Selective Feminism

[BDBoop]

That's merely what you chose to infer. I neither said that nor implied it.

But since you mention it ----- is not "I never heard of it" exactly what you're saying about this mysterious collective voice of "all leftist women", who as we all know all think exactly alike, and are all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same?

That's a song lyric by the way, written by a leftist woman.

Uhh what?

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Hang on though...

No, I've actually done the research. I have tried looking for instances of liberal outcry over this type of misogyny. I have failed, Pogo.

I thought you said "leftist women" before. Now it's liberals? Which one?

I believe that is what they used for the 'Weeds' theme song.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's merely what you chose to infer. I neither said that nor implied it.

But since you mention it ----- is not "I never heard of it" exactly what you're saying about this mysterious collective voice of "all leftist women", who as we all know all think exactly alike, and are all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same?

That's a song lyric by the way, written by a leftist woman.

Uhh what?

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Hang on though...

No, I've actually done the research. I have tried looking for instances of liberal outcry over this type of misogyny. I have failed, Pogo.

I thought you said "leftist women" before. Now it's liberals? Which one?

Sigh, mincing words isn't an argument. Nor has it disproven anything I've said so far.

 

[Pogo]

Uhh what?

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Then if I'm wrong, I challenge you to prove me wrong. I implore you. I've given my argument, you've literally and summarily dismissed it. That to me is unsatisfactory.

Actually you already have the burden of proof my friend. Your proposal is that "lefist women" (or maybe it's "liberal women", we haven't figured that out yet) have never spoken out against these obscurities Newsbusters told you to be outraged about (I would be willing to bet they also told you there's "no outcry from the left" and you took them at their word but we digress). That amounts to a negative -- a declaration that something does not exist.

So your task is now to prove it does not. The rest of us are just watching.

Once again..... good luck with that. I don't envy the task.

 

[Pogo]

Uhh what?

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Hang on though...

No, I've actually done the research. I have tried looking for instances of liberal outcry over this type of misogyny. I have failed, Pogo.

I thought you said "leftist women" before. Now it's liberals? Which one?

I believe that is what they used for the 'Weeds' theme song.

I've heard it was a theme song for something, but it dates to 1962 -- when there was a poisonous conformity going on. Pete Seeger had a hit with it.

Malvina Reynolds (1900-1978) was a great social commentator.

 

[Pogo]

Uhh what?

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Hang on though...

No, I've actually done the research. I have tried looking for instances of liberal outcry over this type of misogyny. I have failed, Pogo.

I thought you said "leftist women" before. Now it's liberals? Which one?

Sigh, mincing words isn't an argument. Nor has it disproven anything I've said so far.

Again, you can't "prove" or "disprove" a question. But the distinction matters. Are you talking about leftist women or liberal women? If it's the latter, you may have a point, since Liberalism declares that everybody has freedom to speak, which arguably makes a Liberal less likely to protest.

Then again that brings up a deeper question: what do you expect these women to say in speaking out? That it's in bad taste? That the speaker should be fired or censored? What? What would count as "speaking out" and what would not?

We're blurring the lines between politics and social mores here. You see that, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The reference is to "Little Boxes", written by Malvina Reynolds. The entire song is a protest against conformity, referring to houses of America and their inhabitants as "little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same". It's a mocking of the idea that people are or can be force-fit into nice little boxes all the same. Like you're attempting to do here, painting "all leftist women" as thinking in lockstep, all made out of ticky tacky and all looking just the same.

Which I find hilarious.

Then if I'm wrong, I challenge you to prove me wrong. I implore you. I've given my argument, you've literally and summarily dismissed it. That to me is unsatisfactory.

Actually you already have the burden of proof my friend. Your proposal is that "lefist women" (or maybe it's "liberal women", we haven't figured that out yet) have never spoken out against these obscurities Newsbusters told you to be outraged about (I would be willing to bet they also told you there's "no outcry from the left" and you took them at their word but we digress). That amounts to a negative -- a declaration that something does not exist.

So your task is now to prove it does not. The rest of us are just watching.

Once again..... good luck with that. I don't envy the task.

Actually, it could be said that you're contending that there are indeed liberals/liberal women who spoke out against this type of invective. As you insist the burden lies with me, it also lies with you to prove that such outcry has indeed taken place.
Fine.

Answer me this. For all those quotes I listed, was there any accompanying female liberal outrage? What about liberal outrage in general?

 

[Pogo]

Then if I'm wrong, I challenge you to prove me wrong. I implore you. I've given my argument, you've literally and summarily dismissed it. That to me is unsatisfactory.

Actually you already have the burden of proof my friend. Your proposal is that "lefist women" (or maybe it's "liberal women", we haven't figured that out yet) have never spoken out against these obscurities Newsbusters told you to be outraged about (I would be willing to bet they also told you there's "no outcry from the left" and you took them at their word but we digress). That amounts to a negative -- a declaration that something does not exist.

So your task is now to prove it does not. The rest of us are just watching.

Once again..... good luck with that. I don't envy the task.

Actually, it could be said that you're contending that there are indeed liberals/liberal women who spoke out against this type of invective. As you insist the burden lies with me, it also lies with you to prove that such outcry has indeed taken place.
Fine.

Answer me this. For all those quotes I listed, was there any accompanying female liberal outrage? What about liberal outrage in general?

No no, we don't share the burden of proof -- it's yours alone. Because the proposition is yours alone. You see, I'm not claiming there are X number of protest quotes about these obscure articles. I really don't even care; I form my own opinions. But you're proposing that such do not exist. I'm fascinated to see how you're going to make this case. With something a bit more tangible than argumentum ad populum.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I must form this poorly formed premise of mine (admittedly) into something more cogent, then it's this: The feminists such as N.O.W. who endorse the left, liberal women, and the left in general are all engaging in a form of identity politics. Why attack one woman but praise the other?

An analogy:

"I love Hillary Clinton! She's got what it takes!", says the leftist female.

--When asked what she thinks about someone like Sarah Palin--

"Oh, Sarah Palin is a lying whore. She's against women rights! She hates women!"

Note the stark contrast in opinion of this pretend liberal woman. The same response could be heard from a majority of liberals (of both genders). I notice that some conservative women do the same thing to an equal extent, but that is another topic entirely.

 

[Pogo]

If I must form this poorly formed premise of mine (admittedly) into something more cogent, then it's this: The feminists such as N.O.W. who endorse the left, liberal women, and the left in general are all engaging in a form of identity politics. Why attack one woman but praise the other?

An analogy:

"I love Hillary Clinton! She's got what it takes!", says the leftist female.

--When asked what she thinks about someone like Sarah Palin--

"Oh, Sarah Palin is a lying whore. She's against women rights! She hates women!"

Note the stark contrast in opinion of this pretend liberal woman. The same response could be heard from a majority of liberals (of both genders). I notice that some conservative women do the same thing to an equal extent, but that is another topic entirely.

Ah, you mean all those conservative women who stood up for Sandra Fluke?

Is it another topic though? What I note is you wrote a strawman script. Does it have a party affiliation? I always thought a strawman was a strawman regardless who uses it. But if you're saying both the left and the right do this, aren't you simply saying politics is divided into partisan camps? And don't we know that already?

Basically it seems to me you've taken an idea floated by hair-on-fire push sites like Newsbusters and run with it. You forget they come at it with an agenda, which is to manipulate public opinion. Then you look on the pages of Newsbusters and sure enough, there ain't no liberal (or is it leftist?) women in there protesting. There ain't no liberal/leftist women there at all. Because you're standing in an echo chamber. Essentially you're trudging through the swamp wondering why you don't see a cactus.

What you're purporting to look for and not find is just not the kind of thing that's going to be documented somewhere. Because these are bullshit topics made up by muckrakers to sell papers. They're not news. Matt Tabbi and Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher don't write laws. They don't even run for office. So commentary about this non-news would be even less news.

I'd guess the place to look for these women protesting would be in the comments section of an article or a YouTube video (if you can figure out who the liberal or leftist is) -- but not one from a partisan site where you won't find those women hanging in the first place.

 

[Esmeralda]

If I must form this poorly formed premise of mine (admittedly) into something more cogent, then it's this: The feminists such as N.O.W. who endorse the left, liberal women, and the left in general are all engaging in a form of identity politics. Why attack one woman but praise the other?

An analogy:

"I love Hillary Clinton! She's got what it takes!", says the leftist female.

--When asked what she thinks about someone like Sarah Palin--

"Oh, Sarah Palin is a lying whore. She's against women rights! She hates women!"

Note the stark contrast in opinion of this pretend liberal woman. The same response could be heard from a majority of liberals (of both genders). I notice that some conservative women do the same thing to an equal extent, but that is another topic entirely.

In order for anyone to take your examples seriously, you must identify the speakers: who, what, when and why. Otherwise, it's just baseless, inflamatory blithering. Also, it appears you are referring to one individual and asserting that all women who identify themselves as 'leftist' have an identical vision as she does.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I must form this poorly formed premise of mine (admittedly) into something more cogent, then it's this: The feminists such as N.O.W. who endorse the left, liberal women, and the left in general are all engaging in a form of identity politics. Why attack one woman but praise the other?

An analogy:

"I love Hillary Clinton! She's got what it takes!", says the leftist female.

--When asked what she thinks about someone like Sarah Palin--

"Oh, Sarah Palin is a lying whore. She's against women rights! She hates women!"

Note the stark contrast in opinion of this pretend liberal woman. The same response could be heard from a majority of liberals (of both genders). I notice that some conservative women do the same thing to an equal extent, but that is another topic entirely.

In order for anyone to take your examples seriously, you must identify the speakers: who, what, when and why. Otherwise, it's just baseless, inflamatory blithering. Also, it appears you are referring to one individual and asserting that all women who identify themselves as 'leftist' have an identical vision as she does.

I did "identify the speakers" such as Taibbi, Olbermann, Schultz, also Maher and Letterman. I linked to their commentary, to which you chose to ignore. Well I have nothing more to work on other than the liberal exclamations of "we are the party of women!" As I sit here arguing with the two of you, you have yet to condemn any of the comments made by these speakers, especially misogynistic jokes told by Maher and Letterman, to which the claim is made by the post above yours that they"don't write laws. They don't even run for office. So commentary about this non-news would be even less news." So either liberal women see all other women as women, or as an enemy because they don't believe as they do.

Another one. What did Democrats do when they found out that Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky? What about the debacle with Juanita Brodderick? What about his affair with Gennifer Flowers? When she accused Clinton of having an affair with her, he blatantly called her a liar. Until he admitted it.

Then there was the instance of Kathleen Willey, who claimed that Clinton "took my hand and placed it on his genitalia." Uber feminist Gloria Steinem was then quoted as saying :

The truth is that even if [Kathleen Willey's] allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. [Clinton] is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life.

She has testified that she pushed him away, later went to see him three more times in the same private setting without any repeat of unwelcome behavior and never experienced job consequences, positive or negative. In other words, Clinton took "no" for an answer.

In her original story, Jones essentially said the same thing. She went to then-Gov. Clinton's hotel room, where she said he asked her to perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers. She refused, and even she claims that he said something like, "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do."

Her lawyers now allege that as a result of the incident [Paula] Jones described, she was slighted in her job as a state clerical employee and even suffered long-lasting psychological damage. But there appears to be little evidence to support those accusations. As with the allegations in Willey's case, Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.

Here you have a liberal man treating women as objects, but nary outcry on the left. Same with John Edwards and Anthony Weiner.

Ten years later during the 2008 election, Gloria Steinem had this to say about Sarah Palin in her Op-Ed in the LA Times:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs." ... She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/04/news/OE-STEINEM4

You think I'm talking out of my backside? The "strawman script" Pogo referred to was derived from nothing other tham Steinem's reaction to Sarah Palin, and extollment of Hillary Clinton.

Once again I ask, where was the outrage? Simply saying "the other party does it too" does not an argument make. I know that. But I'm addressing liberals women and liberals only.

 

[Pogo]

If I must form this poorly formed premise of mine (admittedly) into something more cogent, then it's this: The feminists such as N.O.W. who endorse the left, liberal women, and the left in general are all engaging in a form of identity politics. Why attack one woman but praise the other?

An analogy:

"I love Hillary Clinton! She's got what it takes!", says the leftist female.

--When asked what she thinks about someone like Sarah Palin--

"Oh, Sarah Palin is a lying whore. She's against women rights! She hates women!"

Note the stark contrast in opinion of this pretend liberal woman. The same response could be heard from a majority of liberals (of both genders). I notice that some conservative women do the same thing to an equal extent, but that is another topic entirely.

In order for anyone to take your examples seriously, you must identify the speakers: who, what, when and why. Otherwise, it's just baseless, inflamatory blithering. Also, it appears you are referring to one individual and asserting that all women who identify themselves as 'leftist' have an identical vision as she does.

I did "identify the speakers" such as Taibbi, Olbermann, Schultz, also Maher and Letterman. I linked to their commentary, to which you chose to ignore. Well I have nothing more to work on other than the liberal exclamations of "we are the party of women!" As I sit here arguing with the two of you, you have yet to condemn any of the comments made by these speakers, especially misogynistic jokes told by Maher and Letterman, to which the claim is made by the post above yours that they"don't write laws. They don't even run for office. So commentary about this non-news would be even less news." So either liberal women see all other women as women, or as an enemy because they don't believe as they do.

I'm still not a woman, TK. NovaSteve was supposed to have me set up for an operation but it didn't happen.

But even if I were I wouldn't presume to speak for all liberal or all leftist or all anything women. This strange idea you have that somehow all liberal (or leftist, or whatever) women think alike is frankly kind of bizarre. And I don't think I've ever condemned a joke. Why would you condemn a joke? There are jokes that are just not funny, there are jokes in bad taste or that use racist or sexist or whatever bases. But they're jokes. Now I've seen women condemn those bad taste jokes you mentioned, even right here in this thread. What are they supposed to do-- call for Letterman's head? I asked that before and got crickets.

And again, you're not a woman either so I have to question your ability to sit in judgement over them.

And by the way the speakers you "identified" have been changed in midstream. You weren't talking about Tabbi et al; you had just posted a fabricated quote. That's the one you didn't identify. It's right there in the previous quote. That's not an honest tactic.

Another one. What did Democrats do when they found out that Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky? What about the debacle with Juanita Brodderick? What about his affair with Gennifer Flowers? When she accused Clinton of having an affair with her, he blatantly called her a liar. Until he admitted it.

I neither know nor care about that bread and circus soap opera bullshit. I don't know why anyone does. Once again --- not news and not relevant.

Then there was the instance of Kathleen Willey, who claimed that Clinton "took my hand and placed it on his genitalia." Uber feminist Gloria Steinem was then quoted as saying :

The truth is that even if [Kathleen Willey's] allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. [Clinton] is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life.

She has testified that she pushed him away, later went to see him three more times in the same private setting without any repeat of unwelcome behavior and never experienced job consequences, positive or negative. In other words, Clinton took "no" for an answer.

In her original story, Jones essentially said the same thing. She went to then-Gov. Clinton's hotel room, where she said he asked her to perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers. She refused, and even she claims that he said something like, "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do."

Her lawyers now allege that as a result of the incident [Paula] Jones described, she was slighted in her job as a state clerical employee and even suffered long-lasting psychological damage. But there appears to be little evidence to support those accusations. As with the allegations in Willey's case, Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.

Here you have a liberal man treating women as objects, but nary outcry on the left. Same with John Edwards and Anthony Weiner.

Bullshit. You're talking alleged affairs between individuals -- not public attitudes or policies toward all women. And why do you describe Bull Clinton as a "Liberal"?

Ten years later during the 2008 election, Gloria Steinem had this to say about Sarah Palin in her Op-Ed in the LA Times:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs." ... She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Wrong woman, wrong message - Los Angeles Times

---- uh.... and??

What's the point there?

You think I'm talking out of my backside? The "strawman script" Pogo referred to was derived from nothing other tham Steinem's reaction to Sarah Palin, and extollment of Hillary Clinton.

So .... you're making up a fantasy dialogue and then want to know where the outrage over it is??

Wow. I'll see if I can find a nice pic of an outraged strawman.

Once again I ask, where was the outrage? Simply saying "the other party does it too" does not an argument make. I know that. But I'm addressing liberals women and liberals only.

How evenhanded of you
So let's pull a contrived issue out of the echo chamber, take it to a neutral ground, and make a new echo chamber? All so we can construct some kind of blanket statement about a gender we're not even part of?

 

[TemplarKormac]

In order for anyone to take your examples seriously, you must identify the speakers: who, what, when and why. Otherwise, it's just baseless, inflamatory blithering. Also, it appears you are referring to one individual and asserting that all women who identify themselves as 'leftist' have an identical vision as she does.

I did "identify the speakers" such as Taibbi, Olbermann, Schultz, also Maher and Letterman. I linked to their commentary, to which you chose to ignore. Well I have nothing more to work on other than the liberal exclamations of "we are the party of women!" As I sit here arguing with the two of you, you have yet to condemn any of the comments made by these speakers, especially misogynistic jokes told by Maher and Letterman, to which the claim is made by the post above yours that they"don't write laws. They don't even run for office. So commentary about this non-news would be even less news." So either liberal women see all other women as women, or as an enemy because they don't believe as they do.

I'm still not a woman, TK. NovaSteve was supposed to have me set up for an operation but it didn't happen.

But even if I were I wouldn't presume to speak for all liberal or all leftist or all anything women. This strange idea you have that somehow all liberal (or leftist, or whatever) women think alike is frankly kind of bizarre. And I don't think I've ever condemned a joke. Why would you condemn a joke? There are jokes that are just not funny, there are jokes in bad taste or that use racist or sexist or whatever bases. But they're jokes. Now I've seen women condemn those bad taste jokes you mentioned, even right here in this thread. What are they supposed to do-- call for Letterman's head? I asked that before and got crickets.

And again, you're not a woman either so I have to question your ability to sit in judgement over them.



I neither know nor care about that bread and circus bullshit. I don't know why anyone does. Once again --- not news and not relevant.



Bullshit. You're talking alleged affairs between individuals -- not public attitudes or policies toward all women. And why do you describe Bull Clinton as a "Liberal"?






---- uh.... and??

What's the point there?

You think I'm talking out of my backside? The "strawman script" Pogo referred to was derived from nothing other tham Steinem's reaction to Sarah Palin, and extollment of Hillary Clinton.

So .... you're making up a fantasy dialogue and then want to know where the outrage over it is??

Wow. I'll see if I can find a nice pic of an outraged strawman.

Once again I ask, where was the outrage? Simply saying "the other party does it too" does not an argument make. I know that. But I'm addressing liberals women and liberals only.

How evenhanded of you
So let's pull a contrived issue out of the echo chamber, take it to a neutral ground, and make a new echo chamber? All so we can construct some kind of blanket statement about a gender we're not even part of?

So, wheres the point in insulting my point? Hmm? Your sarcasm is disingenuous.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why do you expect all women to have a hive mentality and think as one? If we were to get outraged over every mysognistic comment or joke made in the media, we'd spend our lives frothing and not accomplish anything. So we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie.

Calling Playboy, or any porn magazine out on mysognistic comments is like calling a leopard out for having spots.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do you expect all women to have a hive mentality and think as one? If we were to get outraged over every mysognistic comment or joke made in the media, we'd spend our lives frothing and not accomplish anything. So we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie.

Calling Playboy, or any porn magazine out on mysognistic comments is like calling a leopard out for having spots.

Oh so this is how you justify all the misogyny exhibited by the left towards Palin then, for example? If I recall, you didn't mind some of the crap Maher and Letterman said about her. It's also very interesting that you should say "we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie."

Moving on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm not a woman, nor is Pogo. But it confounds me simply because liberal women say they are for women, women's rights and such, but defend one woman over another. I am accusing them all of employing a double standard. If being a woman meant so much to all of them, I would wager they would do anything to defend their version of the species from unfair or unbased attacks. But lo and behold, they don't. One woman is more worthy of praise than another, one woman is more worthy of defense than the other. One is more deserving of ridicule than the other. This is a classic double standard which needs to be addressed.

Need I repeat myself?

 

[Pogo]

Why do you expect all women to have a hive mentality and think as one? If we were to get outraged over every mysognistic comment or joke made in the media, we'd spend our lives frothing and not accomplish anything. So we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie.

Calling Playboy, or any porn magazine out on mysognistic comments is like calling a leopard out for having spots.

Oh so this is how you justify all the misogyny exhibited by the left towards Palin then, for example? If I recall, you didn't mind some of the crap Maher and Letterman said about her. It's also very interesting that you should say "we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie."

Moving on.

So you're going to pose a question, and then ignore every answer you don't like then?

Good plan. Let me know how it works out.

You haven't even established your question anyway. You've declared "misogyny", posted an irrelevant piece of op-ed from Steinem, and when I asked what it's point is, I got crickets.

And again, where do you get off purporting to sit in judgement of women? Rather an arrogant presumption to take if you don't mind my saying.

Although I suspect women are used to it by now...

 

[Pogo]

No, I'm not a woman, nor is Pogo. But it confounds me simply because liberal women say they are for women, women's rights and such, but defend one woman over another. I am accusing them all of employing a double standard. If being a woman meant so much to all of them, I would wager they would do anything to defend their version of the species from unfair or unbased attacks. But lo and behold, they don't. One woman is more worthy of praise than another, one woman is more worthy of defense than the other. One is more deserving of ridicule than the other. This is a classic double standard which needs to be addressed.

Need I repeat myself?

OMG, the temerity of callow youth...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do you expect all women to have a hive mentality and think as one? If we were to get outraged over every mysognistic comment or joke made in the media, we'd spend our lives frothing and not accomplish anything. So we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie.

Calling Playboy, or any porn magazine out on mysognistic comments is like calling a leopard out for having spots.

Oh so this is how you justify all the misogyny exhibited by the left towards Palin then, for example? If I recall, you didn't mind some of the crap Maher and Letterman said about her. It's also very interesting that you should say "we pick our battles, based on where our interests lie."

Moving on.

So you're going to pose a question, and then ignore every answer you don't like then?

Good plan. Let me know how it works out.

You haven't even established your question anyway. You've declared "misogyny", posted an irrelevant piece of op-ed from Steinem, and when I asked what it's point is, I got crickets.

And again, where do you get off purporting to sit in judgement of women? Rather an arrogant presumption to take if you don't mind my saying.

Although I suspect women are used to it by now...

Questions. Why do women in one party treat one woman with disdain but not the other? Why do they only react to criticism of one woman and rush to her defense but not the other? Why does such a selective bias exist within the mind of a liberal woman/liberal/feminist?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm not a woman, nor is Pogo. But it confounds me simply because liberal women say they are for women, women's rights and such, but defend one woman over another. I am accusing them all of employing a double standard. If being a woman meant so much to all of them, I would wager they would do anything to defend their version of the species from unfair or unbased attacks. But lo and behold, they don't. One woman is more worthy of praise than another, one woman is more worthy of defense than the other. One is more deserving of ridicule than the other. This is a classic double standard which needs to be addressed.

Need I repeat myself?

OMG, the temerity of callow youth...

OMG, the vacuousness of the reply... (by the way, that response of yours is a genetic fallacy).