Written by 
Liberal feminists have a long history of denigrating stay-at-home moms. One could argue that raising children (and raising them right), is quite possibly the most important job there is. And yet, time and time again they act as if all the wonderful technology we have today always existed and that those evil men banished them indoors anyway. For that, Lizz only needs to travel to the Middle East…
Liberal feminists act as if being a mother is a “chore,” when in fact the ability to give life and then nurture it into someone who will be a good, honest contributing member of society is a blessing. Comedienne and co-creator of the Daily Show, Lizz Winstead, is Exhibit-A for the case against the liberal-feminist worldview. Or perhaps I should say Exhibit-Z4, since no one really knows who she is. She states:
One time my mom gave me a stove, a toy stove, for Christmas and I was like, are you kidding?! Even at 8, I was like, cooking is not a game. You know, this is not a game. I want to be outside. I want to do anything but cook and have a baby that pees and that you call that a game. That is not a game, that is a baby that pees. That is not fun for me. That’s indentured servitude.
Indentured servitude. It takes a special kind of narcissist to refer to motherhood as “indentured servitude.” Of course, when you think the world should revolve around you that’s the logical progression of thoughts, I guess. With that said, I can’t help but think that perhaps there’s more to the story than an 8 year old little girl who never wanted to be a mommy. Perhaps Winstead’s antipathy toward motherhood doesn’t trace back to her Barbie days, but her…abortion.
Please, watch the entire video. It’s a fascinating case study of denial and projection. Lizz, a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, talks about her experience as a 16 year old—she became pregnant the first time she had sex. In her desperation she went to a religious organization to get tested anonymously. After tests came back, besides being told that she could have the child or give it up for adoption, a woman deadpanned: “It’s either mommy or murder.”
Harsh words for a 16 year old? Sure. But what does one expect when they go to an organization that believes life begins at conception? That’s like being surprised you got pregnant after having sex without a condom. At eight Lizz was smart enough to be thinking about ‘indentured servitude,’ but at 16 she wasn’t smart enough to go to the drug store for a pack of condoms. Teenage Liz wasn’t too bright, but then again, we’re all lucky that being a good person isn’t dependent on IQ.
The most telling takeaway from her pro-choice tale seem to be:
In response to being told she had the baby’s life to think about: “What about my life? What are my choices? … I have pom-poms in my room! I can’t be a mom! … I felt so alone … How could she be pro-life when she wasn’t pro-my-life? That wasn’t pro-life, that was profane.”
Lizz never wanted choices—she wanted an abortion. And she didn’t want just an abortion, she wanted to be told that it was okay. A clinic worker who didn’t tell Lizz she could live a life without consequences was somehow “profane”? Nice try. The fact of the matter is that Winstead wanted her pregnancy to be over and done with—forgettable, like the high school sporting events she used to cheer for. Then, instead taking out her anger on the boyfriend who left her and acknowledging her own culpability for the way things unfolded, she lashes out at religious organizations and pro-life members of society.
Like Bill Maher and so many other comedians, Lizz is carrying around some serious pain. She’s angry, and she masks that anger by telling jokes. She aborted her baby and will carry that memory with her to the grave, and to downplay the seriousness of her actions she must downplay the importance of motherhood. According to Liz, she didn’t have an abortion—she freed herself from at least 18 years of “indentured servitude.” And through her advocacy of Planned Parenthood, perhaps she even sees herself as the pro-choice movement’s Harriet Tubman. Although perhaps that’s not the best analogy, since Harriet Tubman was a Christian, those crazy believers who are laughed at and ridiculed on the show Winstead co-created.
Related: Attack of the Lizz Winstead Drones
Douglas Ernst Blog 
Love The Daily Show but this don’t agree with Winstead one iota. Rather irrational and harsh worldview that hurts rather than supports her argument for services like Planned Parenthood.
What Christians are mocked on that show? I know Stewart mocks nutty people of all stripes, but I’ve never seen an anti-Christian slant whatsoever.
The great thing about Google is that people can search ‘Jon Stewart and Christians’ or some variation thereof, and decide if I’m on target or not. In this instance, I’ll leave it in the hands of Google’s algorithm. Those creepy, digital hands.
Brilliant post.
Thank you, my brother.
Thanks, man. I usually stick to defense and fiscal matters, but there’s been a few stories that have popped up as of late that made me want to wade into the social-issues waters.
THANK YOU for posting this! I love visiting – keep up the great work!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate it.
There’s gulf between ridiculing “Gays cause hurricanes” Pat Robinson and having an anti-Christian slant. He mocks nutty Christians, not necessarily the religion itself.
This is a great 3-part exchange between the minister David Barton and Stewart:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–3
Absolutely fantastic exchange. If you can watch those and still say he’s against Christians as a whole, then I will capitulate the argument.
Forget those, watch this one!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats
If you don’t feel like 10+ minutes of awesomeness, skip to 3:10 for Stewart skewing Jews, Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and a slew of others. Even an atheist joke in there!
If you are real lazy, skip to 9:14 for Stewart’s statement to the Muslim group in NYC who threatened Trey and Matt.
“Go fuck yourself” is pretty clear in my book.
Anti-christian slant. Bah!
You do realize that you’ve taken one line from a piece and have completely blown it out of proportion, right? I think that it’s pretty obvious Stewart isn’t a fan of anyone who is serious about their faith, including Christians. In fact, he doesn’t really like anyone of conviction, unless they agree with him.
With that said, I have posted in the past that I think he’s a funny guy. His problem is that whenever anyone calls him to task on inaccuracies he plays the “I’m just a comedian” card.
And you think Ms. Winstead projects? Your own line, “In fact, he doesn’t really like anyone of conviction, unless they agree with him” describes you perfectly. Ms. Winstead has an opinion, and a fierce conviction about it. You disagree, so you have to assassinate her character because YOU DISAGREE WITH HER. Last time I checked, Ms. Winstead had the rite to get an abortion. Legally. Right here in the United States. And she did. You don’t believe abortions should be legal. Or available to women at all. That is your right. But as of this moment, your opinion does not change the law, and as a man, you’ll never need one. And that’s why, in context, your opinion doesn’t matter. She doesn’t need your permission, or your approval. I’m certain she doesn’t give a shit.
How did I “assassinate her character”? I don’t hate anyone. In fact, I’d love to sit down and have tea with Lizz. I’m sure we’d have a spirited discussion. We’d laugh, we’d cry, we’d tell a few jokes. It would be a grand old time.
You actually have no idea what I believe the public policy of the United States should be on abortion, because I don’t state that anywhere in the piece. Nice try, though.
Oh, and the last time I checked, it takes two people to have a child.
Cheers,
Doug
What is so wrong about a woman not wanting a baby? Are we some how lesser persons because we do not choose to be a cast member of “The Hand Maid’s Tale” ? If more women thought seriously about reproducing before actually doing it there would be a lot less hardship in the world.
“What is so wrong about a woman not wanting a baby?”
http://www.abortionno.org/
Somehow, I knew this was written by a man…without even checking.
Too true.
Ditto. A man shouldn’t write about these issues unless he gets a uterus, ovaries and a vagina implanted and then dates and even attempts a serious relationship with a man. Then write about it all intellectually.
“A man shouldn’t write about these issues unless he gets a uterus, ovaries and a vagina implanted and then dates and even attempts a serious relationship with a man. Then write about it all intellectually.”
If I was a betting man I’d say you live alone, or you live with an emasculated shell of a man who really, really likes salad. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Regardless, thanks for the comment.
And, as a woman (albeit one that has never been pregnant), I’m going to go ahead and endorse it. Sex does not define your beliefs.
Thanks for the comment!
“Somehow, I knew this was written by a man…without even checking.”
Because everyone knows a man can’t have a valid opinion on abortion if he disagrees with you, right?
Not at all. It just reeks of unexamined male privilege. You can’t even conceive how a woman might see being a parent as a chore, even while suggesting that she’ll be the primary childraiser. It’s your blindness which marked you as a male, not your opinion on abortion.
Brian, it’s time you left the Gender Studies department. This is a woman who claimed at 8 years old she saw motherhood as “indentured servitude.” Yeah, right. “Unexamined male privilege…” Really? Tomorrow will I get a lecture from you on Peggy Mcintosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”? I can’t wait to hear how I can’t comment on minorities because I’m white. I went to school in Southern California. I’m familiar with liberal psychobabble doled out by academics. This blog is dedicated to exposing guys like you, so thanks for the comment.
Hate-filled, judgmental non-sense. Leave us women and our bodies alone!
Hate filled? Actually, I don’t hate anyone. Judging? Sure. To an extent. Although, tell me where I call her a bad person? It never happened. Regardless, I don’t care if others judge me. I’m an open book. I welcome it. It’s women like Lizz who want to be free from judgment.
Lol @ the whiny twat saying someone ELSE took an out-of-context line & ran w/ it!
I thought it was interesting that she’d say Lizz doesn’t “give a s**t” what I think, when it was Ms. Winstead who tweeted my blog to all of her fans.
When people get that upset, you know you touched a nerve.
Can’t claim the high road, Doug, when you reply to calm comments claiming the person is alone (being undesirable is clearly implied) or living with an emasculated husband. Or make snide comments about gender studies.
Be cool, man. It’s okay to disagree, but being dismissive or a dick means you don’t really respect or have truly heard what the other person has taken the time to write on your blog.
Let’s revisit the comment I replied to:
“A man shouldn’t write about these issues unless he gets a uterus, ovaries and a vagina implanted and then dates and even attempts a serious relationship with a man. Then write about it all intellectually.”
I heard perfectly well what she said, and it was that as I man I’m incapable of writing on the topic of abortion intellectually. This woman came here, directed by Lizz Winfield, not to engage in any serious discussion but to lob rhetorical Molotov cocktails and drive off. I do not respect that, and will respond appropriately. This site is billed as “bareknuckled conservatism,” an indicator that I am perfectly happy to take off the gloves when necessary.
How I interact with you is different from the others, and there’s a reason for that.
I also heard what the “unearned privileges” guy had to say, and the message was loud and clear: My points are invalid and will always be invalid because I am a man. I once asked a speaker at USC what I personally could do to end racism because of the “unearned privileges” my white skin supposedly granted me. Answer: Nothing. I will always be “subconsciously” racist.
I know their kind all too well. Their message is poisonous. They destroy hope and thrive on dividing the country. You can call me whatever name you want, but sometimes the proper response is to intellectually punch someone square in the nose. Hard.
There is a direct correlation between the Roe v Wade judgment and crime percentages. Approximately 18 years post Roe v Wade the national crime average started going down. There seems to be no other major influencer besides that to attribute this to. A lot of people disagree with that. Although this is not conclusive – one cannot argue that this is inconsequential to the equation, in my opinion. I’ll stop there since I’m wasting my breath.
I’m still waiting for religions to stop building mega churches and start building orphanages. You know, to house these unwanted, unaborted children as they await adoption by a nice Christian family. And forget about adopting out a child to an perfectly eligable athiest or gay couple!
Then again, in this Christian panacea, every family would be Duggar-sized since birth control was out of the question too. So, they may not need any more kids.
They seem okay for the government to handle it, which sucks when you realize churches don’t pay any taxes whatsoever.
Let’s break down Susan English’s post:
1. “There [IS] a direct correlation between the Roe v Wade judgment and crime percentages.”
2. There [SEEMS] to be no other major influencer…
3. Although this is [NOT CONCLUSIVE] …
4. I’ll stop there since I’m wasting my breath.
Susan, you are wasting your breath, but that’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Is it a direct correlation, or not? If so, that would be pretty amazing news, and something worthy a link to the original source.
With that said, I don’t think most people would argue with you that killing tens of thousands of babies each year across an assortment of large urban areas probably reduces the crime rate. I find it odd that you seem to be advocating for public policy that would maximize abortions…but I’m glad you’re open about it. The more quickly your inner Margaret Sanger shows up for everyone to see, the better.
Mr. Ernst, you take the “indentured servitude” remark waay too seriously especially given it is coming from a comedian. As a mother of two, I found the remark hilarious. As a female of Ms. Winstead’s generation, who also gravitated toward outdoor play vs. tradional “girl” play I think I have more insight into the remark than you do. You also fail to recognize that the 16 y.o. Lizz is being analyzed and reported on by the adult Lizz. And she seems to nail it. What 16 y.o. with “pom-poms” in their room is ready to be a mother? Sixteens can barely take care of themselves (that’s why they are not considered adults) much less someone else’s life. Abortion is a serious issue but so is parenthood. Ms. Winstead had a difficult choice to make for anyone at any age. And I am certain that she is living with all the consequences, everyday. Don’t you know that comedy is often rooted in tragedy? Go Bruins!
I’ll respond to the assertion that I take the indentured servitude remark “way too seriously.”
I’m tired of comedians who engage in serious social commentary always falling back on the “I’m just a comedian” line when they receive criticism. It doesn’t work that way. If someone is an activist or spokesman for Planned Parenthood, but they just so happen to be a comedian, they don’t get a pass because they get paid to crack jokes at other venues.
I’m glad that you feel you have more insight into the subject than I do, based solely off the fact you were once a teenage girl who liked to play outside. I find it a bit odd since you know nothing about me, my wife, my sister, as well as the rest of my family and friends…but okay.
Wait…Winstead didn’t say “I’m just a comedian.” I said she made the remark in a comedic context. Meaning, I seriously doubt she believes that parenthood, er um, motherhood, is actually a form of indentured servitude. She is correct in that it is often a chore. Oh yes. Like it or not, that is what it is at times. If you ask a mom, and she denies this, she’s lying. Don’t cry…I’m sure, if your mom is human, she has felt this at least once. But it’s not personal against you or your siblings. It just is what it is and it isn’t for everybody.
I also think everyone has a right to speak out for what they believe. That right shouldn’t be denied someone just because of what they do for a living. I have no idea what you get paid to do but you are on this forum expressing your opinion. Should you be stopped because you do/don’t engage in a specific profession? (F.Y.I., if you were a mother, you wouldn’t receive any pay.) Where’s the fun in that?
Comedy is a form of social commentary. The issues vary but, invariably, they involve the human condition. It may not be your style and that is certainly okay. But that doesn’t discount Ms. Winstead’s point.
Perhaps I overstepped my bounds a little regarding insight into the subject. But you completely sidestepped my point that 16 year olds, in general, are not good candidates for parenthood. Heck, many states are now restricting the driving privledges for 16 y.o.’s.
So you see. The entire issue just isn’t that simple. You may be totally against abortion and that’s okay. You may/may not choose to become a parent. That’s fine too. The point is, nobody gets to decide that for you.
Winstead didn’t say that, but Jon Stewart and Bill Maher like to pull the “I’m a comedian” card all the time. Your initial comment also seemed to give her a pass based on her profession.
I’m perfectly aware that being a mother can seem like a chore at times; I drove my parents nuts. There is a difference between a woman who gets exasperated with the tough job of being a mom, and someone who seeks to downplay the significance of the job altogether. I believe that is what liberal feminists (most of them) do. I also include Ms. Winstead in that category, based on the public comments I’ve been witness to.
In regards to your point about 16 year old kids, I ignored it because it’s rather self-evident that it would be stressful on them. Not once did I insinuate that the subject of abortion was “simple.” I’m not sure where you get that. What I did is further explained in my follow up post here:
http://douglasernstblog.com/2012/04/08/attack-of-the-lizz-winstead-drones/
I put together a psychological profile on a woman based on her public comments. From there her fans tried to insinuate that I thought she was an evil person and that if I was King I’d outlaw all abortions. I never claimed to know what’s in her heart, and admitted as such. All I know is she has some serious conflict going on inside her (again, stated in the piece), that she masks with comedy.
I never stated what the public policy of the United States should be as it pertains to abortion. If I chose to share it with you, I’m sure it would be a lot more nuanced than what the Lizz Winstead drones would have you believe. Maybe I will in a post sometime.
@ElizabethofR,
I would suggest to you that in focusing on DE’s comments about abortion you have missed a key aspect of his commentary, which is that from Winnstead’s comments it would seem that (a) her abortion was part and parcel to her unseemly contempt for motherhood and the social conventions that are built around running a successful home and family (cooking, etc.), and, importantly, (b) such contempt was not merely confined to her 16-year old self, but continues to this day, unabated.
This second point is what kills the joke (the “comedic context”): her tirade is a 16-year old’s (understandable) rebellion against child-rearing but coming out of a grown woman’s mouth.
I suppose we are all stuck to a greater or lesser degree on avenging our respective injuries of childhood. But being stuck, and staying stuck, undercuts intellectual legitimacy when debating social customs or public policy.
Winnstead would do better to make her points without contempt. Without contempt. Without contempt. Let it go…
You’re like a Wüsthof.
Why do so many have a problem when a man speaks out against abortion? I applaud you and encourage other men to take the time to understand what happens with an abortion and not simply consider it to be a means of birth control. You are so correct in saying that comedians play the “I’m a comedian” card when they feel attacked or called out on any inaccuracy. As a Christian mother of two who experienced an abortion at the age of 19, I can speak from actual life experiences and completely support your stand on this issue.
Hi Judy,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it. I’ve never really understood the logic that goes, “because you’re not “x” you can’t have a valid opinion on the issue.” To me, it doesn’t matter what the debate is, at the heart of the matter there are certain fundamental questions that are being asked. Any time someone tries to come up with theory that rests on cutting out entire groups of potential critics I know that person can’t make a convincing case to an objective audience.
What I also found interesting was that I was accused of being hateful, when I did no such thing. I don’t know what’s in Ms. Winstead’s heart, but God does. I merely pointed out that she was a textbook case of denial and projection.
Anyway, thanks again.
Nice mansplaining there.
“I put together a psychological profile on a woman based on her public comments. … All I know is she has some serious conflict going on inside her.”
You must be a pretty amazing psychologist to be able to do that. Please, diagnose Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert next.
Also, you have a nasty and acute case of projection. You should have that looked at.
“Also, you have a nasty and acute case of projection. You should have that looked at.”
Dude…take it from a guy who knows first hand…don’t mess with Doug on his own blog.
I’m not too worried about a woman or an emasculated man who creates words like “mansplaining.” That tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it?
Do they have degrees in “mansplaining” these days? Is that just as lucrative as a degree in Gender Studies? Let me know if you have any other feminist jargon to share with me. It’s always good for a laugh.
Hey Davidgs: QUIT CHERRY PICKING SCRIPTURE ON YOUR TWITTER PAGE. It’s disgusting.
Also, as a Puerto-Rican, I’ll gladly accept slackened immigration laws when Mexico slackens theirs and removes the whole, “We ONLY want people who will actually contribute to our country and refuse the right to kick any foreigner who starts trouble out if we feel like it” bit from their constitution those hypocritical jerks.
Anyone who has willfully murdered their own child will have some serious conflict going on inside her and is lying if she says otherwise. Repress that guilt, sluts!
Hey, watch the language Liza.
Agreed.
I had to Google that cockamamie term “mansplaining.” That’s one of the dumbest “words” I’ve ever heard and shows you how immature feminists really are. They’re always worth a chuckle, to be sure.
Apparently if you’re a man, you’re not allowed to have an opinion on abortion? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s just as dumb as saying that if you’ve divorced multiple times, that somehow doesn’t allow you to have an opinion on marriage.
“Do they have degrees in mansplaining?”
It wouldn’t surprise me, given all the outright worthless courses that colleges teach these days. If it does exist, it’s right up there with Gender Studies and Liberal Arts in terms of outright worthlessness.