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

.

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…

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

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…)

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?

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.

[Shamelessly stolen from the Emperor Misha]

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