N.O.W. is nothing more than an abortion rights front group

.

Ace on Why They Hate Sarah Palin So Much

Ace gave a number of possibilities stuck in with a little about Allahpundit's crusade to save Michelle Obama from certain slings and arrows (Allah can't seem to decide whether he wants to spend more time defending lefties from the mean conservatives or spearheading lefty directed attacks on conservatives in that part of the blogosphere that is drifting left). Ace wrote: "I think this is overdetermined, personally. A smart friend of mine -- a Democrat who supports Palin -- boils it down to "Professional women hate her because, as a group, they hate themselves and hate their lives and hate their husbands, and resent this working-class upstart for having the life (and husband) they wish they did." Clarification: He was speaking of liberal-ish, feminist ball-buster type women, of course. Not all professional women. I really should have made that clear, but I didn't, so now professional women are defending themselves in the comments. I apologize -- I screwed up. I knew what I meant in my own mind but didn't write it properly. Obviously, professional women who like Palin are not so gripped with envy."
This is Ace quoting a good explanation from VanDerLeun: "In playing to the weak, wallflower women who don’t want to distinguish themselves in any way, feminism has become an advocacy group for those who lack appeal. With time, it has become an advocacy group for those women who work at not having any appeal. And I’m not talking sex appeal. I mean, being ready to engage in dialogues instead of monologues; talking to people in some way other than as a cross stepmother; motivating your man to come home instead of go out somewhere else, when he’s in the mood for some sex; acting like that’s important to you. We’ve seen the incremental rise of a counterculture of females who are in a great hurry not to have any appeal to anyone else, or to be beholden to anyone else — except other females who don’t have any appeal to anyone else and aren’t beholden to anyone else. They’re a grown-up version of those chubby goth chicks you knew in high school who didn’t know how to behave in public, didn’t care to learn, were horribly out of shape, and kept to their own at all times.
"Most of our female politicians seem to think that’s their constituency. This is a sensitive paradigm, and the prospect of shifting it makes a lot of people uncomfortable."

“The Only Guy Who Did Anything About It Was George W Bush”

In an old quote Mark Steyn exposes the superficiality of lefty American feminists. He then points out that they have turned their backs on the hundreds of millions of women in the Muslim world truly in need of liberating: "The trivia of identity-group politics in America is beyond parody: Women are now so dominant at, say, U.S. law schools that feminist groups are reduced to complaining about the lack of female pipe-fitters. If this keeps up, circa 2015 NOW will be complaining that there are too few female wait staff. And circa 2020 that there are too few female prostitutes. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan women were prevented by law from feeling sunlight on their faces and the only guy who did anything about it was George W Bush. We have “honor killings” now not just in Jordan and Pakistan, but in Britain and Germany and Scandinavia. Where are the feminists on that? This is the biggest lever we have in the Muslim world — the fact that half their populations are chattels. They don’t want to be navel-pierced Britneyized slatterns but a lot of them want something other. That’s a huge opportunity."

ht/Pundet & Pundette

Raw Feminism

I'm reproducing some of an excellent post from Stop the ACLU.com.(http://www.stoptheaclu.com/) I could summarize by saying never again believe anything a feminist says they believe, just pay attention to what they have done and said since Gov. Palin's nomination announcement.



September 3, 2008
I have learned more about feminism in the past 48 hours than I had in the previous 40 years

I do not believe I can unlearn what I’ve learned in the last two days. At some point our nation’s attention will be drawn to something or someone other than Governor Palin, and then American mainstream feminists will expect to be taken seriously, as if the last few days never happened, and I will not be able to do so. I cannot unlearn what I have learned.

I’ve learned that the reliably profane Ace O’ Spades is much more of a genuine champion for womens’ autonomy and choices than is, say, Maureen Dowd. I’ve also learned something that I really should have seen decades ago, but never had it thrust in my face so blatantly as it has since Governor Palin was announced as the GOP vice-presidential pick.

As a man, I trust I’m not going too far out on a limb to suggest that I don’t completely understand women, and that’s just fine. That is, I don’t completely understand most women. America’s mainstream feminists, at least those in the punditry business, however, have proven to be nearly 100% predictable. What they are is obedient and submissive. I mean that. It’s not tongue-in-cheek. It’s not meant to elicit the response of “oh, I see how we’ve overreached a bit on Palin, and the point’s taken.” No, I mean it. Liberal feminists obey. They do what they are told.

When the New York Times male writers Patrick Healy and William Yardley take the lead in refusing to refer to Governor Palin as “Governor”, or even “Mrs.”, but with a dismissive “Ms.” or simple “Sarah”, the feminist blogs not only remain silent on that slight, but submissively follow suit.

When Markos Moulitsas allows his website to jump on and push the derisivness-dripping fantasies of “ArcXIX (whom I have reason to believe is also male)”, the feminists don’t respond with an expected, “wo, there pal”, but obediently follow Markos’ lead. Same thing with regard to the sexist fantasy posts of Andrew Sullivan recently.

When the Washington Times writer Paul Kane does a horrid job of journalism (if he meant to do a good job) and publishes an assertion ridiculously easy to disprove to mean the opposite of what he thinks it means (he calls a increase in funding for a shelter for pregnant youth a “slashing” of the budget — it’s been debunked all over the place, I just went to the shelter’s website and compared year-to-year budgets), the feminists compliantly repeat the male writer’s false assertions without regard for accuracy.

When various news sources label some mysterious thing as “troopergate”, feminist women on the ‘net don’t question, they parrot. They obey. Most recently it was listed as a black mark upon the Governor by the nation’s newspaper of record. In another context, and with feminists interested in the facts, the New York Times today would be fearing for its future existence, funding some womens’ endowment to the tune of 9 figures, and sending all the editors to sensitivity training for fear of the backlash. In this context, they have nothing to fear, because America’s feminists will easily submit to the lead of the male writers at the New York Times — that’s not even in question.

And what is “troopergate”. Well, it has a -gate on the end of it, so that’s all any woman needs to know, right? The thing is, the facts are pretty well documented. Let’s recap, with a nod to this news article written by a woman one month before the Governor was announced as VP candidate. Before Mrs. Palin became Governor, her sister was married to a guy with what seems like a temper problem. I did my own research, I’ll provide this link so you can do yours as well if you care. The man in question, Trooper M.W., was reprimanded for at least three serious breaches of his duty as a cop, for 1) tasing his stepson for fun, 2) drinking and driving in a patrol car, and 3) threatening his wife who was divorcing him that he would shoot his wife’s father if (the father) helped his wife get the assistance of legal counsel. He was disciplined in his job for that — a short slap on the wrist suspension — and even his union said it was legitimate discipline.

As for the tasing incident, my reading of the known facts don’t prove to me that the man meant to be abusive, only moronic, but it is important to note that the mother of the child he tased was yelling at him not to do it when he did, but he did it anyway. It traumatized another young female in the home who witnessed it (I already know what the feminists think of that other young female). This doesn’t bother America’s blogging and commenting feminists, though, not one bit. The fact that two different judges granted Palin’s sister a restraining order — otherwise known as an injunction against domestic violence (one in case # 3AN-05-1327CI, and a final “no contact” order in the divorce at case # 3AN-05-6838CI) is of no consequence to the feminists. I thought that domestic violence injunctions created some sort of sympathetic response in feminists; I was wrong about that. The male writers at the NY Times don’t tell them that Governor Palin saw what appears to be a documented abusive man, stood up to him and sought justice for her sister (before she was even Governor) and then later used her position as a woman in power to hold people accountable for their lax treatment of an abusive man with a badge and serial failed marriages. No, the male writers just tell our submissive feminists that this a scandal, a -gate, and our feminists go along with what they’re told to think instead of what they should be doing, which is picketing the NY Times