The real war on women
The Left has been whining lately about the Republicans’ supposed “war on women”. The reasons women should not vote for Republicans are listed at this MoveOn campaign link. But where do I think is the real war against women? Well, I’ve been reading links from our buddy Michelle Malkin to the disgusting hate mail she gets from the Left, and I think the real war against women is being leveled against women on the Right.
If you’ve missed Michelle’s latest postings on Facebook, John Hawkins from Right Wing News has compiled some screen shots of Michelle’s Twitter communications.
Now, I love Michelle and the one time I told her so, she quickly responded that her husband loves her, too. I guess she was trying to tell me something. But the two times we’ve talked, I’ve found her to be one of the sweetest and most gracious people I’ve ever met. She’s certainly not deserving of these vicious attacks. And pretty much all she does is shine light on the Left, and she’s certainly not as vicious as the attacks she tolerates.
Now, I’m no feminist, because I think feminism was devised at a frat house kegger in the 60s, but I do believe that women should be treated equally…mostly because I’ve fathered three women who I love very much and I have granddaughter and a great granddaughter. I think I’d strangle anyone who talked to my girls the way they talk to Michelle. As long as these creeps hide behind their keyboards and spew their filth, I think all women are being mistreated. So, why does the Left hate women?
ADDED: Just this morning, Malkin got another one from some brave soul;
Category: Liberals suck
After reading some of those tweets, I’ve came to the conclusion that strangulation would be way too merciful for those “people.” More of a ball peen hammer and blow torch situation.
I’d like to think that 90% of those who would Tweet such vile garbage wouldn’t say this to someone’s face, but then I realized that we’re not exactly talking about stable individuals.
Whether from the left or the right, I pretty much tune out when I hear “the war on……”
What usually follows is vacuous and unsupported.
It’s a power and control thing. The Leftist Libtards can’t stand independent people of any sort.
Charles “Sweet”…really?
Somehow, that seems very appropriate, if it’s actually his name.
Exactly why I gave up (for the most part) attempting to engage in reasoned, polite discussions with progressives/lib-tards/socialists; it’s just not worth the effort, frankly.
I just throw verbal bombs at them now…tell them exactly what I think of them personally and their overall agenda for this nation.
Why does it seem that nobody ever has a point these days? It’s name calling and whining, no actual debate or conversation. No attempt at a discussion. I think a kindergarten class could be more civil and more intelligent.
She gets the snot typed out of her over at TH, too. Not only is it annoying and ridiculous, but pointless. THe only reason the idiot left gets on MM is because she speaks the truth they don’t want to hear. It fucks witht their “collective reality” period.
I just love this picture.
For the record, that picture was taken at the ANSWER March in September 2007. About 40 pounds ago. I like the picture, too, mostly because it proves that there are people shorter than me in the world.
You are BOTH cute.
About the only good thing about the way MM gets treated is that it has been happening for years. We talked about it briefly at a Walter Reed Freeper Friday. Although it doesn’t show she has rhino skin and the heart of a lioness.
9 I like the photo because it also proves that one can simultaneously look like they are constipated and having diarrhea.
211: Sure you weren’t looking in the mirror?
“…but I do believe that women should be treated equally.” I agree to a point, especially when it comes to mental capacity but disagree on the other hand because of physical differences, some discrimination is warranted.
Do you love her enough to “do her”?
Oh, you have daughters and granddaughters and all. How do you feel about guys “doing them”?
Depends on the age and context, Joe. I’m personally not stupid enough to think that either my daughter or granddaughter is likely to remain chaste for the rest of their lives.
Sounds to me like you have something against sex. Damn, and I thought it was us conservatives that were supposed to be the prudes. You sound like you want to put women in burqas and keep them away from men, in their own part of the house!
No, I just wish Jonn and others would be consistent – show the same repsect for women in general that you have for the women in your family.
No, Joe is just butthurt because 1–women won’t “do him”, and 2–doesn’t understand that a woman can be physically attractive but still be a mental/emotional trainwreck.
Joe, I’m sure plenty of us would love to ‘do her’. And in the spirit of equality I also don’t get upset when I hear my daughter of my lady friends talk about how they’d like to ‘do’ some hunk they’ve recently taken a liking to.
What’s your point?
Ooops, “daughter OR my lady friends
Actually, Joe, I think it’s because you’re incapable of separating the person from the persona. An individual may well be a complete ass, but attractive as hell. That’s essentially what Jonn was saying above. I’d have thought a knowing, nuanced metrosexual guy like yourself would have been able to discern that.
Then again, during my life I’ve had experience with both liberal zealots and racist idiots. And the liberal zealots are IMO even more intolerant than most the racist idiots I grew up with in the Deep South.
And Joe–for the record, I’m am NOT calling MM a trainwreck. Lady has her head screwed on as straight as most. Even a few liberal women have their heads screwed on straight, they just are wrong on a lot of shit. Doesn’t mean I would or wouldn’t find them “doable”.
But therein lies the difference between you and me–commitment. To folks like me, it means something. While I can look at the menu, I still eat at home.
Would you prefer that Jonn say he’d like to “dip her in bbq sauce and work her like a rib” instead of saying he’d “do her”? Would that be more gentlemanly?
Y’know if you’re “discussing” (I use that word loosely in regards to this site) politics or something, just leave sex out of it. You embarrass yourself with your juvenille language.
Last sentence should obviously read “most of the racist idiots”. Thought I’d best make that correction for your benefit, Joe.
What’s the matter, Joe? Does talk of matters sexual bother you? Repressed issues, perhaps? Does an attractive female confuse you? Bother you? Disgust you? If not, why avoid the subject? Does it shame you?
Because it certainly doesn’t appear to bother the rest of the adults commenting here overmuch.
@24
Coming from you Joe, that’s a hoot! lol
Hey, Joe (now where have I heard that before?) if’n ya don’t like how us fucking Neanderthals talk, GTFO.
It’s that simple, really.
Hondo, it “bothers” our little Joey, because, after one look, real women want nothing to do with him.
Oh, and Joey, seems your projection is showing again. Do try to get help, woncha?
It would seem that Joe is tired of hearing “go fuck yourself”.
Joe do you have a point of some kind going on there? Or are you just walking around in the woods like some idiot child in the dark trying to find his lost baseball?
I guess when you intersperse sexual cheap shots with what passes for reasoned discussion on this site, the message gets kinda muddled. Jacobite, how you relate to your friends and relatives in private conversation is a different matter than trying to debase a writer on a public forum in a political discussion, but then again sensitivity to context was never a strong point for this crowd.
Just for the record I’ve had a personal and scientific interest in human sexuality since about age 11, and I’ve forgotten more about heterosexual sex than most of you will ever know. I have no problem discussing sex with adults – juvenilles are a different matter.
…NOW it’s time to go get popcorn….
See Joe like usual I am calling bullshit on you. You like to claim some kind of moral high ground, but you can’t have it by simply declaring it. At 11 you had the same interest that all little boys had, so don’t play some stupid game. You tried putting out something and didn’t get the response you wanted. See our sisters, daughters, and some of our granddaughters become mothers. The way they do that is through having sex it is simply a biological fact, do we think about it probably not because ew. I haven’t really thought about it with Michelle Malkin because it isn’t that important in my life. I can look at a menu and not eat, if you have a problem that is your problem not ours. Joe not everyone is like you so back off and deal with your stuff…
Joe, how you relate to your friends and relatives in private conversation should be NO different than how you interact with a writer on a public forum in a political discussion. That is the ‘context’ that you are missing, your weak attempts at relativism aside.
What you are missing is that most of the people here on this blog hold everyone to the same standards.
You say you wish we would show the same respect for all women that we do for the women in our own families. We’ve pointed out to you that we do, but since that undermines your prefered meme, you once again have to muddy the water and talk in double speak, continuing the discussion in a direction it was never intended to travel.
Holy shit Joe has been interested in sex since he was 11? That makes you different from other 11 year olds how Joe?
Is that a leftover of extreme Catholic guilt about sex I see, Joe? Or maybe the result of a Puritanical upbringing, where sex was something “dirty” and “juvenile”, and not a fit subject for adult conversation? Geez – once again, I thought it was supposed to be us conservatives that were all uptight about sex! Who’d a thunk it was gonna be a liberal, hip, sensitive guy like you that had such issues with sex – such issues that simple talk about the subject would make you nervous, defensive, and cause you to attempt to change the subject? Now, pay attention while an adult explains something, Joe. Saying that someone is “totally doable” in the context Jonn used here is simply a statement that the individual is quite physically attractive. That’s it. It’s the equivalent of calling them “hot” or “sexy”. It may be blunt, but it shouldn’t be taken as being degrading towards them in any way. It’s a statement of fact or opinion. And here, it’s also irrelevant to the main point of Jonn’s discussion. Saying that someone is “totally doable” is not the same as saying “I wanna bang her silly” or “I’d like to hump her until I can’t do it any more”. Both of those might be coarse statements that might be evidence of treating the individual referenced as an object rather than a person. Or they might not. It depends on the context. What you did here was focus on one small statement, ignoring context and interpreting it differently than intended. You then got all bent out of shape over same. That’s not being an adult – that’s being a petulant adolescent two different ways. Way number one: getting bent out of shape over something like this in the first place; that shows intolerance and a petty nature, hallmarks of the adolescent. And way number two: you’ve shown rather shallow and childlike reasoning here – you’re focusing solely on an irrelevant detail while missing the major point of discussion. You need to get with the program, fella. You appear too old to exhibit the… Read more »
Joe sounds a lot like insipid. Am I wrong?
I see some similarities, Nobunny. Both are liberal, outspoken – and IMO relatively clueless and naive. But their areas of interest seem to be different. I don’t think they’re the same individual.
K, Hondo. Just thinking out loud. It was the mention of forgetting heterosexual sex that got me wondering.
Jonn knows both by their ISPs, if they were one and the same I’m sure he would have clued us in.
You guys are quick – some of you got my “11 year old” reference.
Hondo,
Couldn’t agree less – the context does matter and it is not trivial. I’d be seriously curious how Naomi Wolf would take Jonn’s amourous interest. One does not treat family members, friends, colleagues or prominent journalists the same in real life. If you chided a stranger the way you do a good buddy or family member, you might get totally unexpected reaction, like a knuckle sandwich. Context matters, civility matters. If it didn’t matter in this world, as you assert, why would there a need for parlimentary procedures and Roberts Rules of order in your world of no context? I’ll tell you why, ‘cuz if you started to talk the way you guys do in a legislative session, it would degenerate into a brawl like we see in the Korean and Taiwanese legilatures. No, context definitely matters, and if you act as if it didn’t, you’ll probably wonder why people think your either an a**hole or autistic.
Thank you Joe for admitting that in your world people lie and posture to keep the peace. 🙂
In our world, and the world we wished still fully existed, they try not to.
Is it normal to just see random keystokes when Joe types anything? I can imagine he sounds like Charlie Brown’s teacher when he talks…
…and out of curiosity Joe, what was it about my name that made you think I was female?
After all, a pinto nag, a multicolored horse, can be either male or female.
And please continue with your comments on context. I find them fascinating.
Joe do you take the same tone about civility on the DU or the krazy kos?
Uh, Joe . . . I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Because whether you realize it or not, you just agreed with me that you were acting like a petulant child above, and were using juvenile reasoning.
Go back an re-read my comment 37 – or have someone read and explain it to you if necessary. There, I take you to task for (1) ignoring context, and (2) focusing on irrelevant details at the expense of the “big picture”. In your comment 43 above, you agree that context is very important. So that means you’ve just agreed with my observation that context matters – and have just also inadvertently confirmed that you were indeed acting like a juvenile in your comments prior to that. Thanks for agreeing with me.
But you still need to work on getting the big picture and quit focusing on irrelevant details. Oh, well, one out of two ain’t that bad.
Jonn’s main point here – which you have conveniently ignored so far – is that the leftists in America like Naomi Wolf have done far more damage to women’s causes through hypocrisy and double-standards than good. As examples, look no further than their obvious double standards regarding press treatment of Malkin and Palin vice Fluke, and their giving Clinton a pass on being a serial adulterer and perjurer because they liked his politics.
Now, how about you quit trying to divert attention from that issue with irrelevant complaints about the use of terms about Wolf on another thread (IMO likely done subconsciously, because I really don’t think you’re smart enough to be doing this intentionally as a way to divert attention from Jonn’s main point here) and discuss those issues instead?
Pinto Nag: it was that famous liberal metrosexual intuition. They can spot ’em a mile away, don’t ya know!
Well, when they’re not too self-absorbed to notice the world around them, that is. (smile)
“Context matters, civility matters”. Agreed, Joey boy. So, wanna discuss your brothers and sisters over at DU and KOS? Not many of us wonder whether they’re assholes or not, it’s really self-evident.