For at least 50 years, and really longer than that, leftist feminists have LIED to you. They have said they want "chocies for women, and that they want women who stay at home to be respected just as much as men whose career the women often make possible. They (leftist "feminists") have always LIED. They don't respect women who stay at home. They don't respect WOMEN at all, as women with a right to have opinions withohout being trashed AS WOMEN. These leftist "feminiss" are not f"feminists" at all. Their "concern" for non-working women was always a SHAM. These people are LEFTISTS first, last and always, and do NOT respect the right of women to have different opinoins from themselves. Just like the left does not consider African-Americans who are conservatives "real" African-Americans, the left does not econsider women who disagree with them "real" women. For the left (including women of the left), leftist ideology is their religioin--not real feminism. Any woman who DARES commit heresy to this religion is FAIR GAME, and subject to SEXIST attacks thqat would be condemned in th strongest terms, if made against a leftist woman.
This is the real significance of Hillary Rosen's "charge" against Annn Romney: "She has never worked a day in her likfe." And it is no accient that Hillary Rosen is a regular "contributor" to CNN, and that CNN tried to "circle = the wagons" to defend her (The Sexist Network). It is the women of CNN who attacked Sarah Palin as a MOTHER, on the grounds that she could not be Vice Preisdent and adequately take care of her children (along with many other SEXIST attacks). But you already know that the women of CNN, along with the men of CNN, are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. For CNN-part of the left--this is all about LEFITST IDEOLOGY. CNN people regard themselves as partisans ushing leftist ideoogy, and they merely want to USE womn (women not of the partisan left) to advance leftist idology. That is the significance of what Hilary Rosen sadi, without being CONDEMNED on CNN, and it is really the SAME type of thing that CNN has been saying all along. See this blog's articles back in 2008, when I was first forced "out of th;e closet" as a real FEMNIST.
"Skip, that headine is a disgrace. You know that DEMOCRATS have not charged ann Romney as a person who has never worked a day in her life. That was merely Hilllary Rosen." Actually, that is not true. As this blog has shown time and time again, for YEARS, what Hilllary Rosen said fits right into the regular CNN attitude, AND the regular attitude ofmost of the rest of the lfeft. But, as it happens, the headline of this article was not really my idea. I am serious I STOLE this phrase: "Democrats charge that Annn Romney has never worked." But I did NOT seal the phrase from Rush Limbaugh, or some other person of the "right". I stole it from YAHOO NEWS--an article from the despicable AP. The headline was something like this: "Romney responds to Democrat charge that Ann Romney has never worked". Now Hillary Rosen is a DEMOCRAT STRTEGIST, who has regularly visited the White House and mmet with President Obama (hich he conveniently "forgot"--referring to her as "some woman on televisioin). Stil, it is only on the SEXIST left that it could be regarded as a charge" that a woman has "never worked" (hardly true of an y mother of five boys, like my own mother, and specifically not true of An Romney). Even the leftist Boston Globe, in 1994, heaped praise upon Ann Romney for what she has done. It is only the LEFT -including the desicable leftist "journalistgs"--wo could think it makes sense to say that Ann Romney was "charged" with having "never worked". That is a "charge" only to the SExIST hypocrites of the LEFT.
George Zimmerman has been CHARGED with second degeree murder. Casey Anthony was CHARGED with first degree murder. "Charge" is the word that is used for a serious CRIME, or at least a serious MORAL lapse. Does the left consider it a CRIME for a woman to be a "traditional housewife"? Yes, they do, unless the housewife is a leftist activist. For the left, it IS a CRIME for a WOMAN to DIAGRE with leftist ideology. The left has the same RACIST attitude toward other groups, such as African-Americans and Hispanics (although it is SExXIST with regard to women, rather than racist). It is no accident that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "I don't see how any Hispanic can ever vote for a Republican". For Harry Reid, and the left, no Hispanic who votes for a GOP candidate can be a "rfeal" Hispanic. It is ONLY if you have this attitude that you can even USE a word like' 'charge" to refer to what "Democrats" like Hillary Rosen said abuot Ann Romney. This was not aa 'charge" to be "answered". As events have proved, it was a BADGE OF NONOR for Ann Romney, and a CRIME for Hillary Rosen and leftist Democrats (of the same mindset, which includes CNN and most of the leftist media). Here is the CORRECT headline, which I never saw from the despicable AP,or on Yahoo 'News": "GOP charges Democrat stratetist with blatant sexism on CNN." You can make up some variation of that headline. There are many poossible variations. But it is OLY if you are a LEFFTISIT SEXIST that you can write a headeline that says anything like: "Democrats charge thant Ann Romney has never worked". This was not even immediately after the commetn by Rosen, but at least a day later (after the "controversy" had already exploded). It was simply a media LIE, at the pont of hits headline, that the "issue" had anything to do with a "chrage" agaisnt Ann Romney. At the pont of this LIE, it was already obvious that the CHARGE here was agaisnt Hillary Rosen, and leftist Democrats who think like her.
"But, Skip, you are the same kind of hyocrite. Okay. Maybe the left tries to use feminism politically, but you do the same thing. You have no respect for leftist women, and are willing to trash them unfairly."
Ah, bison breath (Johnny Carson/Karnak the Magnificent reference). Yuo are WRONG yet agin. When the left FORCED me to "come out of the closet" as a feminist, in the 20008 political campaign (even before that, but it became disgresslingly clear then that I was much more of a feiminst than almost any leftist alive, to my eternal shame), I did not just support Sarah Palin agaisnt feminist atttacks. I, in this blog,, supported HILLARY CLINTON (that other "Hillary") for President of the United States, even agasint John McCain and Sarah Palin. This blog was OFFENDED by the SEXIST attacks agaisnt both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton But I went further. I not only VOTED for HIllary Clinton in the Texas primary, but I PLEDGED to support her in the general election. I would have done so, even though I could never support Barack Obama (even agaisnt John McCain). To my shame, my feminist credentials are iron clad. In fact, my own MOTHER critixizes me this way "You are so pahthetic. All a politician has to be is a WOMAN, and yu are putty in her hands. You are jsut a sucker for a woman politican." It is no accident, from my mother's point of view, that the FIRST person I endorsed for Presdient in the 2012 election process was Michele Bachmann. My mother is right. In recent years, the poiticians I have been most enthusiastic about have been WOMEN. Oh, they have tended to disappoint me (which I cannot realy say of Sarah Palin, except n minor ways), but not nearly to the degree that MLE oliticians have. This blog is on record as REFUSING to suppport Mitt Romney. Would I have been willing to support ANN ROMNEY for Presdient? My mother would tell you that the odds are much better that I would support An Romney, as a woman, than that I would support a MALE plitician with the same views.
We haven't even gotten to the other major shame of my life; that I helped raise TWO radical feminist (real feminists, rather than the ersatz leftist kind, even though their politics tend to the left) DAUGHTERS. One is an attorney is Boston (affecting her politics to the left), and the other is an attorney i New York City (so much a feminist that she made MARIENES, in Hawaii, as a student at the University of Hawaii, LOW CRAWL for her; and takes the position that mothers should have the "right" to TAKE OUT their children both before and after birth: "Mothers bring them into the world, and they should have the right to take them out."). With this kind of record, I have jsut given up the idea that I can ever go 'back into the closet", as the seixist my self-image demands that I be. This has been the majjor edentty crisis of my life, and I have finally been forced to acknowledge that I am much more a FEMIINIST than ALL of CNN, and almsot all of the left.
Nope. You may THINK you have seen it in this blog, but you never have. I have NEVER criticized a woman politican because he "worked", or because she has not worked. I have NEVER said that a woman who has been "merely a housewife" is "unqualified" to have opinions on the things upon which I have opinions. I have NEVER--no matter how far left the woman--"criticized" a woman for neglecting her children inorder to ursue a "high powered" political career, or any kind of career. Yes, this blog has told you--as far back as 2008, that Soledad O'Brien is a HYPOICIRTE (along with ALL of the women at CNN that I have seen), because she has YOUNG CHILDREN, and yet pursues a HIGH POERED career at CNN. No, I did NOT criticize O'Grien for the high powered carerr, or for neglecting her children. What I, correctly, criticized O'Brien for washere assertion that SARAH PALIN could not handle young children, including one with a disability, and alo handle being Vice President (or Presdient) of the United States. Notice that the CNN SEXIST criticism of Sarh Palin on this gorund was MUCH more pointed (SEXIST) than any such criticism againt Rick Santorum (a MALE in the same postion, although one who iwll not be the nominee--probably not even for VP). Soledad O'Brien and CNN are SEXIST, and they reveal it almsot every day. Their real ideology is LEFTIST, and they are willing to be as SEXIST as any person who has ever lived in order to advance their LEFTIST cause.
No. I am not through. There are more planned articles on leftists and sexism, including the FAKLSE leftist "religion" that men and women are the SAME (not the same thing as ssyaing that women are jsut as worthy of respect as men, or the same thing as saying that the differences mean that women are not as good as men). This is actualy a subset of the general leftist philosophy that all PEOPLE can be made EQUAL: all "inequality" EXPUNGED by wave of a magic wand. No. It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that men and women are NOT generally the same, in obdy or mind. Time Magazine did a greathless article, some years ago, "discovering this fact. But leftist belive that men and women should be MADE to be the same. Tath is why leftists are THREATENED by women who CHOOSE to be "traditional" women, putting heir husband s and children ahead of a career of their own. How can men and women be the SAME, if many women CHOSE to regard their "careers" as not as important as their lives as wives and mothers. The left can ONLY regard a womn who NEVER WORKS (that is, never has a "work" career) as some kind of TRAITOR to feminism--leftist "feminism". How can men and women be the SAME, if too many women CHOSE the traditional role? They can't. I am perfectly aware that SOME men are now "house husbands". I have never criticized them either. Every working person needs a wife, including women. But so long as MORE women CHOOSE to be somewhat traditionnal "housewifes", then the LEFTIST goal is frustrated: the goal that the role of men and women MUST be the SAME. Dbout me? I have told you NEVER to do that. Just think abut it. Would leftists be happy if MOST WOMEN chose to go back to the traditional role of women of leaving the economic 'rat race" mainly to men? Of course not . That would be a DISASTER for leftist ideology. For the left, womn fotball players (even tough they basically do not exist), basketeball palyers, race car drivers, fire fighters, judges, lawyers, doctors, politicans, hockey players, construction workers, and etc. have MORE VALUE than housewives, because they are ADVANCING the leftist "cause" tha men and women SHULD BE the same (even if that is factually simplly not true). Andno, it is NOT correct that I look at women workng with simialar hooror. Unlike leftists, I respect traditional housewives, and believe that society would be better off if there were more of them. But it is not part of my ideology that woen SHOULD be housewives. My own mtoher was a registerred nuse, and worked on and off (more on that off) during her life. My tgwo daughters are both attorneys. Woomen are gong to do what makes them HAPPY, or at least what they th;ink will make them happy. The left is actually taking that CHOICE away from women. Women are not EXPECTED to work (the other significance of the Hillary Rosen statement). Sure, many 'have to work. But women are now TOLD that they SHOULD NOT aim for a "career as "just a housewife". Husbands now often EXPECT their wives to work. The "choice" is disappearing, and women have the LEFT to thank for it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight, and no wife to sacrifice her career to help me out--sigh, as I think about how I am living in the wrong century, and have even been forced to come out of the closet as a feminist).