“I Tawt I Taw a PussyHat!”

By | 2017-01-19T12:57:23+00:00 January 19th, 2017|

Guess who’s coming to Washington? No, I’m not talking about the illustrious Mr. Smith made famous by Jimmy Stewart. In this case, it’s “Rosie and the PussyHats.” Having broken her promise to rid the country of her presence in the wake of a Trump victory, Rosie O’Donnell and her ongoing, but increasingly inchoate, hatred of our new president may have helped to inspire a group of radical feminists to knit themselves into a frenzy.

Devastated by Donald Trump’s election, poor traumatized liberal feminists were looking for productive ways to “manage their election-related anger and channel their grief.” Thus the PussyHat Project was born. Litter leaders Krista Suh and Jayna Zweiman saw an opportunity and tossed their own hats into the ring. A day after Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President of the United States, the women of this project will be among the ranks of protesters in the so-called Women’s March on Washington, believing their PussyHats will make a bold visual statement.

Of course the PussyHat has next to nothing to do with felines—it is intended to be a symbol of a woman’s vagina and a visual reminder of the crude words Trump spoke over 10 years ago, in that now infamous recording of a private conversation with “Access Hollywood” personality Billy Bush. Though all women were offended to hear his words, radical feminists claimed to be traumatized and put forward the ludicrous idea that their own vaginas had been “stolen” because of it.

These women say they want to “take back” the word pussy, but this is insane. Pussy—a crude word used both to degrade woman and to insult weak men— isn’t a word any self-respecting woman should want to claim. And women who seek to be taken seriously in the political realm should remember that politics is not the “Vagina Monologues” with friends.

Trump may have gone low with his words, but the PussyHat project goes even lower with its aspirations. One woman posted a blog about creating her own PussyHat: “Crocheting an elaborate labia,“ she explained, “would be time-consuming and something only the most elite crafters would be able to do” so, in the spirit of the new populism, I suppose, pink PussyHats it is! Clearly Michelle Obama’s speech “they go low, we go high” was lost on these women—they seriously thought that elevating a cartoon-like symbol of their genitalia to their heads was the correct response to a bit of sensationalized and lowbrow talk between two men.

Politics becomes a cartoon version of the Vagina Monologues for these women.

The PussyHat Project has gaslighted at least 100,000 women into wearing the handmade vaginas on their heads, and their goal is to have as many as a million PussyHats available at the march. Suh and Zweiman say they love their clever wordplay of “pussyhat” and pussycat,” but they were not clever enough to consider that by putting a “PussyHat” on a woman’s head, they have created a literal female counterpart to the term “dickhead.” I’m certain that the majority of sensible American women do not wish to be referred to as “pussyheads.”

But Zweiman glories in and promotes using the lewd word. “Pussy is a very charged word,” she said. “I’m now very used to saying it, but it’s interesting to hear people talk about the word, and how they feel about the word. These are conversations we all need to have. The discussions are around what is this word, what does it mean? A lot of it is constructive dialogue.” She is, if you will pardon the pun, as mad as a hatter. To encourage and celebrate the use of the word pussy is  not a way to advance a conversation “we all need to have.” It is a real debasement of women—and one that promises to do more real harm to them than a gross and insignificant conversation from a decade ago.

The same woman blogger who explained that the design of the PussyHats was meant to be more accessible than a complicated labia pattern, laments that after the election,

I was left in a dark place. I wanted Hillary to win for women and girls everywhere, but I needed her to win … I was more than mourning the loss; I was downright depressed … How was I supposed to raise a daughter knowing that she would know the word ‘pussy’ before her 5th birthday?”

Here’s some news for her and for all the PussyHat protesters: YOU are making certain that your daughters will know the word “pussy” before their 5th birthday. YOU are making certain that families across the country will have to explain to sons and daughters that the word “pussy” is a disgusting denigration of a woman’s vagina. YOU are creating an atmosphere where the entire nation will feel justified in using the word “pussy” in any variety of derogatory applications.

The women of the PussyHat Project not only are marching in opposition to Trump becoming president. They are angry that the next president is not HIllary Clinton, the enabler and protector of her serial philanderer, abuser, and rapist husband. They are angry that many women chose to not vote for the candidate with a vagina. Their PussyHats are a strong indicator that they are thinking with their, well… not their brains.

So, let’s be clear: These women think that Trump’s words are actual violence. They need to put on their thinking hats and pay attention to this little refresher about what constitutes actual violence: sexual assault and rape are actual violence, the crimes of which former President Bill Clinton is guilty, the crimes in which his wife, Hillary, was complicit.

The PussyHat Project feminists whine and cry about Trump becoming president, but at the the same time they whitewash decades of the Clintons’ despicable actions and vile treatment of women. In truth, it was during Bill Clinton’s presidency that they should have been holding onto their PussyHats.

Unbelievably, Kim Boekbinder, a sexual abuse survivor and musician, has written a song called “Pussy Grabs Back,” the title of which is also the feminists’ crude rallying cry against Trump. She says she wrote the song out of “pure rage” toward the president-elect; that hearing his comments from 10 years ago caused a “triggering weekend” for her as a survivor of sexual abuse.

How is it that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s connections to sexual abuse have had no effect on feminist victims of abuse? Evidently, some people are very selective about their triggers, since their trigger response is experienced only in reaction to conservatives. It’s incomprehensible that genuinely traumatized victims of sexual abuse could support Bill and vote for Hillary without remorse. When a liberal abuses women, it seems, the feminists prefer to just keep it under their PussyHats.

The PussyHat Project is precisely the type of feminism that undermines legitimate efforts of women who fight against degradation and for equity. In her book Who Stole Feminism, American Enterprise Institute scholar and feminist Christina Hoff Sommers astutely delineates branches within feminism, some of which, like the PussyHat Movement, are rightly characterized as gynocentric and misandrist. What better symbol of gynocentric feminism than to wear a hat that symbolizes a vagina. It is ludicrous to believe that a PussyHat is the weapon that will take down a supposed old-hat patriarchy. How embarrassing for this country, that an estimated 100,000 women will create a visible sea of PussyHats, and expect any response other than ridicule and degradation.

The organizers of both the PussyHat Project and Women’s March declare that all are welcome, but in this, too, they are talking through their hats. This claim of inclusiveness is a bold lie meant to disguise their abject cattiness. In their mission statement they are very clear about who is unwelcome. In particular, any person who is pro-life or who claims to be a pro-life feminist is unwelcome, as is any individual who may be opposed to the federal or state funding of birth control or abortion. In fact, pro-life feminists have been abruptly dismissed from all affiliation or sponsorship. Those pink PussyHats inadvertently advertise their thoughtless lack of inclusiveness: For it seems they forgot the lesson of the infamously retired “flesh” colored crayon. The pussyheads limited the hat color to shades of pink, which—we should note—is not very inclusive of female anatomical diversity.

In choosing the pink PussyHat as the symbol of their movement, these women do not rise to the level of dignity that demands a woman be treated as more than the sum of her sexual parts. Not only did they want all women to vote with their vaginas for another vagina, they now want to protest with their vaginas. The pussyheads want to have power because they have vaginas; they plan to wear a vagina on their heads in hope this shows the world that they are more than vaginas and not defined by their vaginas. But this makes absolutely no sense. They may believe that wearing their pink PussyHats will embarrass President Trump on his first day in office, but they’re going to have to eat their own hats.

There couldn’t be a more fitting tribute to a man who takes great pride in his sexual prowess than to see a massive outpouring of women marching past him wearing vaginas on their heads. The shame will be all theirs. Hats off to President Trump!

About the Author:

Michele Bregande
Michele has a BA in Philosophy, University of Dallas and did graduate Studies in Art History and Museum Education, College of William and Mary. She is former Arts and Museum Educator and Exhibit Designer. She is currently a stay-home mom, wife, and artist.
  • Fred Freud

    I must say that I was surprised as I scrolled to the bottom of the page and saw this essay was written by a woman. I don’t mean that in an insulting way- what I’m getting at is that the article explored this issue from nuances that I wouldn’t have expected a woman to address. I appreciate the author calling out the twisted logic of faux “feminists” and rabid leftwing activists. Jesus once talked about the hypocrisy of those who morally “strained at a gnat while swallowing a camel.”

    • Michele Bregande

      It’s sad to think that radical feminists are so loud and overbearing that it’s a surprise when another woman calls out their despicable behavior. I hope more conservative women will begin using their voices to protest the liberal feminist agenda. There is a dignity inherent to all women that feminists tend to ignore, and so many feminine gifts that they see as a burden. The conservative women that I am honored to know are intelligent and self-assured, successful in careers and with fulfilling personal lives. The time is right for women to break out from under the old, tired, and angry feminism that has stifled conservative views, and time to embrace and promote our true feminine genius.

  • Feminism is essentially a money-making gimmick… It has no real coherence as an ideology or ethos. The point is to rustle dollars out of the pockets of some immature subset of 51% of the consumer population– whether those dollars originated as their personal income, or transfers from boyfriend/hubby/dad, makes no difference

  • Bea Nice

    From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism:

    Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are overhyped to present biased impressions on events, which may cause a manipulation to the truth of a story.[1] Sensationalism may include reporting about generally insignificant matters and events that do not influence overall society and biased presentations of newsworthy topics in a trivial or tabloid manner contrary to the standards of professional journalism.[2][3]

    Some tactics include being deliberately obtuse,[4] appealing to emotions,[5] being controversial, intentionally omitting facts and information,[6] being loud and self-centered and acting to obtain attention.[5] Trivial information and events are sometimes misrepresented and exaggerated as important or significant and often include stories about the actions of individuals and small groups of people,[1] the content of which is often insignificant and irrelevant relative to the macro-level day-to-day events that occur globally. Furthermore, the content and subject matter typically affect neither the lives of the masses[1] nor society and instead is broadcast and printed to attract viewers and readers.[1] Examples include press coverage about the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal,[1][7][8] Casey Anthony Trial,[1][9] Tonya Harding’s role in the attack of Nancy Kerrigan,[1][10] the Elian Gonzalez affair[1][11] and the O.J. Simpson murder case.

  • Pingback: A Government of Laws, Not Men - American Greatness()