Christian Blogger, Veronica Partridge, Takes a Stance Against Lust-Inducing Leggings, Gets Bashed By Conservative-Hating Liberals

People.com:

While the debate continues on whether or not leggings are pants, one woman has made a choice to not wear the popular spandex bottoms in public for a very specific reason. Veronica Partridge, a Christian wife, mother, farmer and homemaker based in Oregon, posted on her personal blog about why she has made the decision to no longer wear leggings.

“Was it possible my wearing leggings could cause a man, other than my husband, to think lustfully about my body?” she wrote in a post that has now been shared over 50,000 times on Facebook. “Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them?”

She made the decision to stop wearing yoga pants and similar bottoms out in public after having her beliefs about the temptation associated with leggings confirmed by her friends and her husband.

“It had been something that was on my mind for quite some time,” she tells PEOPLE. “I didn’t want to possibly cause another man, especially a married man, to look at me in a way I believe he should only look at his wife.”

Partridge makes it clear, however, that these are her own beliefs, and she has no intentions of pushing them onto others.

“I was never trying to start a movement or try to tell women how to dress,” she says. “I was just sharing my personal decision on my personal blog.”

The lifestyle blogger says she was surprised by how much attention — mostly negative — this particular post received.

“Never did I expect it to go so viral,” Partridge says. “If I knew it was going to, I would have never posted it.”

Mind you, this is her choice. A decision she posted on her OWN blog. Some Godless social liberal must've seen it, ran with it and got with a bunch of their friends to spread her testimony, while intent on smearing her at the same time. Of course she doesn't have to apologize for anything and of course, no remowned feminist will come out to publicly defend her because of her conservatives views. It's how they do.

RELATED: You Shouldn’t Judge This Blogger For Giving Up Leggings To Protect Her Relationship

Actress Kaley Cuoco Asked If She Is A Feminist, Her Response Made Feminists Angry

DCGazette.com:

You will seldom hear a Hollywood actress speaking out against the craziness of feminism these days. That’s why it was so refreshing to read the views of actress Actress Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting on the issue. She stars in the popular sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory”, and she is making quite an impact of her own. When asked in a Redbook interview if she was a feminist, she responded with,

“Is it bad if I say no? It’s not really something I think about.

Things are different now, and I know a lot of the work that paved the way for women happened before I was around… I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that’s because I’ve never really faced inequality.

I cook for Ryan five nights a week: It makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I’m so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think it kind of rubbed off.”

My goodness, did a Hollywood actress just say that she LIKED serving her husband? That poor naive woman! Doesn’t she know that taking care of your husband makes you weak? Hasn’t anyone told her that in order to be equal you have to participate in vile acts, like dressing up in vagina costumes or writing demands on your naked body? I mean, how else do you expect to be taken seriously?

Liberals have already started attacking Kaley on Twitter for her comments about feminism. One user tweeted,

“How can someone who is reaping the benefits of the feminist movement (via her large paycheck) not be a “feminist”?

Another offended liberal wrote, “Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting’s thoughts on feminism are as tragic as her haircut. Barf.”

Kaley responded on twitter by saying ” I apologize if I offended anyone. Anyone who knows me, knows my heart, and knows what I really meant. ”

RELATED: Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting apologizes for saying she's not a feminist

Feminist Woman Goes In On What's Wrong With The Catcalling Video! "It's Propaganda, Not Evidence Of A Crime Against Womankind"

RELATED: Hollaback responds to criticism of racial bias in street harassment video

Why The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth

RELATED: 5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

Hollyweird Liberal Lena Dunham Comes Out As A Child Molester

TruthRevolt.com:

On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:

We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister.  The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it.  We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.

We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.

In particular, the letter from Ms. Dunham’s lawyers labeled as “false and defamatory” our claims that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.” In her desire to curb First Amendment freedoms, Dunham’s attorneys threatened legal action seeking “millions of dollars; punitive damages which can be a multiple of up to ten times actual damages; and injunctive relief.”

We assume that both Ms. Dunham and her attorneys are capable of reading Ms. Dunham’s book, which contains the following direct excerpts:

“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven.

“Yes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.”

I looked at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.
“Does her vagina look like mine?”

“I guess so,” my mother said. “Just smaller.”

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.

And this:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

And this:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” or that our interpretation of those events was libelous under the law, then we look forward to asking her, in her deposition, about why they appeared in her book. We also look forward to asking her why she believes it is now appropriate for a 28-year-old woman to make light of opening her baby sister’s vagina, paying her with candies for prolonged kisses on the lips in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbating in bed next to her prepubescent sister.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” then she should explain whether her statements in which she accused a young college Republican of rape were also false. We look forward to asking her about that in her deposition as well, given that she has reportedly refused to cooperate with Oberlin police to track down the alleged perpetrator, which leaves other young women at risk if her accusations are true.

It is worth noting that Truth Revolt was far from the only outlet to point out these troubling sections in Ms. Dunham’s book. National Review’s Kevin Williamson wrote of “Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace” – the article that first alerted us to Ms. Dunham’s disturbing writings. The Daily Caller’s Derek Hunter has written of Ms. Dunham’s “gleeful sexual abuse of her infant sister, Grace.”

After Truth Revolt’s report on Ms. Dunham’s book, Ms. Dunham took to Twitter with what she termed a “rage spiral,” terming accusations that “I molested my little sister isn’t just LOL – it’s really fucking upsetting and disgusting.” She added, “And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid’s vagina, well, congrats to you.” No, congrats to you, Ms. Dunham – you’ve managed to lead a life so free of criticism that you find it “upsetting and disgusting” when some folks are offended that you “carefully spread open” your baby sister’s vagina, or paid her to kiss you on the mouth in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbated in bed next to her as a teenager. In the real world, folks find such behavior upsetting and disgusting, not reporting on such behavior.

Bullies like Ms. Dunham may believe that firing off legal threats against those who exercise First Amendment rights is perfectly legitimate. But for a woman who proclaims to be an advocate for freedom of speech to attempt to shut down such speech based on her own apparent embarrassment at her own disclosures in her own book demonstrates the totalitarianism of those on the left – and those in the legal and media establishment who enable them.

RELATED: Concha: Lena Dunham’s Disturbing Passage Deserves All the Scorn It’s Getting

Bristol Palin Rips Liberal Media Coverage of Family Brawl, Tells Her Side of Story

Mediaite.com:

So by now, you’ve all heard about that infamous Palin family brawl and maybe even listened to the audio of Bristol Palin telling the police what happened. Well, now Palin has written a lengthy blog post not only clearing up exactly what happened, but lashing out at the media for its coverage of her family.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palin says a friend got knocked out by some guy, whose mom pushed her little sister Willow when she got upset with him. Bristol went to confront her, but ran into some giant man who reportedly shouted, “You cunt! Get the fuck out of here, you slut!”

And according to Palin, he proceeded to start pushing her down to the ground. She hit him in self-defense, and describes the intense situation as “scary and infuriating.”

Palin then takes the opportunity to go after the media for latching onto rumors and random people as eyewitnesses. She thinks this is part of a broader pattern of how conservative women are treated:

Violence against women is never okay… Even if that violence occurs against conservative women. Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

But it wasn’t Chelsea.

It wasn’t Hillary.

It wasn’t someone they liked or someone they agreed with.

It was a conservative.

And once again, the hypocrisy of the media is laid bare.

RELATED: CNN’s Carol Costello Apologizes for Comments About Palin Brawl

Feminists, You Can't Pick Your Battles

BloombergView.com:

Shikha Dalmia -- who, I should note, in the interests of full disclosure, is a colleague of my husband’s and a charming dinner companion, as well as a Bloomberg View contributor -- recently wrote a column for Reason magazine and the Week about affirmative consent laws. I’ve already said my piece about affirmative-consent laws, to which I will just add this: I am disturbed as hell by the number of feminists I’ve seen defending these laws on the grounds that of course they will rarely be enforced. Why pass laws you don’t intend to enforce? 

Unenforceable laws weaken our whole legal framework by conceding that really, the whole thing is just an arbitrary exercise of power by authorities -- a theory of justice that has not, I must point out, generally redounded to the benefit of women and minorities. It is, in the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “Pinning a ‘kick me!’ sign on the backside of the majesty of the law."
But Dalmia makes a different argument:

The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying -- but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.

This invited a response, titled "Consent Laws Are Ruining Sex, Says Writer Who Probably Has Awful Sex," from feminist site Jezebel.

"This argument is bad and dumb for many reasons," writes Erin Gloria Ryan, adding that the assumption that a man trying to convince a tired woman to have sex "while she wonders to herself if this is what she really wanted is an assessment of heterosexual intercourse so grim that I feel a great deal of pity for the person whose life experiences have led to those conclusions. And even if that were the sexual status quo, why on earth would we defend it?"

Ryan goes on: "Secondly, the writer assumes that men are always the sexual assailants and women are always the victims and that rape always occurs in the context of a heterosexual coupling, which is so far from being an accurate statement that it's damaging to male victims of sexual assault and victims of female assailants."

One hardly even knows where to begin with this. First of all, there’s the awful reading comprehension, which converted “sometimes one partner wants sex more than the other, and coaxes the other person into it, which can sometimes lead to great sex that you’d have regretted missing” into “close your eyes and think of your children.”

And then there’s the sex shaming.

This is the sort of thing that feminists are supposed to be against. It frequently gets deployed against left-leaning feminists, and for that matter, any woman who argues that women belong in the workplace but might have trouble staying there because things are still just a teensy bit stacked against them. 

A certain sort of male commenter seems to take it as a given that any woman who argues that we need further progress toward equality is a frigid, castrating she-male whose husband or boyfriend would be too spineless and weak to satisfy them sexually even if they weren’t so busy polishing their Precious Moments figurines. And though they seem to think this is so obvious as to go without saying, they don’t; they write you four-page, one-paragraph e-mails or pepper your comments section with ALL CAPS!!!

When guys do this to them, left feminists easily recognize it for what it is: reactionary, misogynist bile spewed by angry people who couldn’t think of an actual argument. So why does Erin Gloria Ryan feel free to deploy it against a woman with whom she disagrees? Why didn’t her colleagues at Jezebel take her aside and say, “Hey, that’s not how we roll. We’re against sex shaming, remember?”

This is not the first time I’ve run into this idea that all’s fair as long as you restrict it to conservatives. Although the exact post seems to be lost to the mists of Internet time, I’ll never forget when a woman at a major feminist site accused me of holding the political opinions I do because -- wait for it -- I was trying to catch a man. Or the liberal men too numerous to count, or at least bother counting up over the years, who have hailed me with every misogynist slur you could imagine, and a few I’m sure you couldn’t. 

This is the exact opposite of the way things should work. If you want to argue for a principle, you need to embody that principle consistently -- at least, if you want to convince anyone else. Libertarians who argue that private charity can make up for government safety nets should be giving more of their income to private welfare charities than any other group. Conservatives who think that abortion should be completely illegal should not go and obtain them for their own daughters. People who oppose school choice should not send their children to private schools or relocate to an affluent suburb when they have kids. And feminists who are against sex shaming should be outraged when it happens to people whose ideas they despise, as outraged as they certainly are when it happens to one of their own. Otherwise, people just smirk at your “principle” and see it for what it is: something between sheer tribal hypocrisy and a lie.

Here’s what feminism actually means, or should: Women -- all women -- are just as entitled to hold opinions as anyone else. And here’s the really crazy part: They’re entitled to hold opinions that are completely different from yours, even if you are also a woman. And while you are absolutely entitled to argue that those ideas are immoral, impractical, befuddled, benighted, unscrupulous, intolerable and downright wrongheaded, you should not make disparaging remarks about the speaker's sex life. If you do, you should feel ashamed of yourself. And in this case, so should any feminists who manage to call out every third-tier state Republican campaign worker for misogynist comments but don’t find the time to condemn one at one of their own Internet homes.

RELATED:  Questions About California’s New Campus Rape Law

Morning Joe Asks: Was Female Secret Service Director Case of ‘Quota First, Competency Second’?

Mediaite.com:

Morning Joe and Laura Ingraham have found something to agree on. Close the borders! No, actually it’s the suspicion that Secret Service Director Julia Pierson was hired out not for her qualifications but out of a need to “rebrand” the Secret Service following a high-profile incident with prostitutes, aka a desire for political cover via gender diversity.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This is a delicate subject,” began MJ-regular Donny Deutsch, never a good start. “We need to be careful, though, that we are never ever throwing the baby out with the bath water as far as: the best person always has to get the job. As we go through her resume, you go: obviously, coming off the prostitute scandal, okay, yeah, women on top, good for the ‘brand,’ if you will. But the brand doesn’t work if it’s not competent. In positions of national security, quota second, competency first. It’s a delicate subject, but we’ve gotta talk about it.”

“I understand what donny is saying. after the prostitute scandal, somebody thought, hey, you know what, it would be really good for the Secret Service brand to have a woman running the place,” Joe Scarborough said. “Maybe she’s still there because of that, I don’t know.”

The panel then did what the MJ panel always does when it’s discussing gender issues: turned to Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski brought up Pierson’s resume several times to the point that Scarborough asked if she’d found something fishy in it. Brzezinski said no, but added that it would be heavily scrutinized in the days to come. 

“I really don’t know more than that,” Brzezinski said. “I know, though, that we have now like four or five stories surrounding the Secret Service, which has been under a cloud of scandal already, that really don’t bode well for the agency’s strength and our confidence in it as a whole, so we’ll ask these questions.”

See if you can can’t the number of times someone in this segment said “I don’t know” while condemning a civil servant.

Oh, the irony. Radical feminism in addition to Barack Obama's love for putting women in high-powered positions regardless of skills may cost him his life.

RELATED: Dem Rep. Cummings Demands Secret Service Director ‘Has to Go’

S.E. Cupp: Telling Celebrities To Not Post Nude Pictures Online Is Not 'Victim Blaming' But Common Sense

NYDailyNews.com:

After stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Ariana Grande were quite literally exposed on Sunday by hackers who found and then publicly posted hundreds of nude photos from iCloud, a pseudo-intellectual debate of sorts emerged (where else?) online over who is to blame for such an outrageous injustice.

This elaborate blame game shifts responsibility from an obvious fact: It just isn’t wise to keep nude photos of yourself on the cloud if you don’t want them made public.

No, I’m not excusing the hackers, who of course ought to pay for their crimes. Nor am I trying to stifle the right of women to express themselves sexually. I am simply stating what, to most of rational America, is already obvious.

To make this assertion, however, is a profound affront to the self-appointed defenders of things that don’t need defending.

Things like Hollywood celebrities, whose lawyers — believe me — are on top of this.

And things like privacy, which also already has its skilled protectors. Hacking into someone’s computer, stealing passwords and photos and then posting them (celebrity or not) is already very much illegal, as it should be.

Also things like feminism, which is invoked here for I’m not sure what reason, but presumably because the story involves women who are naked. And for some, that tenuous connection really is enough.

Yet these defenders of the well-defended are downright indignant that you would dare to suggest a simple solution, as if posing for nude pictures is not only the right of every celebrity (who looks as good as Kate Upton does) but nothing short of a feminist statement.

Megan Gibson of Time: “If your reaction to the hack attack on celebrities is to blame them for taking nude photos,” she threatens, “you’re pointing the finger at the wrong person.”

The right person, according to her? The hackers. As I mentioned, reasonable people have already decided that what the hackers did is illegal.

I’ve not read anywhere in the vast repository that is the Internet a single instance of the hackers being defended. So, thank you for correctly identifying the culprit that everyone else has already identified. 

The other group deserving of blame, she says? “A culture that nurtures this kind of misogynist attack.” And by “culture,” she means you, for suggesting celebrities be a little more careful when posing nude for photographs.

------------------------

The response to rational people like Gervais, in addition to accusing them of slut-shaming and victim-blaming, is to liken the photos to other everyday things we use and don’t want stolen.

“Make it harder for hackers to steal your credit card # by not owning a credit card #rickygervaislogic” wrote Professor Mary Anne Franks (@ma_franks) on Twitter.

Um, no. This is the flawed logic of people who can see victims in everything, and yet to whom common sense remains an invisible, elusive mythology.

For one, unless we are fugitives, we must use credit cards. We do not yet live in a world where we must take nude photos (though I’m sure we would if Lena Dunham had her way).

For another, owning things that are valuable, like flashy cars, expensive jewelry or photos of naked celebrities, does actually make you more susceptible to theft. This is not victim-blaming but a fact, and people who own these things know this.

Just as it is rational and reasonable to suggest protecting your credit cards and expensive things from fraud and theft, it is rational and reasonable to suggest the same of your nude photos.

Rational people actually do suggest you don’t use credit cards in places like Internet cafes or public Wi-Fi spaces where stealing them is easier, just as rational people like Gervais suggest you don’t keep nude photos on your computer, where stealing them is easier.

I’m very sorry we don’t live in a world where celebrity nude photos are unhackable. But until we have technology that is 100% impenetrable, doesn’t it only make sense to say that if you don’t want your nude photos stolen, don’t take nude photos with technology that makes their dissemination easy or store them on technology that can be hacked?

Apparently the truth is misogynistic.

Funny when radical feminist journalists point to lowlife hypocrites like Lena Durham for sage wisdom and advice. I don't often agree with S.E. Cupp, but she makes total sense here.

RELATED: The obligatory “celebrity nudes hacked” post

Stephen A. Smith Didn't Say Anything Wrong

CNN.com:

After football player Ray Rice was caught on video dragging his unconscious fiancee out of an elevator, his attorney called the incident a "very minor physical altercation." Where I'm from, when one combatant in a fight gets knocked out, that is no longer "minor."

Once the incident made the news, it was inevitable that there would be a "minor" kerfuffle over the story. I am not interested in discussing the incident itself. What I am interested in discussing is how this incident shows us that when emotional issues are involved, fair debate and discussion get knocked out, too.

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith was nowhere near the elevator that day, but he just got knocked out by a chorus of voices and a spineless employer. When Smith commented on the issue, he clearly stated his position that Rice was dead wrong and deserved punishment. Without excusing it, Smith gave his opinion that, in general, when there is violence, sometimes it might be worth asking questions about provocation. He made it clear that there should never be violence, especially by a man against a woman.

For even suggesting that there could be provocation before a fight, Smith is now off the air. Mind you, Smith never tried to justify Rice's actions. Once the outcry began, Smith rushed to apologize.

I don't believe that Smith owed anyone an apology. If you listen to his entire statement, he said nothing to suggest that Rice's now-wife, Janay, "had it coming," nor did he make any excuses for Rice's behavior. The only offense he committed was that he blathered so incoherently that he made it hard to see how he managed to get a TV show in the first place.

So, if ESPN wants to take him off the air and replace him with a better commentator, I'm all for it. But I'm disgusted at the rancorous, politically correct swarm that descended upon Smith, and the spineless reaction of the management at ESPN.

And once the swarm gets into "beast mode," there is no recovery.

Why? Plain and simple: sexism.

Recall that a few months ago, Solange Knowles attacked Jay-Z. When that happened, the feminist site Jezebel had this take: "The real tea isn't the fight itself, but what could have possibly gone down between the two to make Solange kick her sister's husband in the balls." In other words, "if she hit him, he must have done something to have it coming." And this was not an outlier view.

Nobody's outrage meter spiked there. No, it was "funny."

I'm not defending Ray Rice. But there's definitely a "sit down and shut up" double standard among those who seek to promote one side of this issue -- and this is less about Smith's comments being inappropriate. The gleeful rush to call for Smith's head is far more inappropriate.

Yes, there's a difference between a physically huge NFL player beating up his fiancee and a wisp of a woman kicking Jay-Z in the crotch. But what's really going on here?

What's really going on here is that one side of the debate wants to make it impermissible for the other to speak. At all.

Take this in the context of how gender issues are presented when there are voices that dare to deviate from the feminist narrative.

Here's an example: Recently, there was a conference in Detroit for the "A Voice For Men" blog and its readers. That controversial website has the audacity to question certain issues from a man's perspective. As a result, according to news reports, this political meeting was the target of threats of violence that, in any other context, would have been called "terrorism."

Organizers said the conference moved from the hotel where it was to be held. Did you hear about that? It didn't get very much press coverage. Nobody called for a candlelight vigil. Could you imagine if this had been the annual meeting of the National Organization for Women?

Perhaps Smith is a complete ignoramus. Or, perhaps he was misunderstood. And next to that, we must concede that there was very little criticism of those who said that Jay-Z must have done something to provoke violence against him. There was no real outcry when A Voice For Men was the victim of what would be called "terroristic threats" if it was any other viewpoint.

Listen to comedian Bill Burr. In a routine, he discusses the statement "there's no reason to hit a woman." He's doing comedy, but he makes a really cogent point -- perhaps there is no justification for it, but why is it so taboo to ask about what happened before the violence?

"When you say there's no reason, that kills any sort of examination as to how two people ended up at that place. If you say there's no reason, you cut out the build-up, you're just left with the act. How are you going to solve it if you don't figure it out?" he said.

RELATED:  Was Stephen A. Smith really wrong?

Study: Women Slut-Shame Each Other On Twitter as Much as Men Do

"Slut-shaming", another term/cause celebre by white leftists to fight the "war on women":

A British study has revealed that women are tweeting slurs that are derogatory to their own gender almost as frequently and viciously as men. But is this really so surprising?

In the 2004 film Mean Girls, Tina Fey’s character, a high school math teacher, addresses a gymnasium full of clashing teenage girls about what she dubs “girl-on-girl crime”: “You’ve got to stop calling each other sluts and whores,” she pleads. “It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores.” Her message, along with much of the film’s, is clear: females can be their own gender’s worst enemy.

While that’s a truth that’s largely accepted about high school girls – where cliques and bullying are defining characteristics of the environment – it’s also an outlook that often carries over into adulthood. And not entirely without reason.

Last week, UK think tank Demos released a study that examined online misogyny and who, precisely, was behind it. Looking at tweets that used the words “rape,” “whore,” and “slut” that were sent from UK-based accounts between Dec. 26, 2013 and Feb. 9, 2014, the study found that more than 100,000 messages used the word “rape,” while 85,000 used the term “slut” and 48,000 used the word “whore.”

Naturally, a large proportion of the tweets were inoffensive – ie they shared news stories about rape or advocated against the use of misogynistic terms – but many were used in an offensive, off-handed way or worse. Around 12 percent of tweets that contained the word “rape” and 20 percent that contained “slut” or “whore,” seemed to be intended as a direct threat or insult. But the most surprising element of the research – according to the think tank – was the revelation that women were almost as likely to send tweets with the words “slut,” “whore” or “rape” – used both casually and offensively – as men were. Demos’ analysis found that accounts with male names used one of the words 116,530 times, while accounts with female names did so 94,546 times.

Is this surprising? It seems perplexing that great numbers of women are tweeting misogynistic insults that are derogatory to their own gender. But when you take a closer look, it’s not actually all that surprising that women are capable of bullying and gross misogyny, particularly online. Research has shown time and time again, that hostility toward women thrives online. Women are routinely subject to harassment, sexist attacks and rape and death threats online. In January this year, two people in the UK pleaded guilty in court to sending menacing tweets about British feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez and were sentenced to jail time. One of the culprits was a woman, 23-year-old Isabella Sorley.

That women are behind some of those attacks doesn’t come as a surprise to Cheryl Dellasega, a professor at the Pennsylvania State University and author of the book Mean Girls Grown Up. She says that women – and men – often adopt the dominant attitude and language that’s used around them in order to fit in. “You have to comply the norm,” she says. “Even if it’s a norm you don’t like.”

RELATED: Guest commentary: Dems Exploit Women in Fake War