Where was the Left, and where the Feminists, during President Clinton's savaging of Juanita Broaddrick, Genifer Flowers, Paul Jones, Susan McDougal, and Monica Lewinsky? These women, who suffered, if anyone has ever suffered, "workplace harassment," were dismissed from consideration by the Left, who mentioned their struggles not at all; and Monica Lewinsky, a Nice Jewish Girl from Brentwood, working as an intern in the office of the most powerful man on the planet, was treated to the silence of the feminists as she was accused, by her employer, the President of the United States, while he was committing perjury, of being unbalanced and, perhaps, of having had a "bad childhood." How, by the Left, can this be excused? It cannot. But it may be partially explained---Flowers, Jones et al., were dismissed by the Left not merely because they accused the Left's avatar, but because of their class. They were, to the Left, "trailer trash," and so, de-facto, undeserving of a hearing yet alone a defense. The Feminists of the Left were voluble in their indictment of Justice Thomas, in Anita Hill's, at best, "he said, she said" controversy; using racial language and innuendo against him unheard in this country in decades. They supported Tawana Brawley's improbable claims of rape up to, and, indeed, past the point at which they had been proved fraudulent and her testimony found perjured. But what of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne by drowning? What Feminist spoke up for the dead victim? Or against the man who drove her to her death? He remained an icon of the Left for the rest of his life. Are those Feminists, then, spokespersons for the Rights of Women? Demonstrably not. They are not even spokeswomen for the rights of Liberal women--Ms. Kopechne was working for a Democrat, as was Ms. Lewinsky. They are advocates only of the positions of the Left--at whatever cost to women, what in the world are those people talking about?
Come on Gwen, you owe it to your fem sisters to make excuses for this terrible hsitory of your feminist sisterhood.
All of these things are why Andrew Breitbart became a conservative. He had been a liberal his whole life and eventually reached a point where he couldn't ignore the hypocrisy anymore. And he changed his views.
I didn't know that about Andrew. Thanks for the update. Even our greatest 20th century president Ronald Reagan started off as a liberal before coming to his senses. Something about that Hollywood gang of liberalism and loose morales just stinks up the atmosphere.
Yes, yes, disingenuous feminism.... says the man who doesn't want women to vote and reveres a misogynistic fat slug. My, your petticoat is showing there... By your analogies, that means that: If a woman does wrong things, you will not hold the woman accountable and responsible for her actions - but you will hold responsible the men who did not speak out for the male victimised / abused by the woman. Thats how your storybook goes, right? It wont be the woman doing bad things that you will hold accountable, but you will hold accountable the men who didnt speak out for the male victim of the womans victimisation and abuse. My, thats an interesting way you think. My advice to you: Find a nice conservative anti-feminst woman who doesn't want to vote because she doesn't think she deserves to because she has low self esteem and is as dumb as two floor boards... and be happy, libhater.
Predictable that you would tap dance your way around the obvious hypocritical positions of the femanazi LEFT. That one flaw (as expounded in the OP) in the femanazi movement of partisanship exposes the entire Leftist movement as being a farce. You and your fem friends should be so proud in representing at best about 50,000 people worldwide that share in and with your hypocritical philosophy.
The LEFT are any and all people who believe in bigger government, greater taxes, a socialistic form of government, advocacy of an entitlement society, to wage class warfare by redistributing the wealth and penalizing the rich/entrepreneurs (producers), a need to belittle our military and weaken our defenses both at home and abroad (reduction in military expenditures), unpatriotic behavior, anti Christian, anti Constitution or a revision thereof, anti founders philosophy, inability to determine the difference between right and wrong, utopian dreamers, indolent, and having a need to downplay and or pander to foreign states by refusing to highlight America's exceptionalism, rather, by degrading America at every turn, and a feel-good personal/secular trait to murder/abort Gods's children at a whim, etc. Your basic feminist is an ugly man-hating radical woman-licking butch who serves no purpose on GOD's green earth other than to make life miserable for everyone else so as to make up for their many personal faults and human inadequacies. Have you ever seen a feminist with a smile on her ugly face? I sure haven't.
He hates so many groups of people, I think it gets hard for him to remember who he's hating at any one time. I think that's why his posts come out sounding so mish-mash and confused.
I totally agree. I've asked him repeatedly to tell me who are the Liberals, the "Left" and so on that he referring to. He has never clarified. Evidence of a person living in generalizations - totally oblivious to reality.
Yeah, that's what happens when I was so kind to respond to someone who decided to veer away from the topic at hand. But this little side bar should not in of itself be a deterrent in preventing you from commenting on the actions or non actions of your fem sisters as outlined in post #1. What do you think Gwen, up for the task?
1) Lay out your premise in a succinct sentence without hysterical nonsense. 2) Give me examples from Australia. You're an expert on feminism, I'm sure you can find some. Because I am not going to research particular names I don't know for your gobbledeygook OP. 3) Be very clear about what you want me to respond to. Ask a concise, clear question. That would help a great deal. Please keep the emotive nonsense out of it. And don't ramble, it's really annoying.
As the feminist movement got much of its start from such notables as the late racist and man-haters Bella Abzug and Margaret Sanger, I'm sure you would be familar with the works emanating from those two nefarious icons of the LEFT. Didn't realize that I would have to cater to your provincial and limited Aussie knowledge on modern day feminism. Be that as it may, my only suggestion to you at this junction in the stalled debate would be for you to study up on the clear message of what feminism has brought to the table here in America. Once again, you only need to read the OP to get a clear and distinctive message as to just where and how your femanazi sisters act and state their radical views and or philosophies. Please don't tell me that a self avowed feminist as yourself has no idea who any of the feminist subjects in the OP are, or that they differ much if any from your own philosophy(s).
Then who else is it? Ok so three people, all of which are great intellectual women. Your position is looking awfully untenable at this point.
we all know that this is not the criteria for feminists. The criteria is that the woman must not attack an abortion supporting leftist. Conservative women are justifiable targets. Please don't insult our intelligence.
Well generally speaking, rational people advocate attacking beliefs they disagree with. So yes, this makes perfect sense for people who are pro-liberty, that is pro-abortion, to support other pro-abortion folk and attack pro-life, anti-liberty folks.
You ask me to respond but there you go rambling on aimlessly without purpose or sense again. Don't you know how to ask a question? What is the point of asking me to respond if you don't ask me anything? I am really bored. Please make me interested and ask me a question if you want me to respond. You truly are all over the place. Don't you know how to ask a succinct question? Again, what is your premise? Again, where is the substance of your ramble that you want me to respond to? I am amazed that you cannot ask a coherent question. And amazed that you cannot condense your long-winded ramble into an articulate summation / question. Can't you think straight, is that the problem? I mean, seriously, what are you on about? Do you even know?
I stated earlier that there are perhaps 50,000 feminists worldwide, and that I was being very 'liberal' with that estimation. You're right, intellect and advocating a Satan-filled agenda certainly go hand in lesbo hand when defining the Abzug/Sanger agenda. You really don't expect me to know or to name all of those 50,000 lost feminist souls just to satisfy your curiosity...do you?
You have the gall to mention pro liberty with pro abortion in the same breath. What is liberating about a fetus/child that never gets to breathe GOD's fresh air when he or she gets aborted on a whim by a hysterical mother-to-could-be who is having a bad hair day or is suffering from PMS, or from having a heavy dose of anti life feminism running through her polluted veins?
And all these feminists support what you said? Give proof of this claim. Indeed. What you call a 'stan-filled' agenda is what I call a freeman's agenda - a moral agenda. No I expect you to show they all think as you claim they do. So far you havent names one that would fit in your OP description.
