Wow, I thought you were going to say something about their narcissism in thinking they speak for all women. Sorta like Rosie on her way out on the view saying she stuck it out so ‘women’s’ voices would be heard… you know, on an all female talk show…

This election is really showing lefty identity politics going amuck for the dems. All the interest groups want the majority to vote for ‘their’ (race/class*/gender) candidate… too funny…

* Most of them claiming this one / to speak for the poor… pfftt..

All the feminists care about is their own self-absorbed agenda.

On university campuses across the USA, this battle is being fought tooth and nail, wherever ethnic studies depts and gender/women’s studies depts are housed in proximity to each other.

Anybody got a “fly on the wall” video camera to catch the action?

Considering the 45 years that Ted has been doing more for Massachusetts and the rest of US, it is amusing that it took N.O.W. until NOW to discover that Teddy Boy was not the sweet-smelling flower that he has presented himself to be. More like skunk cabbage or durian.

As Fausta and others have pointed out, given the lack of condemnation of Muslim misogyny on the part of many professional feminists, it is further amusing to hear N.O.W. get in an uproar about Ted.

It is horrible that Ted won’t support Hillary, but as regards honor killings and the like, that is simply how things are done over there ( and here, more and more.).

I have a lot of sympathy for these women. I used to have a really hard time with militant feminists. They gave me untold troubles in high school and college because their of stridency and their totalitarian inclination to stomp all that disagrees with them.

Now that I’m a bit older, I’m a bit more sympathetic. I haven’t met a militant feminist who wasn’t poisoned with self-loathing at the very core of them, and I’ve known plenty. Many of them have lopped off the very parts of themselves that make them women inside.

What is there to be angry at? If their politics have replaced their humanity, that is a kind of bankruptcy no amount of legislation can remedy.

What we see is not feminism per se. It is rage and a lust for power. It has nothing to do whatever with equal work for equal pay.

Someone here said it very well. Liberals and “progressives” will stab each other in the back and throw each other under the bus in order to get what they feel they’re entitled to and all this talk about unity is an alliance of convenience to be shifted or broken if need be. And we’re they guys that are pointed out as the people “who are dividing the country”. We’re the ones to be blamed for the uncivil discourse. Meanwhile, a “progressive” will throw a brick through a plate glass window to protest that his voice isnt getting heard.

The more rabid liberals dont understand the irony of declaring that they’re living in a fascist police state when the vote doesnt go their way only helps create the mob-justice mentality in which fascism springs.

Now you dont hear that kind of talk much any more lately. Bush isnt running for reelection, so the press and the democrat politicians do not currently see the need to stoke the flames with wild rhetoric, but as you can see, there is so much dry kindling out there just willing to be used and all you have to do is push a button.

This really isnt about issues. Its about philosophy and ideology. This is why the battle is going to be so tough to fight.

At the same time, I don’t think it is at all surprising to see this sort of spit-flecked invective coming out of NOW. They’ve long since ceased to represent women or even feminists of the “old fashioned” sort. The membership and what passes for the leadership is pretty much currently composed of those who advance the progressive, the militant lesbian, and the militant transgendered agendas.

No surprise they couldn’t control themselves. In their own sealed ideological bubble everybody always gets their way. I’d like to whip out the old male saw of “You look so cute when you’re angry,” but the fact is that these women joined the ranks of the formerly-cute decades ago.

Give them time and they’ll devolve off the planet.

It is self-parody, and immensely enjoyable. It’s also amazing that they don’t realize how their bleating sounds to any sane observer.

Meanwhile, in the primary campaign, two practitioners of identity politics trying to outvictim and outpander each other. It’s kind of the victimhood/oppression version of Ali v. Frazier.

Gotta lay in a bigger supply of popcorn…

Where is the nuance? Where is even the facade of comity? What NOW represents is an obsessed mob, with mob rule, mob justice, and mob ethics.

1) Women are empowered to be victims of men.
2) Non-whites, especially blacks, are victims of whites.
3) Non-rich are victims of the rich, especially the
(3b) rich capitalists {especially if they’re Joooos, but this can only be whispered}, and
4) Non-Christians are victims of the Spanish Inquisition! (which nobody expected); especially secular humanists and gays (victims of 4b heterosexuals) are victims.

Please compare this list with the “bad guys” as explicitly or implied in most Hollywood movies and MSM news stories.

Let’s also remember the truth about violence — violence for Justice is OK. And all the victims want is … Justice.

Victimhood must be claimed in order invoke injustice and justify the use of gov’t force. And the use of force is easier to accept after the guilty are also demonized.

Oh yeah, non-smokers are the victims of smokers who themselves are the victims of rich white men who own capitalist Big Tobacco companies.

Never: he and his nephew, the “environmentalist” Robert Junior Kennedy, have been fighting like hell to prevent a wind farm off their Cape Cod estate.

The sight of Dummy-crats fighting it out - I just love it!

Does, or did that include “affirmative action” ???

[Shamelessly stolen from the Emperor Misha]

I’m inclined to argue the reverse: they are furious precisely because they expected his support. No enemy can cause as much pain as a treacherous ally.

In the meantime, the tone of their press release gives some idea of what they think sounds reasonable. After all, it surely sounded reasonble to them.

It reminds me of football commentators who work in the word “football” at every turn. (”They’re a good football team, having a lot of good football players, but they need to work on throwing the football if they want to win football games in this football league.”)

Am I the only one struck by this?

Be careful… they might accuse you of deliberately alienating womyn with your male-dominated sports analogies.

(Curious about the name… my site is Occam’s RazR…)

(The name comes is an allusion to the failure of many to use Occam’s Razor.)

Here’s a good one for you — everyone knows the word “misogyny” — “woman hating”.

What’s the equivalent word for “man-hating”?

No fair looking at the dictionary (at least until you give up and realize you probably have no such word in your experience).

Heck, most dictionaries don’t have it — If you do a search on the word “misogyny” at dictionary.com, it has six entries. The sexually-inverted word has only *three*.

Now ask yourself about what the absence of a specific word means to the thinking process as a whole…

1) I think this is because it’s growing remarkably rarer to encounter that last…. Many feminsts resemble Pauline Kael in her remark about Nixon, noting “no one she knew had voted for him.”

Few feminsts nowadays know any sane observers.

2) You seem to have missed the Modern Feminist Mantra: “If you disagree with us, you must be a misogynist.”.

A misogynist is a lowlife, neanderthal cockroach, and has no opinions or ideas of merit, in any way, shape, or form. This clearly would include any “sane observer”.

Perhaps this clears things up a bit.
;-D

.