National Organization of WHAT??
Michael van der Galien recently pointed out a recent press release by the ladies at NOW (National Organization of Women) whereby Ted Kennedy was declared a traitor for daring to support a candidate with an XY chromosome count. Well hold your wisecracks because it gets wackier.
The organization also sent out a press release earlier this month comparing the treatment of Hillary Clinton to a gang-bang, a group rape.
An excerpt:
In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically. This past week, we witnessed just such a phenomenon involving men who are afraid of a powerful woman. Hillary Clinton, in her quest for her Presidential nomination, has in fact endured infantile taunting and wildly inappropriate commentary.
and
Think about the legacy we’ll leave behind when we support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Let’s put a stop to the psychological “gang banging” of women and girls. Let’s stand up and be counted by way of the hard-won votes we can now cast!
Ahh yes, there’s no better way to show your respect for women all over than to compare the brutalization and assault of women to someone getting tough coverage on TV.
Also in the statement:
The message is that if a woman gets too powerful, she can count on the good ole boys ganging up on her. Hillary is a powerful, strong and intelligent woman and she deserves our support. Let us remember what we as women’s rights supporters, are charged to do: SUPPORT WOMEN!
No, people who support women’s rights are to treat women as EQUALS to men, NOT favor women over men. Hillary doesn’t need that sort of charity. I dislike her for many reasons, but weakness and the inability to stand up for herself isn’t one of them. The idea that I should vote for her because she and I share the property of ovaries is an insult to my intelligence and hers as well.
LOL, no, what we witnessed in that debate was a phenomenon involving candidates who are afraid of a more powerful opponent.
Yeah, I have seen a press release with wildly inappropriate commentary. Now, where did I see that…..hmmm….
Can anyone even imagine Margaret Thatcher being spoken of in those terms?
Christine: to be honest, there has been sexism in the media. One of the leading sexists even had to apologize.
Lets not pretend that there was no sexism involved. There most certainly was. When she became emotional; pff, media were all over it.
The democratic party has its finger on the machine gun and aimed squarely at its foot.
A few months ago. We were just marking time till the Democratic party could take up residency in the White House. Now I’m waiting for the democratic party to nominate Michael Moore for Barak Obama’s running mate and once again we can throw out our whacko far left loons at the GOP and let us compare records.
A rout. A landslide. The most severe trouncing the GOP has ever experienced is turning into a tie game. Only my party could figure out continually how to loose a 100 point lead at half time.
I agree with you, except in MY mind it’s Hillary who’ll produce that result. She has higher negatives, more people say they would never vote for her than do Obama and she sure seems to motivate Republicans more than she does Democrats. In short, just the sort of person the Democratic Party would nominate.
Claudia: there’s little doubt in my mind that the Dems will win in November, especially now that Grandpa will win the Republican nomination.
O, and if Clinton wins: she can beat the Republicans. They haven’t lost an election in ages. IF she chooses a good running mate, this will be even more the case.
I know people say it’s not going to happen, but if she wins she should pick Obama as running mate. That would bring the party together, and keep the message of hope and change alive.
http://bobaggins.wordpress.com/
Visit this site. I started it today. I want to simply compare Barak Obama’s positions to Hillary with a minimum of inflamatory rhetoric.
Michael: I was speaking about this one press release; did I say that this means that there has been NO sexism?
And my point is, when people are sexist you still don’t to play the victim card (in fact you’re reinforcing gender stereotypes when you do that.) I repeat, can you imagine Margaret Thatcher being talked about this way? Would she have complained about sexism, or would she have proved the sexists wrong by acting tougher?
Christine: actually, Thatcher did speak about it. It always makes me wonder why people think she didn’t. Have you read a biography of her? She was tough, but human. She was made of iron, but had a heart.
I seriously don’t think there has been any personal sexist bias shown:
People complain about how Hillary and Pelosi’s outfits are commented on, but men basically always have to wear the same uniform: a dark colored suit. When Lamar Alexander ran in a plaid shirt, that was news too. They’re commented on, because women have different choices in clothing; plus they have the option to wear feminine clothing or masculine clothing. Men all wear the same uniform, basically.
And if a male candidate cried, it would be news. They would probably be called f*g by Ann Coulter, like John Edwards was, because he cared too much about his hair.
The problem is in men and women still being different culturally and socially. But thats as much due to the choice of women as the choice of men. Women want to buy fashionable clothes, wear makeup, and jewelery, much more than men care about women doing those things. In fact a lot of women in the fashion industry are those leading the discussion of Hillary’s fashion sense.
And if she’s called a b*tch, it isn’t more because she’s a woman, than if a male candidate was called a pr*ck (Romney)