BNN: Female Activists Demand End to Limbaugh Boycott

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Washington D.C. - A leading Women's Rights activist group is calling for an end to what they cnosider to be the sexist practice of advertisers boycotting Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the wake of his dust-up with student activist Sandra Fluke.

"This is about empowering women," said group president Abigail McDursten. "We don't want a boy-cott. We don't need a boy-anything!"

When asked about Limbaugh's purported misogyny Ms. McDursten was quick to point-out that miss-ogyny made it sound as if unmarried women were the originators of anti-woman biases and quickly corrected this reporter that the proper term was mister-ogyny.

"I'm also deeply concerned about the violent implications behind HER-icanes."

So sensitive is the group that it recently decided to relocate its national headquarters out of Boys-see, I-da-ho'.

[Eupher]

You're gonna laugh, but when Mrs E and I were in Boise, ID in 2003 or thereabouts, she turned to me and said, "Yep. We're here and I-da-ho'."

[obumazombie]

You're gonna laugh, but when Mrs E and I were in Boise, ID in 2003 or thereabouts, she turned to me and said, "Yep. We're here and I-da-ho'."

Who da ho ?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh, goddamit!!!

Everytime I try to make a parody the idiots prove me right:

Pages has traits that are not immediately apparent, however. While it’s a sturdy little word processor, it’s true personality is not revealed until you use the proofreader — or Proofreadress, as I now think of her. Yes, she’s female all right. Seems to have been designed and programmed by the women’s studies department at Cupertino community college.
 
In a column about Rick Santorum, I had used the word “spokesman.” The proofreader flagged it: “Gender specific expression. Consider replacing with ‘speaker,’ ‘representative’ or ‘advocate.’” Hmm. How would that work? The sentence read, “A spokesman said ‘there is little daylight between Ryan and Gingrich on Medicare.’” None of the suggested words would accurately convey who was talking. Every one would have changed the meaning and confused the reader.
 
Pages just hates gender specific expressions and is constantly on guard for them. In a column titled “Assad’s Useful Idiots” I had written that Vogue magazine “apparently immune to shame, ran a fawning profile of the dictator’s wife.” Proofreadress was on it. “Gender specific expression. A gender neutral word such as ‘spouse’ may be appropriate.” Really Proofreadress? Spouse is a legal word, good for real estate transactions and rhyming with house in Les Miserables’ “Master of the House.” But as a substitute for wife, it’s ungainly and odd. Wife is a perfectly good word — in fact, it’s a perfectly good status, one that I’m glad to enjoy.
 
Proofreadress was also unhappy about the next paragraph of that column, when I quoted Vogue to the effect that Asma al-Assad was “glamorous, young and very chic — the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies.” Uh-oh. “Gender specific expression. Consider replacing with ‘women,’ ‘people’ or ‘individuals.’” It was a quote, of course, and therefore untouchable. But imagine writing “the freshest and most magnetic of first individuals.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2012/03/09/gender_specific_writer