Nothing Says "Pro-Life" Like "Kidnapped and Forced To Give Birth"
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
June 3, 2011 - 3:34pm (Print)
Kidnapped from an abortion clinic, held hostage until you give birth? Yes, that is a horror scenario. But a "pro-life" one? So the movie makers claim.
(H/T the Frisky)
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
Wow that is horrifying!
Now that's what I call Republican porn.
So of course I had to Google this guy Ken Del Vecchio, who produced this 'film'. Apparently he's running for State Senate in a district near my own hometown in NJ. He resigned as a judge so he could promote his Obama-hating film: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/nj-judge-resigns-over-h...
And from this NY Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/nyregion/in-person-dreamer-wakes-up-to...
''In class, he was a renegade; he liked to be outrageous and do things for the shock value,'' Mr. McCarthy said.
''I wouldn't put him on the most-likely-to-succeed list in the traditional sense, but I could see Ken as a wheeler-dealer and thought he would go on to do something different.''
His bio, written by his wife, is all over the web touting him to be so much more successful than he really is. He's a self-promoter. Started the Hoboken Film Festival just so his own films would have a venue.
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2011/06/hoboken_international_fil...
While the festival provides an opportunity for up-and-coming filmmakers to find fame, funding and distribution, it's also an opportunity for Del Vecchio, a self-proclaimed "bestselling author/critically acclaimed filmmaker" to showcase his own works: B-movies with a strong political bent.
I'm curious to see how he plans on working in the twist in this movie to have something of a happy ending. So far it just looks like what Republican men would love to do with pretty white young girls. Gross!
By the way, he wrote this movie too: The Rules (For Men)
The one reviewer says:
It's plot, language, sexual dialogue, and utter disrespect for women are totally offensive, in a huge way. Oh sure, a few men may appreciate the sexual content but the film is not worthy of truly intelligent males. The ending was created to ameliorate the rest of the film but it fails miserably. Perhaps women everywhere can buy up the global supply of this movie and have a big bonfire. In my opinion, the world will be better off.
We can add him to the d-bag list.
"So far it just looks like what Republican men would love to do with pretty white young girls."
Hmm... well, I'm not exactly a "Republican man" as I'm not registered in any party and I don't have any party names tattooed on my body. As for what I "would love to do with pretty white young girls", well, I personally would love to have sexual relations with them, as long as they're over the age of 18. I'm not sure what you like to do with pretty girls, or what you thought most men like to do with pretty girls, but I just thought I'd clear that up for you.
This isn't about having sexual relations with pretty white girls. This is about holding them captive against their will so they are forced to birth their pretty white babies.
Are you in favor of having sexual relations with pretty white girls against their will?
Uh no, this is about you, a woman I suppose (?) attempting to tell others what men want to do with pretty white girls, which was your quote. You didn't say pretty white babies, you said pretty white girls, and you mentioned them in the context of "porn". You are obfuscating and lying now, which isn't surprising.
What the hell are you talking about? What exactly if your point?
attempting to tell others what men want to do with pretty white girls, which was your quote.
In the context of the movie trailer above. Did you even watch the trailer?
Dudely Noob comes here, doesn't bother to read anything, takes one glance at the thread, and instead of taking offence about a film fetishizing female reproductive slavery, he takes his undies in a knot at one commenter's insufficient flattery of male sexual delectations.
Says it all, really.
No1curr about your penis's preferences, Narcissus. Go away.
I'm too afraid to watch the video. Not even joking. Maybe I could stomach a transcript. But I think watching a 3 min advert for anti-choice porno might cause stomach ulcers due to seething rage and disgust.
I don't think I can watch either. A transcript maybe but... my stomach knotted into anxious nausea just reading about the concept.
There's three pregnant young women who are angry and yelling about being kidnapped, & some stuff later in the pregnancies. So I think the goal starts with the women saying it's their right to choose & by the end they'll realize they were wrong & become good mothers. The typical 'if you only truly understood you'd do the right thing' BS. Or it may be they're 3 different outcomes depending on how well the women 'come to their senses': at 7 months, apparently -- in the script -- one woman is still wanting an abortion, one is saying it's too late and the third didn't say (in that clip).
I wouldn't be able to watch the whole thing, but I'm curious to read a synopsis/analysis from someone who does.
Of course the perfect ending would be the one in which the women proceed to kick his head in, but I don't suppose we'll get that. Oh well--a woman can dream, can't she?
Let's just hope that the guy who made this travesty never makes it into public office. What a creep!
"kick his head in"... Interesting... you advocate violence and/or murder?
Against men who kidnap women and force them to gestate and birth against their will? Sure. Why not?
Uh, because it's against the law? Are you under the impression that you are allowed by the law to stomp on purse snatchers, shoot convicted burglars, and hang convicted prostitutes, simply because you don't like what they've done? Are you under the impression you are judge, jury, and executioner? You must be a child...
So you are saying that if someone kidnaps you and is holding you against your will, you are not allowed to fight them in any way to try to escape?
This isn't about me getting kidnapped, I am a man, and that isn't going to happen. This is about someone stating that they would have liked to have seen someone getting their "head kicked in". That sounds like someone who is twisted and likes to see violence, not exactly someone concerned with human rights. And certainly not someone concerned with justice, because the penalty for kidnapping is prison time, not the death penalty, and certainly not getting one's "head kicked in".
Count me in as someone who has no problem with the notion of kicking my abductors' "head in," and not being particularly concerned if the perps lived or died.
I'm sorry it makes you squeamish, but if I'm abducted I'm going to do everything I can to defend myself and get away. And I'm not going to be particularly nice about how I do it, either. My father didn't raise a 'little miss meek'.
'Cause that would be unladylike, and menz who rape or imprison women should just face jail time- after the little lady lays down and takes whatever the menz do to her. Assuming, yaknow, she survives, and the justice system actually works.
I have the right to fight tooth and nail against an abductor, or a rapist. It is my bodily integrity and possibly my life at stake.
Interestingly, the same thing applies to abortion. I have the right to not have a fetus in my body if I do not desire it. It is my bodily integrity and possibly my life at stake.
Color me unsurprised that someone who thinks women should just suck it up and be pregnant because the fetus is more important than she is, would feel similarly about a woman's right to defend herself from rape or abduction.
It's not "justice". Justice is about attempting to come up with some kind of appropriate resolution after a crime has taken place. Self-defense is about keeping the crime from happening to begin with.
I am CERTAINLY willing to bet you, Mr. Who Gives a Fuck About Women, would 100% back a man who said he would "kick the head in" of someone who was attempting to abduct or anally rape him.
Are you seriously asserting that now you're all worried about how unreasonable it is for the victims of kidnapping to abridge the human rights of those attacking them, and scolding the victims for being hostile or violent? If somebody's trying to kidnap me, I'm going to assume he is indifferent to whether I live and in order to survive I will do whatever I have to, right up to slaughtering him like a pig. I certainly woudn't feel any obligation at all to keep that kidnapper alive so he can continue his crime against me. Not because I enjoy violence, not because I think hurting people to wonderful, but entirely because criminals in the process of committing their crimes by their own actions lose the human rights they are in the process of denying their victims. Dogs that are rabid are put down.
Oh grow up.
This isn't about me getting kidnapped, I am a man, and that isn't going to happen.
Thank you - I needed that chuckle :)
Yeah, yet there's no bell raised for the cognitive dissonance inherent in that phrase, even though he, himself, is the one who raised the point that he didn't understand where misogyny entered the picture in any sort of horror/slasher film. Ugh.
I advocate self-defense. If someone is abducting you, the primary objective is to escape. And if rendering your abductor unconscious does the trick, so much the better.
"Rendering your abductor unconscious" is different from "kicking someone's head in". And, stating that you would like to see it onscreen betrays a love of violence and bloodthirstiness.
Well I never pretended to be demure or saintly, and being kidnapped would tend to bring out the unladylike side of me--what can I say.
Snerk. So, what movies do YOU watch, Heph? Pride and Prejudice? Howard's End? Julia and Julia? Mama Mia? Sleepless In Seattle?
And, stating that you would like to see it onscreen betrays a love of violence and bloodthirstiness.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, anybody who seems to be receptive to women being kept locked up so they can't escape reproductive slavery as something he would be interested in seeing onscreen has no room to whine about what other people like. We have had a series of women recently found to have been held as sex/reproductive slaves in Austria, Salt Lake City, California, Ohio. Why are conservatives trying to make that the new normal?
Or maybe a flamer. I can never remember the difference.
In your case I would advocate simply banning your IP address.
Wow, "banning", the last refuge of someone who can't bear to hear dissenting opinions. Fascist much?
... have substance and provoke thought. Trolling provokes guttural reactions. But you would already know that wouldn't you.
By the way, coming to a board to pooh-pooh comments about fighting back while being kidnapped to be used for reproductive slavery is just a tad trollish. Just in case you weren't sure :)
I haven't read the analyis at The Frisky, but I interpreted it as more of a pro-choice storyline, given the pro-life captors are clearly the villains. The women are asserting their rights and plotting escape. The conversation at seven months is slightly ooky ("even you have to agree it's a living thing now"), but seven months is viable (I'm living proof!) and I understand why it was said. Horror is usually somewhat or overtly misogynistic, and this does not sidestep that issue.
But I haven't seen the ending. Given the director's resume as described upthread, I'm not optimistic that the women will prevail over their captors, and agree that it probably ends with them having a change of heart.
"Horror is usually somewhat or overtly misogynistic.."
REALLY? Can you back that up with any evidence whatsoever? Do you read much horror? That's like saying that most romantic literature is anti-male.
The first thing that comes to mind is the absolutely classic horror trope that girls/women who haven't been sexually active, survive.
Nothing misogynistic about that, no sir.
You have apparently not read much horror. Apparently you have read no Poe, Dunsany, or Lovecraft. What in the world are you referring to, about girls who arne't sexually active..??? I can't think of a single horror story in which any woman's sexuality is relevant in the least. For example, I just read "Who Goes There", which was the classic story written in the 1920s or 30s, which was the basis for the movie "The Thing" in the 80s. There was not a single mention of a female's sexuality. For that matter, where is a female's sexuality mentioned in "The Telltale Heart" by Poe (who can be defined as THE classic horror tropist of all time), or "Incident at Owl Creek Bridge" or "The Suitable Surroundings" by Bierce, another founder/writer of classic horror. What are you talking about????
Written horror of the Lovecraft and Poe eras are more psychological and less about sexualizing violence against women, that's true. But have you seen much in the way of horror movies lately? Go watch Hostel, Scream, Captivity, etc, and keep track of how the men are dressed and portrayed before they are are killed, versus the women. Does the camera linger on the length of their bodies? Does it focus on the genitals or pectorals? Minus the blood, could the death scene look like a sexy ad? It's not necessarily that the sexuality of the person is made explicit through plot or narration, but in the visuals.
On that note, got any modern horror movies that don't sexualize violence? The (original) Ring comes to mind, but I can't think of any others. I liked Slither, but there was indeed a large sexual aspect to the plot. I'm thinking more about horror that disconnects sex from violence and death.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
A rather quick Google Scholar search could help with your education on the role of women's sexuality/chastity and horror plot development with regard to American popular culture. Just sayin'...
Since the mid-60s, the vast majority of horror movies aimed at teens and young adults are of the "You Fuck, You Die" genre, as I like to describe it.
Gregory Waller states that the landscape of the modern American horror film is characterised by displaying pornographic violence against women (Waller, 1987: 8). For example, one of the most emblematic modern American horror sub-genres is the slasher film. The slasher film promotes sexual violence against women by categorically portraying the patriarchal male monster who subjects women to a subordinate and misogynistic position by butchering sexually promiscuous females with his phallic knife, punishing sexually active women who participate in pre-marital intercourse and other transgressive sexual activities (Neale in Schneider, 2004: 4).
http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/american-slasher-film
Bunch of further articles and books at the bottom for those interested.
"There are certain rules that one must abide by in order to successfully survive a horror movie! For instance, Number One: You can never have sex. Sex equals death, OK?" —Randy, ScreamWell, the young couple had sex. They are doomed. Anyway, more often she is. Shows where lots of people die tend to have a strange conservatism about who gets killed. Anyone who engages in nonmarital sex, especially unprotected and/or with someone they don't really know, is almost guaranteed to get offed by the killer, even if the killer is choosing their victims totally at random. Fanservice Extras are particularly vulnerable to this trope. Very common in slasher movies, such as the Friday the 13th and Nightmare On Elm Street series. This could be a metaphor for the then-new AIDS scare, or for STDs in general, although according to one of the makers of Nightmare On Elm Street, it was simply because he thought that people having sex will forget about everything else and be especially vulnerable to serial killers.
and
John Carpenter's influential, and acclaimed independent-sleeper horror classic Halloween (1978) with a creepy soundtrack brought about the modern slasher movie. It featured the iconic character of Michael Myers - a deranged, threatening knife-wielding killer of teenage babysitters (notably Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut film as Laurie Strode, the daughter of Janet Leigh who had earlier starred as the 'scream queen' in Hitchcock's Psycho) who had returned to his old neighborhood of Haddonfield, Illinois after an escape from a mental institution. His spooky doctor Sam Loomis (British horror actor Donald Pleasence) pursued the mad slasher as the masked killer wreaked havoc and menace. The film brought about the Puritanical cliched notion that promiscuous, sex-loving teenagers were marked for death.
Actually, this meme is so well understood, it's kind of hard to believe there's anybody out there who hasn't heard of it.
I'm reading this in Argentina, where the notion of being kidnapped and forced to give birth is all too real. During the Dirty War (1976-83), many babies were born in captivity to women who were then "disappeared." Those children were often adopted by military families. This might seem like ancient history to US readers, but those children are now in their 30s, and they have biological grandparents and brothers and sisters as well as adoptive families. There is ongoing debate in Argentina about their right to know (or not know) their identities and histories. I didn't watch the trailer, either, but the notion that reproductive rights are human rights takes on a differerent kind of urgency here. Spanish-speakers can learn more about HIJOS at http://www.hijos-capital.org.ar/
The military families that adopted the children probably have issues & rationalizations they don't want to forced to examine.
I forget the name of the teenager stolen at birth on the east coast who rescued herself last year. She didn't have a family resemblence to her 'mother' and started digging. I suppose that would be happening in Argentina also? Unfortunately, I only read English.
This is just sooooooo sick! How is aborting come cells (they said the girls would be held captive for 7 mos, leading me to surmise they are 3 months along) a greater crime than KIDNAPPING???? wtf? Again, women are stupid, and 'just don't get that they are 'sinning', and motherhood and childbirth are beautiful even when forced, Father knows best. This is such bunk! If anything, this really drives home the point of keeping up the fight to keep abortion legal.
@ Julie, her name was Jaycee Dugard, and she was kidnapped, held captive, raped repeatedly, and bore either 2 or 3 children as a result of that. Horrible.
Keep in mind that abortion used to be illegal. Not sure what level of crime it was, whether misdemeanor, felony. Am sure it depended on the locality.
In France, during the Vichy Regime (Nazi-occupied government), abortion was considered a capital offense. They murdered women for having abortions. And it's not because anyone ever truly believed that abortion was itself "murder" -- it's because the Nazis found it offensive when women did not want to fulfill their female duty of continuing the white race. Forced birth... and if you didn't comply: death. And they found it equally offensive when "unfit" women DID have children, so they advocated for involuntary sterilization and forced abortions. And if you didn't comply: death.
who was kidnapped as a neonate, I think by a nurse, and not abused but certainly kept in the dark about many things (and obviously not clueless).
Yeah, I think we're thinking of the same thing. I don't remember overt abuse, just "things don't add up" and "you're not my mom".
This is VERY confusing. Did anyone see the Saw films?
This looks sort of like that: in those movies the Villan was also "the good guy" because by kid-napping and putting his victims into these horrifying situations he was teaching them all a lesson. They were all supposed to learn something from it- if they survived. If- as a pro-life film- that's what they were going for, I think it's going to be a miserable failure. I think this plot line, as many people pointed out, works far better as a pro-choice nightmare.
That's what I got from the trailer anyways. Still makes my stomach turn. I don't think I'll bother watching the whole thing, I'll just wait for some internet spoilers.
Let me get this straight-- you won't see the film, because it "makes [your] stomach turn", but you DID see the Saw films, presumably because they did NOT make your stomach turn. Hmm, interesting.
LOL
I am actually really surprised this particular article got a troll.
Of course the Saw films made my stomach turn, they were disgusting. Not to mention the shitty dialogue is enough to make you throw up in your mouth a little bit- I certainly wouldn't argue they're good movies by anyone's standards, but they're fun to put on on Halloween! As a horror fan I don't mind a little gore every now and then. Maybe that's just my generation, we're so desensitized aren't we?
But THIS movie- COME ON. Pro-lifers aren't even going to watch this crap. The premise is so asinine it hurts.
I could see it making sense from a pro-choice perspective, it is after-all our greatest fear (the nightmarish hell of forced gestation) . But a "pro-life plot twist" at the end? Please, this is just bad film-making. A really interesting medium for propaganda though. Maybe I'll download it.
I'm a new grandmother. I love my new grandson and see the love my daughter has for her new son. Besides, the kid is a lot of fun! Why does this film make it seem like having a child would be so horrible?! Honestly, the reason why this film makes delivering a child conceived in rape so horrible, goes back to our US history of eugenics. The idea back in the '20s was that all human traits were passed down through the genes - I mean everything, pauperism, criminality, spirituality. Yeah, that's what they (the eugenisists) believed back then! So, if the rapist impregnated his victim...oh my word, the child was pre-determined to be a rapist! Now we all know of stories of individuals, born to a poor family, that have become millionaires. So the concept of genes having that much control over our futures has been totally debunked. But sadly, like in this film, this left-over from our eugenic past rears its ughly head. I wouldn't be supprised if those creating this film still hold to some other old eugenic principles. But, to answer that question, I would have to see the whole movie, and my stomach wouldn't be able to handle it.
I think the 'horrible' part stems from the idea that a man would kidnap women to force them to give birth against their will. No matter how you feel about babies, grandmother--I hope that you could see how horrible that would be. And as to children conceived in rape, I think the decision should belong to the individual who is pregnant. Whether she chooses to continue the pregnancy or not--that should be her choice and no one else's.
Duplicate
I could give two hoots about "pre-determined genetics" - I take issue with forcing/coercing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want to bear... particularly when her body and autonomy have ALREADY been violated.
I'll assume that if you're really a "grandmother" you've been through a pregnancy or two. Wake up lady, they aren't super easy fun times :/ That you would support forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy conceived in rape because it personally offends YOU morally speaks volumes about your "morals."
Babies are indeed a lot of fun if the parents are ready and willing.
And the trailer didn't suggest that the original pregnancies were conceived in rape. It suggests that if the kidnapped women don't complete the pregnancies, they'll be raped until they're pregnant again and complete the pregnancy. Yes, it's completely disgusting, and I assumed it must be a horrible, horrible joke until I read about the person who created it. Now I'm not so sure.
God, it's even worse than I thought. If anyone ever again tries to tell me that 'pro-life' isn't about hatred of women, I will simply point at this piece of garbage. Let's hope this pitiful excuse for a man never makes it into elected office.
Bwah-ha-ha...there are no words....
Thank You so much, jrm83.
Thank you....heh, heh heh. ha ha, hah...ha. spew, hahaha.
Thanks for the link, jrm. I've been looking for a synopsis and OMG, it is not what I expected. Purgatory??? I didn't think the premise of this film could get any more revolting, but it did.
What the christ. Agreed, this is way worse than I originally thought. Kenneth del Vecchio is a sick f--k who needs to be kept as far away from public office as is humanly & legally possible.
Kenneth del Vecchio needs to be kept as far away from women as is humanly & legally possible as well.
Exactly.
I'm still trying to figure out why those actresses would willingly degrade themselves by starring in his sadistic masturbatory fantasy. I guess some people will do anything for money. Or maybe it's that whole martyr mentality that anti-choice women often have.
People will go on television and eat bugs and fall off cliffs so they can be FAMOUS! No problem at all getting some people to act in a lousy movie made by a delusional self-promoter who thinks this mess is a totally unbiased look at 'both sides'.
But, actually, that is exactly what "ProLife' advocates for, forced gestation. Yet almost every "ProLifer" I've encountered has wilfully continued a WANTED pregnancy and discontinued an unwanted one. Ugh.
This is a 'ProLife' horror film, since the moviemaker seems to have NO idea that ProChoice women can conTINue pregnancies, as well.
Finally two of the three women come to accept human life exists inside them ... Staci still refuses to accept that the life inside her is anything more than a fetus.
Sigh -- and who said 'a fetus' was not 'human life'? Whence comes this persistent lie that pregnancy women don't think it's 'human life'?
It's revealed all along the women had been in Purgatory, after having died on the operating table of abortion clinics.
Right, because we're ALL Catholic and so we ALL believe in the (nonBiblical but pro-fundraising) concept of Purgatory, and everybody knows LOTS of women die from abortions EVERY DAY so they'll be available three at a time.
But because Staci attempted to miscarry even after a second chance at motherhood, and because she never accepted the error of her ways until she experienced the physical joy of giving birth, of seeing her children for the first time, she will be doomed to eternity in Hell.
Because ALL women should WANT to be mothers. Because ALL women are magically changed by the "physical joy of giving birth" (whatever that is -- they didn't give me mine either time). Because women who don't WANT to be mothers all go to hell.
"I think the audience will walk away not knowing what the filmmaker's position is, it gives both sides of the coin."
Because the audience will be totally ignorant of how the film is a mish-mash of ProLife myths about women, pregnancy, abortion, birth and motherhood, and won't get even a teensy hint from the 'all women who have abortions die', 'childbirth is a magic ceremony', 'good mothers go to heaven and bad mothers go to hell' ending. TOTALLY nonbiased. Haven't a CLUE what the man could be thinking.
Betcha this is a HUGE hit at churches around the country, and the guy makes a fortune in rental fees as its played at $10 a ticket to the usual beige audience of lipless church ladies, impotent middle aged men, and ignorant young teens who'll believe it's a true to life documentary.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the character of Staci Horowitz is Jewish. Our interpretation of purgatory is quite different from others, as far as I can tell, if we have one at all (seems to be a kabbalah thing - I am no authority on Judaism, just google-ism).
I mean, no WAY would anybody be bigoted enough to deliberately and with malice aforethought make the 'bad mommy' Jewish, right?
OBVIOUSLY no one bought Mass Cards upon the demise of Ms Horowitz! No one leaves Purgatory save through Mass Cards!
Pffft. She could have bought her own way out of purgatory as soon as she knew she wanted an abortion. She should have been prepared! I have a spare tire in my trunk, after all.
Purgatory, Gehenna, Sheol, Hell, etc... are all different. However, I am unsure that any of them originate in Christianity (scratch that... I KNOW Hell doesn't originate with Christianity).
Betcha this is a HUGE hit at churches around the country, and the guy makes a fortune in rental fees as its played at $10 a ticket to the usual beige audience of lipless church ladies, impotent middle aged men, and ignorant young teens who'll believe it's a true to life documentary.
<DavidSpade>I liked this movie better, back when it was called...</DavidSpade>
Oh, wait a second---actually, I didn't. My bad.
Less than a week after the news that an international human trafficking ring in Nigeria had been kidnapping and imprisoning pregnant poor women and girls to sell their babies, killing or maiming them if they tried to escape and raping them when they wanted more children to sell... and some white misogynists think it's a great idea to release a movie about imprisoning and forcibly breeding women? But we're supposed to believe that this fictional reproductive slavery somehow totally different than that because abortion?
This is supposed to convince us that the pro-life postion is awesome? There is no excuse for that level of unawareness. They're not even pretending it's about babies and not punishment, even though they have thrown a Token Female Torturer in there.
I could say the producers of this tripe know this and are cynically trying to draw maximum offence because no publicity is bad publicity, but that would be too charitable. It's probably more likely that the producers have produced a very, very, stupid movie to exploit the latent misogyny they hope exists in the audience they obviously think are very, very stupid.
Shakesville has a transcript, if you can stomach it. Trigger warning, for obvious reasons:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/06/anti-choicers-make-darnedest-films.html
