Ace of Spades HQ

January 23, 2010

AmSpec Fisks Newsweek's Hit Job on the March for Life
— Gabriel Malor

Just a taste and then you can click over for the whole thing:

It appears -- and I cringe to write this -- that either Gesaman or Maddux (or both), does not comprehend that the annual Jan. 22 protest in Washington, DC is a pro-life protest. Her/their concern over the prospect that "feminists" will no longer march to "memorialize" Roe v. Wade is...
I don't know. Clearly, this blog post is inscrutable and it's not worth trying to figure out the author's intent. But I am still wrestling with the idea that A) it's possible that there's someone out there -- anywhere -- that does not understand that pro-choice feminists are not participating in the March for Life and B) that Newsweek chose this person to write about today's protests.

Given the way the author twists quotes to make it seem like young women are not participating, rather than young people (neither of which is true, mind you), I'd say it was a conscious decision on her part to give the impression that (1) the March for Life is an aging, dying event; and (2) to the extent it still functions it's the eeevil men doing it. That probably comports with her own beliefs and wishes.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:44 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My understanding is that there's always a great turnout from young people during each March for Life. And I'm almost certain there are more women than men at the event overall.

Posted by: Robert_Paulson at January 23, 2010 07:47 AM (+deq6)

2 Correct, Robert.
There is a huge turnout of young people. Probably the majority are
women, but there are a lot of young men too.
There are also a lot of women there holding "I regret my abortion" signs, as well as men holding "I regret lost fatherhood" signs.

Posted by: Cathy at January 23, 2010 07:53 AM (Y/X5L)

3 Could it be that what is shrinking is the participation of pro-abortion feminists? My experience with this event is that there were both sides present because I used to end up on the Metro with members of both ideological camps and their signs.

I wonder if the pro-abortion side is starting to lose interest in this event.

Posted by: Popcorn at January 23, 2010 07:55 AM (OOehk)

The problem is the poor writing abilties of the author. After reading the article twice, I figured out that she is trying to say two things. First, that both sides of the movement, especially the younger women, are utilizing technology more and getting out and protesting less. Not certain that is factual though. Second, she does seem to say that Pro-Life young women are more active than Pro-Choice. Again, not sure that is factual either. Basically this is one of the most poorly written and ambiguous articles I've read in a while, and that's saying something.

Posted by: Deanna at January 23, 2010 07:58 AM (qxH/X)

Who's Missing at the 'Roe v. Wade' Anniversary Demonstrations?

I'm sure the writer of the post in Newsweek completely missed the obvious answer to the question in the headline.

Posted by: huerfano at January 23, 2010 08:00 AM (kJLH9)

6 Quoted in the article:
Kristy Maddux, assistant professor at the University of Maryland, who specializes in historical feminism.

In other words, some fat bitch with an untrimmed gray bush holding a coat-hanger.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 23, 2010 08:02 AM (RgXpA)

7 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic recently that he had "definite proof of media bias". Linked by himself, with the added comment that Professor Reynolds no longer believes it is no longer media bias, but deliberate lying.

When you've lost Instapundit, you've lost...

Posted by: Emily Litella at January 23, 2010 08:02 AM (GF+6V)

8 From the comments at the link:

Someone should tell Christa that about 1/3 of those young women are missing from the Pro-Life march because they've been aborted.

I suspect there are more young women missing from the pro-abortion rallies because they were aborted than from the pro-life rally, but yeah, THIS.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 23, 2010 08:02 AM (OkT2m)

9 Out out, damn sockpuppet.

Posted by: David in San Diego at January 23, 2010 08:03 AM (GF+6V)

10 My understanding is that there's always a great turnout from young people during each March for Life.

There's a great turnout of all kinds of people, young, old, etc. Hundreds of thousands, every year. And it never gets mentioned in any MSM outlet.

You can be sure, though, if hundreds of thousands of feminist pro-abortionists staged a protest in DC, the MSM wouldn't stop yammering about it for weeks.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:03 AM (hoowK)

11 In other words, some fat bitch with an untrimmed gray bush holding a coat-hanger.

Possibly, but the women of the Seneca Falls Convention were anti-abortion in addition to anti-slavery (and anti-alcohol, but no one's perfect).

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 23, 2010 08:04 AM (OkT2m)

12 You can be sure, though, if hundreds of thousands of feminist pro-abortionists staged a protest in DC, the MSM wouldn't stop yammering about it for weeks.

The smell alone would shut down government for a week or better.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 23, 2010 08:05 AM (RgXpA)

13 2 cathy yeah the father's of the aborted are mostly forgotten......it really scars them....especially when they don't find out until after the fact that their significant other was pregnant, didn't tell them, decided on the abortion with out consulting them.........and when the father would have gladly and lovingly taken full responsibility for their child with or with out the mother's future participation..........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 23, 2010 08:05 AM (ucxC/)

14 Pro-choicers don't have any reason to "protest." The law is on our side. I've never really had any interest in attending a protest anyway. Maybe the ANSWER and CODE PINK folks ruined it for me.

Posted by: ingrid newkirk at January 23, 2010 08:08 AM (Hs60j)

15 OT: Hey John McCain: Suck. Me.
http://tinyurl.com/ykm5cyy

Posted by: J. D. Hayworth at January 23, 2010 08:11 AM (RgXpA)

16 Pro-choicers don't have any reason to "protest."

Please tell that to stupid bitches I know from meatspace who can't let a day go by on Facebook without bloviating about how the evil conservative patriarchy is going to magically inseminate them, then force them to gestate full term in prison against their will.

(I suspect this is some sort of wish-fulfillment fantasy thing, since they're mostly fat, ugly, childless, divorced, and perimenopausal.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 23, 2010 08:12 AM (OkT2m)

17 16 heather graphic description....ick

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 23, 2010 08:15 AM (ucxC/)

18 The problem is the poor writing abilties of the author. After reading the article twice, I figured out that she is trying to say two things. First, that both sides of the movement, especially the younger women, are utilizing technology more and getting out and protesting less.

The AmSpec piece suggests the solution and I think it works, to wit: the Newsweek author, Krista Gesaman, does not understand that the annual event is a pro-life march, organized by pro-life groups protesting the Roe v. Wade decision, and the presence of pro-abortion feminists is virtually non-existent.

If you read it in that light, the Newsweek piece is less bewildering. Of course, you will be bewildered by something else, namely, what, exactly, did Gesaman do to make herself so completely stupid?

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:17 AM (hoowK)

19 There is a notable shortage of "feminists" these days, compared to years past. They're still annoying scrunts when you run into them, but the current crop of womens seems a hell of a lot more likely to make me a sammich when I ask.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 23, 2010 08:20 AM (RgXpA)

Have they tried the pro-lifers as "paid agents of the baby food industry" angle yet?

Posted by: Crusty at January 23, 2010 08:20 AM (qzgbP)

Have they tried the pro-lifers as "paid agents of the baby food industry" angle yet?

Posted by: Crusty at January 23, 2010 12:20 PM (qzgbP)

Posted by: Your Friends at Procter and Gamble at January 23, 2010 08:22 AM (RgXpA)

22 I hate it when the blog breaks and kills a perfectly good sockpuppet joke.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 23, 2010 08:22 AM (RgXpA)

23 Am I the only one that can post or what?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 23, 2010 08:29 AM (RgXpA)

24 There is a notable shortage of "feminists" these days, compared to years past. They're still annoying scrunts when you run into them, but the current crop of womens seems a hell of a lot more likely to make me a sammich when I ask.

That's why pro-abortion feminism is so wonderful. The annoying scrunts are killing their offspring, while the pro-life women are raising theirs, and having a lot more of them. The idiot feminists can't seem to grasp the fact that what they're doing is not a good long-term formula for success.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:30 AM (hoowK)

25 No, I'm not seeing any problem with the blog, Herr.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:31 AM (hoowK)

26 Also, the commenters on Gesman's blog post are having fun pointing out her abject cluelessness.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:34 AM (hoowK)

Â“Young women are still concerned about these issues, but theyÂ’re not trained to go out and protest,Â”

What an awful, sexist remark to think that young women need to be "trained" to protest.

I'm shocked...or something...

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2010 08:36 AM (Be4xl)

28 From the comments at the link:

Someone should tell Christa that about 1/3 of those young women are missing from the Pro-Life march because they've been aborted.

Heh. Years ago, Fox Butterfield, a reporter from the NY Times wrote a mind-bogglingly stupid piece in which he asked the question, "Why is the crime rate so low even as the prison population is so high?"

I've always thought that the Butterfield piece idiocy was an achievement that could never be duplicated.. Until now.

Compared to Krista Gesaman , Butterfield is an analytical genius.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 23, 2010 08:43 AM (hoowK)

29 A high-school age cousin is there with the pro-life side, and posting pics on Facebook. She is Catholic and attends a Catholic high school, so she is possibly going in conjunction with her school, but I'm sure she is also truly pro-life.

Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at January 23, 2010 08:43 AM (nlv2q)

30 21 Have they tried the pro-lifers as "paid agents of the baby food industry" angle yet? Posted by: Crusty at January 23 NOT BIG GERBER! My God. those people control EVERYTHING! My President and Chuck Schumer said so!

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at January 23, 2010 09:13 AM (oxMVR)

BIG GERBER!

You think those people are going to donate to pro-abor...um, pro-choice candidates?

Posted by: Barry O at January 23, 2010 09:20 AM (kJLH9)

32
In other words, some fat bitch with an untrimmed gray bush holding a coat-hanger.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz
If you google the author, up she pops. I would link except I am computer dumb.
I guess an ambiguous colored untrimmed bush,

Posted by: Artruen at January 23, 2010 09:23 AM (L+dBi)

33 You guys see the latest episode of "Bones?" Angela thought she was pregnant, and said that two people, the mother and the father, would be linked for life by a new soul--the baby's. How that for pro-life? On prime-time tv???

Posted by: ushie at January 23, 2010 09:24 AM (GkYyh)

34 There's probably a bunch of my fellow Cat-licks there, and we all know the only ones that the media likes are the ones that basically tell the clergy & Pope that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to abortion (Kennedy clan, Kerry, Pelosi, etc.).

Toss in the Bible-thumper brigade, and there's a whole bunch of unpersons participating. Why would the media cover it?

(As for me, I'll be there in spirit, along with a lot of us fellow pro-life breeders who can't just drop everything and go off for a DC weekend....)

Posted by: bigpinkfluffybunny at January 23, 2010 09:28 AM (KWhJd)

35 #29 - Must not say "Pics or it didn't happen."

Posted by: butch at January 23, 2010 09:32 AM (8NiWI)

36 33 You guys see the latest episode of "Bones?" Angela thought she was pregnant, and said that two people, the mother and the father, would be linked for life by a new soul--the baby's. How that for pro-life? On prime-time tv???

Posted by: ushie at January 23, 2010 01:24 PM (GkYyh)

As opposed to this, one of my relatives got a girl pregnant and when asked if he would marry her, he said, "I just don't know if I want a long term relationship with her."

Sorry, son, but you got one now.

Posted by: soulpile at January 23, 2010 10:52 AM (afWhQ)

37 The feminists keep trying to tell us that abortion-on-demand is only being held up by a cabal of misogynistic males.

Feminists also apparently don't read academic political science literature, or look at the relevant peer-reviewed data.

Fortunately, I have.

From examining the American National Election Survey data from 2000-2006, it becomes pretty clear that the average sentiment of men and women on abortion in this country, on an aggregate sense, is virtually identical. The median male and female thinks relatively similar on the practice (to wit, that it should be kept legal, but with considerably more legal restrictions on it than currently exists).

Where men and women differ is in how their opinions vary; to wit, women, as should come as no surprise to anyone here, are the most likely to express strong opinions on abortion, either pro-life or pro-choice. Men's opinions tend to be more concentrated in the center (basically a "don't know, don't care" milieu that would be expected from a group largely personally unaffected by the issue).

If the feminists want to blame somebody for perpetuating a culture of life, they need to realize that it's not always, or even often, those brutish, smelly men responsible.

Posted by: The Rogue Economist at January 23, 2010 11:03 AM (HkMul)

I saw it. My ears were def. peeled to hear how the script would deal with it. I like Bones; I think the writers do a pretty good job of being fair--ex: every time Hodgins goes on some anti-American tirade someone, usu. Booth, slams him pretty good.

Posted by: Nicole at January 23, 2010 01:34 PM (CH1cF)

39 less abortion means more Dems and welfare queens

Posted by: sheik Yamani at January 23, 2010 05:02 PM (mhD2v)

40 Speaking as a childless (trust me NOT by choice) prolifer, I find the pro death brigade despicable. One thing I find sad is how many of the scrunts are desperately trying to justify the abortion(s) they had and ignore the "maybe I killed a baby" thoughts they get.

Posted by: NotAMolly at January 23, 2010 05:14 PM (ADJFU)

41 yes,you are all right. chi hair iron are precious possession for not only women but men also. you may have a try make everyone in your family fashionable.

Posted by: Chi Hair Straightener on sale at January 31, 2010 05:30 PM (/NRfc)

42 中古ビデオ

Posted by: sdfxcvbxcvb at September 15, 2010 10:29 PM (u3rfe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

90kb generated in CPU 0.1003, elapsed 0.1917 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1726 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.