020 talk.

In 2016, Republicans got caught up in the cult of personality. Donald Trump, the wealthy, businessman, reality TV star – a celebrity – decided he wanted to run for president. At first considered someone without a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, he began saying one outrageous thing after another and soon began getting more and more attention and started rising in the polls. He mocked and ridiculed his opponents all the way to the White House. Sure, it may have been funny, but a fair amount of Republicans, whether they want to admit it or not, got caught up in the hype; they were sold on MAGA.

Now, anyone who has ever paid attention to the world of politics knows the pendulum always swings back the other way, and usually with much more force. Did we really think Democrats wouldn’t float out names, come back with someone richer, more popular? Celebrities are all Democrats. Thus, I present to you Oprah Winfrey.

She’s well-known and for the most part, universally liked (unlike Pres. Trump). She has tons and tons of money, had her own popular television program, and has millions of Twitter followers. She’s a celebrity. Sounds an awful lot like someone else.

Now, all she needs is a slogan and she’s set.

But, but you may be saying: how does a simple, solitary speech set the stage for a presidential campaign for someone who has never, ever run for political office?

Fair enough. Have you ever heard of Ben Carson? 2013 Prayer Breakfast?

I’m not saying I think Winfrey will eventually run for President of the United States. I don’t. What I am saying, what is important to remember, is to not get caught up in the cult of personality – don’t buy the hype. And Republicans most certainly did last presidential election. At the end of the day, they are politicians – Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, [insert name here] – and will let you down. Putting your hope in a politician and believing him or her will remarkably change your life is straight up ridiculous.

Just because someone is rich, popular, has millions of followers on social media, a highly rated television program and a slogan doesn’t make them a great, qualified candidate for office.

– BZ




Ivanka Trump Prompts Liberal Outrage over Tweet

After Oprah’s speech on Sunday night’s Golden Globes, Ivanka Trump sent out this tweet.

Liberals went nuts.

Look, we all know Trump said some pretty awful things. We don’t know if he did any of the things he’s accused of but even if he is, it’s not his daughter’s fault. Just like it’s not Chelsea Clinton’s fault her father is a scumbag.

The only reason these celebrities are upset is because it’s coming from someone with the last name of Trump and they somehow judge her for her fathers words.

Ivanka is probably more in line politically with them anyway so they should be HAPPY they have a left leaning female trying to steer policies in the White House but sadly, she’s judged for things she has no control over.



« Older Entries