Reading a Leon Uris book decades ago, I was struck by the blatant description of the crass behavior of some middle eastern men towards women. I put it aside as a vulgar rarity but after reading this description about the behavior of Egyptian men, I wonder. While this article was written by two women, it's not in a mainstream publication.

This story follows another that showed the assassination of two Afghan women by the Taliban. The Taliban still exists in areas of Afghanistan where women are forced, as is visible in this photo, to wear the full burka. They were accused of prostitution but note what's missing: no witnesses; no trial; no court; no defense; no alternative other than to be executed by men of questionable standards.

When will the so-called defenders of women's freedom, those security driven feminists and their male cohorts, speak out about this kind of atrocious behavior? Their silence is in direct opposition to their comments that men and women are completely equal.

What has bugged me about the equal rights mantra of feminists is their refusal to support all women. They only support their whining compatriots and want their secure jobs (government, academia) while preaching that all cultures are OK. Cultures that blame women for men's sexual misbehavior and treat women as second class people/slaves are not equal to ours, never have been and as long as they exist never will be.

The spinelessness of far too many feminists and their weak-kneed male buddies shows that they really do not mean what they say. They simply show their selfish behavior while promoting a "take care of me" agenda in a country where they have no fear of a free-lance militia kidnapping and executing them.

Labels: Feminists

I've written on this feminist mindset in the past, here, here, and here among other posts. This post is lifting comments by feminist professors who attended what appears to be a second-tier conference for Medievalists, professors of medieval studies. A number of them are knowledgeable in their areas of expertise but too often, given the dumbing down of American education, the hard core courses of this topic are sorely lacking for students. So, these professors morph into other areas. Topics of some of the papers from the annual congress in Kalamazoo, MI. included: papers on human waste (yes, you read this correctly), disability studies in the middle ages, major distortions of classic literature with underlying themes not of content but application of today's social agenda to the classics and the typical rant by the feminists. It's not your grandparents' Middle Ages history.

This conference featured such terms as "heteronormativity," "hibridity, "heterosyncrasies" as well as the standard "patriarchy" and typical, defensive mindset. Guess you need a PhD. in something to understand most of these terms.

The feminists appeared in full force. Six female professors met the first day for a discussion by the Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship. They concluded that feminists needed to redouble their efforts to fight patriarchy (the hardy feminist perennial). The round-table turned into whining, moaning and complaining. Why? Seems that a number of today's young women "don't want to take another feminist class." This was followed by a session devoted to strategies for sneaking postmodernist theory into the heads of reluctant undergrads who would rather not listen to this drivel. "In my students' demographic, they hear the word 'feminist' and they shut down."

I can tell you why - feminism is a losing proposition. BTDT. There is nothing to be gained when young people are exposed to "feminists" whose sole mission in life is to trash men, particularly white men. If you are a female and you want to succeed in life (versus live off the public dole in a university or government position), study something with some substance, like math, hard science, engineering, medicine, business, computers, economics, etc. If you don't want these areas, fine but don't sit around whining about lack of students in your "social" curriculum when the real issue is lack of content. As for students, continue to ignore the feminist babble so rampant on college campuses today and go study something worthwhile.

Labels: Feminists, higher education

This article from the Owatonna (MN) People's Press appeared in the print edition on Sunday June 8, 2008:

The Steele County DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor party] Central Committee will meet at 6:30 p.m. on June 12 in the Gainey Room at the Owatonna Library. Please note that at this meeting we will be electing a new Secretary and Director to the Executive Committee. The secretary position is open to a member of either gender and the Director position is to be filled by a person of the male gender. If you or anyone you know is interested in screening for either of these positions, screening will take place from 6-6:30 p.m. in the Gainey Room on June 12.

It's not just Hillary supporters who have reason to believe that Democrats discriminate against women in their party politics.

Full disclosure: I, Janet, am the current Chair of Minnesota's Second Congressional District Republican Party organization. Owatonna is less than an hour down the road from my home.

Labels: Democrats, DFL legislature, elections, Feminists

On June 7, Minnesota's Democrats (DFL = Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party) held their state convention in Rochester, MN. They endorsed Al Franken as their candidate to the United States Senate, to oppose incumbent Norm Coleman.

For those of you new to this story, Mr. Franken has had a number of financial issues, all blamed on his accountant and others in the past few months. Among them: non-payment of state income taxes in 17 states for several years; non-payment of workers' compensation insurance in NY; and receiving a seven figure salary while his New York Employer stiffed a Boys and Girls Club charity for a"loan."

By Friday, June 6, it became known that Mr. Franken had made "jokes" about rape and bestiality. That doesn't show much class let alone sensitivity towards women, the backbone of the Democrat Party.

In spite of his record, MN Democrats rallied behind Mr. Franken. US Representative Betty McCollum was one of the minority of Democrats who had the courage to disavow Franken because of his poor taste in "jokes." She was booed by convention goers and had to watch as other feminists made nicey nice to Mr. Franken. On Sunday, June 8, Mari Urness Pokornowski, of Cokato, MN, the president of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Democrat feminist caucus resigned in protest of Franken's endorsement.

Too many of today's feminists :

- whine, moan and complain about their perceived unfair treatment but only by white males outside their political party;
- ignore the real atrocities against women in so many other parts of the world;
- brainwash far too many young women with misleading "statistics;"
- inculcate the belief that women are entitled to safe, secure government and non-profit jobs or private sector executive positions for which there is some supposed "glass ceiling" while dismissing other factors that come into play.

These feminists seem only to want political power. NOW mercilessly trashed Chief Justice Clarence Thomas for alleged verbal sexual harassment. They hounded former Republican Senator Robert Packwood from office for what turned out to be one woman's unwanted "kiss on the lips." But these actions paled by comparison to Democrat Bill Clinton's abuses. No CEO of a corporation would have held onto his position under similar circumstances, but most "feminists" made excuses because Clinton was "their" guy. Using women for sexual favors is wrong, period. These feminists are hypocrites when it comes to political parties. If a Republican acted like Al Franken, they and the press would pound away incessantly. Yet, when one of their own behaves in a slimy, condescending, sexist and abusive manner towards women, they simply ignore the behavior and support him - "he's really on our side."

But such political opportunism is short-sighted. As the editor of Feministe, Jill Filipovic said yesterday in the Washington Post, "Mainstream liberal Democratic guys don't have to take feminism seriously because they know that, at the end of the day, we're going to be there." Filipovic supports Obama, but recognizes that "most of the time, appeasement is not the solution."

At least two of Minnesota's female Democrat leaders, Rep. Betty McCollum and Mari Porkownowski, had the courage and integrity to say that Al Franken went too far to warrant election to the Senate. I applaud their actions.

Equality comes when you are equally qualified, work equally hard and are held to the same standards. When all women can take a stand against nasty and stupid behavior by men such as Al Franken, we will have made major strides.

The Democrat "feminists" have no moral authority until they are willing to hold their own men accountable to the same standards they piously assert for those outside their party.

Labels: Democrats, Feminists

Listening to the feminists whine, moan and complain about poor Mrs. Clinton's treatment by the press is just making me gag. Grow up, girls, these are not playground games where little girls claim they want to compete with boys and then get the rules changed - this is life.

Many of today's feminists are claiming,"It's not fair. The press is attacking Hillary. She is being treated, like, well, a weak female. " (My paraphrasing.) Cokie Roberts on Stephanapoulos, DeeDee Myers on The Today Show, Ellen Goodman in the Pioneer Press, writer for the Boston Globe all running to Mrs. Clinton's defense because the press is well, not nice to Mrs. Clinton. Give me a break - the hit job by the New York Times on John McCain last week was a real hit piece - the puff balls being thrown at Mrs. Clinton (and Mr. Obama) can't hold a candle to what conservatives have to tolerate.

"The playing field isn't level." No, girls, it's not, never has been, never will be. It's called "who's in charge" and you whiners are not in charge. If your treatment of women who disagree with you is any indication, you wouldn't make the playing field level either, even if you were in charge.

Grow up, get over the victimhood mindset. Live is not fair. Life is not risk free. Mrs. Clinton chose to play in this game, believed she was "entitled" to Potus but she's not. She has accomplished relatively little on her own. She has ridden on her philandering husband's coattails. If she wants to play in the big leagues, she needs to learn the rules: stop whining (along with her "sisters"), stop crying (and running home to a girls school for support), and really earn it.

Frankly, I don't think she's got it. I'm not sure there's a woman today who does have what it takes to be POTUS. Obama doesn't have it either.

Women have had 40 years to make inroads in sciences, mathematics, corporations. They haven't in the numbers the fantasy dreamers thought up 40 years ago. Why not? Most don't want to. I know some who do but the majority of women do not. Those who like the hard sciences and mathematics do well and have no problems getting well-paying jobs. These women are bright and talented. They are not the empty suits comprising Phds. in "women's studies," social sciences and English professors. Nor are they the women who found their security in government jobs (to replace the men they trash so often).

Bottom line, feminists, stop your tired mantra and grow up or be quiet.

Labels: Feminists

Last week I wrote this post on the whining done by Erica Jong and her comments about women.

Now, I am going to focus on an article by the diva of the women's movement, Gloria Steinem. In this article, "Women Are Never Front-Runners," Ms. Steinem whines that the women's sex barrier is not taken as seriously as a racial barrier. She claims "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." She says the US polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy but cites no data to support this comment and ignores the fact that feminists who agree with her are the reporters and editorial writers for all forms of media that cover this topic.

One example: Historically women were perceived as weaker than men because they cried. In the 1960's and '70's Ms. Steinem's feminists decided to "be like men" and not cry. Since men and women are the same in their eyes, the media morphing of sex identification began. Now her media makes it a point to picture men crying and when Mrs. Clinton cries, she shows the "courage to break the no-tears rule." Whether or not Mrs. Clinton's tears were real is a secondary issue, her crying jag was in reaction to a gender question of "how she (Mrs. Clinton) does it all." Excuse me, there are plenty of politicians (and single moms) who do it all - people who: are not multi-millionaires; juggle homes and families; respect those with differences without playing a victim card; and don't stage questions on the campaign trail to generate sympathy.

Mrs. Steinem says a trait that worries her is that some women, especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system. If Ms. Steinem knew anything about the history of women or the treatment of women today in the Middle East, Africa and Asia she would not throw around the term "caste system." (a social structure in which classes are determined by heredity) so lightly. What Ms. Steinem misses, as did Ms. Jong, is that it was and is the Democrat Party that has used sex, gender, and race to divide this nation. It is mostly Democrats who pin labels on those with whom they disagree. It is mostly Democrats who are intolerant of free speech, professors who are not leftists, Republicans, conservatives, religious Christians, etc. Ms. Steinem is looking in the mirror when she makes her criticisms about her political party. She along with the Emily's List crowd are no-shows when the female candidate does not agree with them. So the issue is not gender, it's a very narrow, spoiled, totalitarian view of the world - her way or no way at all.

Ms. Steinem is supporting Mrs. Clinton because "she'll be a great president and because she's a woman." While supposedly decrying the sex barrier, Ms. Steinem uses sex as a qualification for president.

Labels: Feminists, politics

Hillary Versus the Patriarchy, by Erica Jong, is another diatribe by a leftist feminist. After attacking "alpha male" Bill Kristol for his comments about white women, she reverts to the feminist rhetoric of the 1960's to explain her support for Mrs. Clinton as president. Though Ms. Jong is a successful writer, she comes across as a bitter female. This paragraph is key:

She's (Mrs. Clinton) always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.

A few observations: Did Mrs. Clinton have to go through all the years of routine work to EARN her partnership, or did she get a boost from her husband, the Governor? If Mrs. Clinton's father had been a Democrat, would Ms. Jong have made the same comment? She's upset because Hillary was pushed to excel? Is Mrs. Clinton's husband really brilliant if he "played around with bimbos?" And were the other women Bill played around with "dumb and dumber"? Katherine Willey had plenty of smarts and the last I read, Monica Lewinsky just graduated from the London School of Economics. Dumb? I don't think so.

Here is Ms. Jong's statement about Mrs. Clinton's run for the US Senate - in New York where Mrs. Clinton had never lived. Hmmm:

When she decided to run for the Senate she was called a carpetbagger.

Definition of a carpetbagger, American Heritage Dictionary: "An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality." (Seems to fit.)

Ms. Jong goes on to explain how Mrs. Clinton adapted, loosened up without drugs or booze, tolerated the behavior of her husband, raised her daughter, keeping Chelsea out of the spotlight (which presidents attempt to do with their kids), stood by her man through everything. Ms. Jong uses the word "smart" a lot - she, along with Mrs. Clinton were "bluestocking, straight-A Phi Beta Kappa," students from all-girls' colleges. The final dig is Ms. Jong's cheap shots at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. So which political party is the divisive political party?

Ms. Jong and her buddies ignore the gross abuse of women in the Arab world, many parts of Africa, Asia, and even the "honor" killings in the West. All of them refuse to address the arranged marriages of so many women on the planet. They omit the fact that many cultures still prevent women from attending school or participating in athletics.

The only females who mean anything to the Erica Jongs of the world are those who are Democrats or socialists. Otherwise, they brush off women who don't fit their mold. They dismiss women with different political views. They deny that Republicans have done as much or more for women. They want to be taken seriously, then tell us to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she put up with a wayfaring husband and "worked twice as hard" - at what? She doesn't even say Mrs. Clinton did it with class.

The article is worth the read, but don't expect Phi Beta Kappa caliber writing. It's a whining treatise, with factual errors, particularly regarding Iraq. Ms. Jong's conclusion is that people should vote for Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman, not that she's accomplished much outside of a law partnership because her husband was a governor. Pretty weak in my book.

Labels: Feminists, politics

UPDATE and BUMP: This evening, the Drudge Report has linked to a story featuring the NOW remarks discussed below.

***
Originally posted on 1/29/08 at 12:06 pm:

The aging and increasingly irrelevant old guard "feminists" pretend they are interested in women's rights while ignoring the second class treatment of women in so many non-western nations.

NOW (bad pun) they are having a hissy fit because, gasp, Senator Kennedy and other Democrats have decided to endorse Senator Obama for president.

Their whining comes in two flavors: Only women are bullied by men; and guys NOW once supported are backing Obama.

Bullying:

We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. Or, in the workplace males tease young and older female co-workers; make obscene gestures, inappropriate comments, laughing and expecting (often correctly) that everyone will join in...

Because they can't frighten Hillary they've decided to control her with the time-old trick of patriarchal ridicule.

Did you know that only women are picked on by bullies on the playground? That only women are harassed in the workplace? That girls NEVER, EVER pick on other girls or isolate other women who are different. No, it's all a patriarchal conspiracy. These are such biased comments.

Men do not really support women:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few...

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us.

What NOW and the other old "chickens" refuse to recognize is that their duplicity has come home to roost. These chickens refused to stand up for their professed ideals when it was clear they were being used. They thought that they could curry favor by ignoring bad behavior when their favored politicians exploited women. They tried appeasement. It doesn't work. The men who used these women to protect against the consequences of their abhorrent behavior are showing their true colors. The naivete of NOW is on full display as they profess to be shocked and betrayed (with exclamation points, of course) by their own.

What NOW really misses is that women need equal opportunity, not politically enforced "equality" of outcomes. We differ in skills, talent, drive, etc. Trying to make everyone equal only works in totalitarian societies where equality becomes massive poverty for most with a few elites lording it over everyone.

If NOW had been serious about its objectives (versus operating under an illusion that they would gain power by siding with leftist politicians), they would have kept their organizations open to women who had real ideas. They didn't. Now, they only whine, moan and complain - to deaf Democrat ears.

Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online

Labels: Feminists

Yesterday, Friday, while working out, I had the chance to watch Mrs. Clinton on the Tyra Banks talk show. What I saw greatly concerns me.

First, the film footage showing Mrs. Clinton from a little girl to her present position is quite well done. That in itself is fine, a very good piece of marketing. It's the "care" that bothers me. She grew up in a privileged family and was "encouraged to do" whatever she could to succeed. She has by all measurements. The question is, what does she want for other women or is she in this solely for herself? Has her quest become an end unto itself, or can she actually lead?

Secondly, Mrs. Clinton has an uncanny way of avoiding eye contact. Just watch her. She rarely looks eye-to-eye with anyone talking to her. Tara Banks got some contact but otherwise, Mrs. Clinton's hands were flying all over the place, her eyes going up, sideways, down but not making contact with the camera, the audience or Ms. Banks. Why can't she look people in the eye? Is it because she knows she's using people? women in particular? Is she really unsure of what she thinks she can do?

I lived through all the feminist hype. I watched a good intention - to open doors for women - become a stomping ground for the loudest and brashest of females. I watched education being taken over by people with a "social justice" game plan, another name for socialism.

Do women understand if this woman gets in the White House or anywhere else in power, she is not for them, she is for herself? Mrs. Clinton is a socialist's socialist - look at her goals:

1 - Government run healthcare for all. But no one in America is denied healthcare, it's health insurance where the discrepancy exists;
2 - Mandatory, government sponsored schooling for the children. Parents, it's your three-year-olds who will be subjected to the socialist mindset. What influence you might still have, will be removed. Homeschoolers may be stopped.
3 - Raise taxes and provide more money for her projects and education. Unfortunately, we've learned more money is not the answer to our education woes (standards and curriculum are). Washington DC spends around $14,000/pupil yet is failing most students in the sense that they are not learning what they need to learn; Mpls spends about $11,000, to what end?
4 - If you think you have it financially tough now, wait until the government does it all for you.

Mrs. Clinton is either ignoring or has little clue of the real threats to our society. Maybe she thinks she can be nicey nice and in return the people who want all of us (including Mrs. Clinton) to submit to their belief system or be murdered will be nice, too.

Tyra's audience appeared awed by Mrs. Clinton. Ladies, wake up. When a politician says she/he will solve all your concerns, you can bet they will take away your rights and freedoms in the process. While it is tempting to want someone else to "fix" our problems, the basic belief of the Founders was that people were smart enough to solve their own. Ladies, Mrs. Clinton will remove any options that still exist. This is not a good sign.

Labels: Feminists, Freedom

This column by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe provides a succinct analysis of the subjugation and often murder of women in too many Muslim countries as well as in some Muslim communities in the west. Atrocious punishment is imposed on Muslim women by Muslim males because the man's honor has been tarnished? It is difficult for us to comprehend the intensity of the Muslim male's violent reactions to what we see as normal, female behavior.

In reference, I have a few questions to pose to the so-called feminist leaders of the west:

1 - Where is NOW's response to these murders? No where.
2 - Where are the other western women's rights groups? No where.
3 - Where are the female professors of "women's studies" that decry dead white male historical behavior yet ignore the current, abusive treatment of women in too many Muslim countries? No where.
4 - Where is the MSM that is so eager to criticize America while turning a blind eye to these abhorrent male Muslim actions? No where.
5 - Where are the female journalists who supposedly are so interested in covering women's rights? No where.

It is interesting to note that so many western feminist professors, journalists, and do-gooders are quite at ease attacking the relative innocent behavior of white males but are incredibly ignorant (or playing ostrich) when looking at the horrific treatment of women from other cultures, particularly some Muslim cultures. In spite of western elite female rhetoric, all cultures are not equal. Women across the planet, professional and in servitude will lose big time if we in the west lose this war of ideas, and yes, this war of cultures.

I

Labels: Feminists