1. The WSJ published an editorial with the opinion that this bill may be the “worst bill ever”.

   So yes, I applaud Nancy Pelosi for leading with mettle on creating such a monster.

   Dear Camille,

   http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/11/11/a_minority_view_constitutional_contempt

   Nancy does not understand how to make our system better.

   Please read this book http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-with-our-health-care-system.html

   After reading I’d like to see another column from you!

   Baklava

2. My mind is still recovering after reading Paglia’s crap. Why the hollywood crap after the serious writings about healthcare?

   But what pained me the most was this from her:

   The grand total my parents owed for the semester was $413.50 — for which I received the superb education that is still the basis of my professional life as a teacher and writer. If only the billions upon billions that this country has thrown down the drain in Iraq and Afghanistan had been redirected to education and healthcare!

   Your basis needs to be upgraded Camille. Respectfully speaking of course…

3. Once again Camille Paglia displays her inability to connect contradictory thoughts and come to some obvious conclusions about them.

   why does everyone think this way?

   why doesnt any one understand the tale of the chinese general and the purple horse? [its a better explanation than how many fingers do i have up… or the emperors new clothes. there are about 20 stories that we seem too dense to ‘get it’]

   a great chinese general one day came in to a big meeting of all the top brass… he invited them outside because he wanted them to see his beautiful new horse. when they got to the courtyard, there stood a horse of mottled color who was old and a nag. the general then exclaimed ‘look at my wonderful young purple horse!’. to which the others talked among themselves. in turn the general talked to them. some exclaimed, what a ugly nag, why take them to see such a horse?

   others though, spoke of the situation differently. they took their cue from their leader, and if their leader said this was a beautiful young purple horse, then they too would see a beautiful purple horse.

   the next day another meeting was called… all the top brass arrived… and they noticed a whole bunch of new faces. the general explained that he had all those who didnt see a young beautiful purple horse yesterday executed and replaced because they were not loyal.

   at what point will we move from the comfortable happy position that everything is accepted as honest at face value?

   how the heck do you think the big lie is constructed and works? how do you think these people find each other and know when to give blind support?

   well, if they state inane crazy things that ANY IDIOT (who doesnt know the game, want to beleive the game, etc), knows isnt right and whose facts can be checked

   rather than create a specific handshake… or special signals… they rely on the wrgonness of the party line to direct them.

   Paglia plays her false role as a moderate feminist. the same role that a moderate islamist does to get us off the more radical people who actually are doing the serious work. she is a foil. she is a menshivik to their bolshevik. she is a communist, or she wouldnt be a feminist.

   in case you didnt notice they are communists first, everything ele second

   and thats the point.. by parroting the lines.. they tell all in the open who they are and waht they REALLY represent.

   the otehrs who are too dumb to know the game, or want to know the game, spend hours wasting their lives trying understadn why a phd is so stupid.

   is she so stupid? she is rich, famous, has a big platform, an army of others to attack who she points to, and another army of others who will go out and push any big lie she says.

   and yet, she is an idiot…
   cant see the obvious…
   etc

   guess what?

   we seldome realize that when we cant understand smoething, it means WE are the idiots, not the other person behaving beyond your ken.

4. Remember Camille, It was your parents, not the government who paid for your education.

   When THIRD PARTIES pay for things – costs skyrocket !

5. i forgot to make it this simple for the others…

   she is part of a collective, she is not the leader of the collective. the collective branch she is a part of tells her what to say or do. this is what it means to be a part of the collective. to think yourself and actually take a empirical stance is a testimony that your an enemy of the collective, a cancer metastisizing as an individual, who should be removed because they are alienating from the body.

   got to read that old soviet stuff…

   if you did, this would not be confusing at all

   you would be ticking off the stages…

6. and put even shorter for the even more challenged.

   a collective demands complete loyalty and subordination to the collective.

   this is what you see when this is what is being done. failure to understand the desease means you dont understand the symptoms that are used to identify it.

7. Artfldgr: I don’t disagree with your general point, but I do disagree about Paglia in particular. I think you’ve got her pegged wrong. She has built her reputation on her propensity to disagree with lockstep thinking on the Left, making a great many enemies along the way by challenging some of the basic assumptions of the Left. She rather gets off on it, actually.

   This particular piece is, in my opinion, an example of her ideological confusion: the first part (her praise of Pelosi’s ruthlessness) is her kneejerk feminism, the second part (her criticism of the health care bill) represents her iconoclastic tendencies—as well as her intermittent ability to think straight.

8. Well, an upside of the Paglia piece, an indication she may be approaching a breaking point, is that unlike her previous articles Paglia spends zero time wringing her hands about Obama and asking “How could such a brilliant, sexy, cool president keep allowing such feckless things to happen?”

9. Boy, Paglia sure nailed Dawkins in that article:

   On other matters, I was recently flicking my car radio dial and heard an affected British voice tinkling out on NPR. I assumed it was some fussy, gossipy opera expert fresh from London. To my astonishment, it was Richard Dawkins, the thrice-married emperor of contemporary atheists. I had never heard him speak, so it was a revelation. On science, Dawkins was spot on — lively and nimble. But on religion, his voice went “Psycho” weird (yes, Alfred Hitchcock) — as if he was channeling some old woman with whom he was in love-hate combat.

   That was very much my shocked impression when I first heard Dawkins and it was on NPR too.

10. Paglia is forever chained to the zombie corpse of her primal hatreds. Thus, she’ll never reach her true potential. She’ll only sputter onward, but not very far.

11. It will be interesting to monitor Paglia’s progress in the Age of Obama.

    As the resident optimist here, I believe that Obama, hamstrung between high unemployment, Afghanistan, paralysis over healthcare and cap-and-trade, further gaffes, plus financial and foreign policy crises, will be a lame duck within six months.

    As that realization sinks in, people and pundits will increasingly desert Obama and my bet is that Paglia will be an early adopter of that strategy.

12. Paglia still blames those around Obama, rather than the great one himself, for all of his public missteps. She doesn’t want to make that final leap and admit that perhaps he might be “challenged.”

    I find her fun to read. She actually analyzes issues in her own individual way but does not want to admit that this makes her sound more like a Republican than a Democrat.

    Reminds me of an election in a small town in central New Jersey several years ago. A guy wanted to run for town council but was locked out by the powers that be. The town is solidly Democrat. So, he ran as a Republican. He went from door to door explaining why he wanted to run as against the current town council as their decisions were costing everyone a lot of wasted money. He carefully explained that the only way he could get on the ballot was to run on the Republican ticket but that he was a tried and true, until death do us part Democrat and that, if he won, he would never again run as a Republican. He got to one house, explained why he was running and why as a Republican. “What,” one lady retorted in an angry fashion, “I have NEVER voted Republican and will never ever vote Republican, I have my scruples.” He stood there, speechless. And, lost the election in a landslide.

13. Paglia still blames those around Obama, rather than the great one himself, for all of his public missteps.

    Steve G.: However she didn’t do so in this article. I read and I waited for that shoe to drop, but it didn’t.

    Maybe it means she’s learning; maybe not.

14. I do not see her learning anytime soon when she writes this:

    The grand total my parents owed for the semester was $413.50 – for which I received the superb education that is still the basis of my professional life as a teacher and writer. If only the billions upon billions that this country has thrown down the drain in Iraq and Afghanistan had been redirected to education and healthcare!

    No Camille, no ! It doesn’t help anybody that the federal government creates more dependency……

    People need to work hard and pay their way. Yes, non-able bodied and the elderly need safety nets and “care”.

    But they have that in this country. Medicare and Medicaid do help the poor and elederly.

    What we are doing Camille, is changing things more and more towards third party payment and taking more and more from those who are successful to subsidize those who do not think about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

    Your parents paid for your college. Now a third party does that mostly. College costs skyrocket because of the era of entitlement.

15. Huxley,
    See the paragraph starting “Obama sure needed a lift and got it from Pelosi”. A few sentence down Paglia castigates Obama’s principal advisors for their frivolous provincialism as well as ignorance of history in Obama’s flying to Copenhagen to flog for the olympics but not to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. I guess Obama is excused from having to know anything about history or manners.

    By the way last week Rahm Emanuel took credit for the failed Israeli settlement policy that Obama pushed from the first day of his administration. It was supposed to bring down Netanyahu. Instead, it gave him a 96% approval rating. Emanuel is still a putz. Axelrod is an advertising guru with the charm of a mud cake. I’m fast asleep before he gets to the end of his first sentence. Gibbs is deliberately insulting to the press corps. Dunn is clueless as a communicator. She has probably suggested that, like Mao, Obama give out his own little red book of sayings.

    Remember, Obama said he should be judged by the people with whom he surrounds himself. Paglia gives those people no credit and neither do I. But Obama picked them. And, isn’t he supposed to be the smartest guy in the room? Wait. Sorry. That’s Biden.

16. Neo-
    Do you remember years ago Paglia was on a TV debate with, among others, Bill Buckley. I don’t remember the topic but I tuned in because she had a growing reputation as a firebrand and I couldn’t wait for the sparks to fly. But, I think she was overawed by the company and said relatively little; nothing that I could remember was controversial. I think that was the zenith of her career, in that she could have used that forum as a jumping off point to raise her stature as a “liberal” Democrat, which does not carry the same connotation as today. Nonetheless, I have followed her for years because she is one of the few Democrats that can use deductive reasoning to reach original conclusions. Although I think she is a Republican in all but name, I wish there were more Democrats like her, who can engage in serious debate without name calling.

17. neo-neocon,
    I do disagree about Paglia in particular. I think you’ve got her pegged wrong.

    we will have to disagree… because if she wasnt on that side, she wouldnt call herself a feminist. period end of story.

    if you knew the process, you would see how it works. it works because feminism is like MSG. add it to everything and its just better.

    how do you maximize constituency? how can you scoop up both sides at once? look too closely and you will miss where she fits.

    Liberal Feminism
    Socialist Feminism
    Radical Feminism
    Third Wave Feminism

    notice that we think differently when we hang someting on the end of the words. but look.. every group has their own brand to rally around.

    Ecofeminism
    Black Feminism
    Amazon feminism
    Anarcho-feminism
    Cultural feminism
    Difference feminism
    Erotic feminism

    some of them are contradictory, making them meaningless..

    Equality feminism
    Essentialist feminism
    Fourth-world feminism
    French feminism
    Individual/libertarian feminism
    Lesbian feminism
    Marxist feminism
    Moderate feminism
    Pop feminism
    Postcolonial feminism
    Post feminism
    Postmodern feminism
    Psychoanalytic feminism
    Separatist feminism

    which one is she, and you can tell which group she is fishing for!!!!

    everyone of those feminisms above, is real, and has a definition to it. and i can show you smoe of them being given to paglia.

    but she is a leader. a fellow traveler. so she is just scooping up the numbers who are feminists opposed to feminism… or some inane thing that makes sense when you dont knwo the whole of the beast.

    and i learned a whole lot about that beast.
    it took my family away and denied my right to parent my own child for no real reason other than its ideology.

    like dunn and others in different groups, you can hear them say different things.

    the WHOLE idea of it is to make communism palatable by making a thousand brands that mean one thing.

18. sorry, enter hit some way by accident..

    in this way, they get to vote the power of people even when those people are against others in the same group.

    its all about false dichotomies and things. changing your world view, by giving you mental toxic ideas.

    and since there is no single propaganda that works for everyone, different groups are targeted differently.

    in this case, long long ago… in the time of erin pizzey, the socialists took over the efminist movement. you can actually read about it.

    the feminists ligitimized themselves by pretending other women in history, were feminists when they were no such thing.

    suffragettes were suffragettes, not feminists.
    boudica was not a femnist

    same thing was dont as a deconstructive process so that the gays would be ligitimized through history as every great man (including jesus) had to be gay.

    its like a pointilist painting by seurat

    if your not far enouhg back seeing the hundreds of points, you dont get a clear image of what it is.

    here is paglias OWN WORDS…
    I consider myself 100 percent a feminist, at odds with the feminist establishment in America. For me the great mission of feminism is to seek the full political and legal equality of women with men. However, I disagree with many of my fellow feminists as an equal opportunity feminist, who believes that feminism should only be interested in equal rights before the law. I utterly oppose special protection for women where I think that a lot of the feminist establishment has drifted in the last 20 years.
    

    she is FOR communism… she says so.

    and she has read everyone else a lot mroe than most… as have i..

    “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

    and she DOES push the same old pap… but if you LIKE her pap, your not going to see it, as your going to spend your time in the light of that dot.

    There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.
    

    thats her helping the propaganda that women are sugar and spice and everything nice and men are demons.

    how about aileen wournous?
    oh yeah.. the feminists, like paglia, blamed her on the men

    Beverley Allitt – mass murders babies..

    Velma Barfield – poisoned her husbands, boyfriends, elderly people in her care and even her mother.

    Sue Basso – prayed on an retarded elderly man. used him as a slave, an killed him for insurance

    Elizabeth Bathory – romanian countess famous for invighting beautiful women to her palce as servants. she would drain them of their blood and bath in it in hopes of staying young.

    Celeste Beard – got her lesbian lover to eviserate her husband while he slept in a way that whenhe woke up, his insides were outside on his belly, and he called 911…

    Mary Ann Cotton Murdered between 15-21 of her close relatives by arsenic poisoning. Why? For money, personal dislike or they got in her way over something she wanted

    so much for truth… here is the whole of her quote above…

    Serial or sex murder, like fetishism, is a perversion of male intelligence. It is a criminal abstraction, masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness. It is the asocial equivalent of philosophy, mathematics, and music. There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.
    

    does that sound like a more reasoned feminist?

    here are some more from here… let me know if you would believe that she said it?

    The prostitute has come to symbolize for me the ultimate liberated woman, who lives on the edge and whose sexuality belongs to no one.

    Men know they are sexual exiles. They wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. There is nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy.
    

    which is why the whole movement is just copying men… it has not created anything original, just mini men. in fact its done the opposite. no more barrette brownings, aida lovelace, etc… the best you get now is vagina monologues..

    no?

    let paglia say it

    I’m a feminist, but I am liberating current feminism from these false feminists who have a death grip on it right now, who are antiporn and so on. I’m bringing, like Madonna, a sense of beauty and pleasure and sensuality back into feminism. Because, you know, feminism’s main problem for the last twenty years has been that it is incapable of appreciating art, okay? There is no aesthetics in feminism. All there is, is a social agenda. Art is made a servant to a prefab social agenda. So what I’m doing is allowing feminism to take aesthetics into it, and also psychology.

    It is woman’s destiny to rule men. Not to serve them, flatter them, or hang on them for guidance. Nor to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors.
    

    does that sound lke the image you have in your head?

    she sounds like all the other feminists… just her own selling brand of it.

    A pagan education would sharpen the mind, steel the will, and seduce the senses. Our philosophy should be both contemplative and pugilistic, admitting aggression (as Christianity does not) as central to our mythology. The beasts of passion must be confronted, and the laws of nature understood. Conflict cannot be avoided, but perhaps it can be confined to a mental theater.
    

    From first chapter to last, my thesis is that all writing, all art is Apollonian. Every woman who takes pen or brush in hand is making an Apollonian swerve away from nature, even when nature is her subject.”

    does she include herself?

    This is megalomania on a lunatic scale.
    [Mary Beard on Paglia’s Vamps & Tramps: New Essays]

    As Camille Paglia’s success has demonstrated, what is most marketable is absolutism and attitude undiluted by thought.

    and if you knew who she was writing from.. you wouldnt think so highly of her…

19. take some time to read the story of tianeman square.

    how the teachers were the ones who convinced the kids to do the dirty work…

    and that moved them out into the open, where the state could then exterminate them. when you read of the tactic, the thousand petals, and other things, you will THEN see parallels in what they are doing here.

    otherwise, its just a shadow hiding in the dark

20. Emanuel is still a putz

    Oy, what language… 🙂

21. like Mao, Obama give out his own little red book of sayings.
    

    he already has one.. its blue.. and it came out a while ago…

22. paglia is trotsky to their lenin and stalin socialism.

23. take some time to read the story of tianeman square.

    how the teachers were the ones who convinced the kids to do the dirty work…

    and that moved them out into the open, where the state could then exterminate them. when you read of the tactic, the thousand petals, and other things, you will THEN see parallels in what they are doing here.

    Very good Artfldgr.

    I am a conservative; yet, very possibly, the same can be said of the “conservative” broadcasters.

24. Artfldgr . . .

    I think you are a little harsh on “feminists.” Some of us feminists worked quite hard for “equal opportunities” for women. This is not a bad thing, if you think about it.

    Sure there are many kooky feminists–the ones who get the press are usually kooky–but many feminists are just nice people like me who are happy to see opportunities open up for women. I had to put up with a lot of bs in my youth just to get to see the day (now) when most people don’t quarrel with the idea that a woman should be a teacher or nurse and maybe four or five other occupations.

25. Promethea, I think you are stealing the fire of 19th century women: nurses were female from the start: see Florence Nightingale; women were secretaries before the invention – in the 19th century of the typewriter; many women were teachers in the 19th century; lawyers? yep.

26. njartist49 . . .

    I don’t understand what you mean by “stealing the fire of 19th century women.” Yes, there were millions of women doing things in the tens of thousands of years before the mid-20th century.

    Maybe the era I was raised in has passed into history, and people don’t know what being a young American woman was like until the early 1970s. I could give you pages of examples, but trust me, it was annoying enough to produce the women’s movement.

    The MSM called us “women’s libbers.” What a foul term. Kind of like “teabaggers” and used in the same nasty spirit. I will never forget those days, and neither will my colleagues. However, as time moves on, the nature of the struggle for “equal opportunities” becomes forgotten, and “feminists” get smeared because only the nutty ones and the outrageous ones get remembered.

    Thank you MSM. I get to dance on your grave.

27. I’m sorry, but after hanging in there with Paglia whenever you discuss her latest “emission” for some time I’ve now concluded that she’s just one more clapped-out intellect not worth following.

    Call me if she, at some point, returns to consciousness.

28. @Promethea

    Look up Prometheus under Greek mythology. You may have missed it in your Womens’ Studies Classes.

29. njartist49 . . .

    I know you are being snarky, but I just don’t get your sarcasm. Also, why do you think I ever took a Women’s Studies Class? These weren’t invented yet in the period that I described above.

    I’m sure you’re trying to make a point, but I just don’t know what it is.

    vanderleun . . .

    I agree wit you. Paglia is an idiot. She loves the sound of her own words, but she isn’t interested in leaving her particular plantation.

30. After reading some ‘jewels’ of Paglia’s writings in Artfldgr’s posts, I am feeling a sense of despair: Why do I have to live in this crazy age?

31. Promethea: at first I had the same response to Artfldgr’s attack on feminism. “I’m in favor of a great many things about feminism,” I thought, “and I certainly don’t have that agenda that he describes.”

    Then when I thought about it a little more I realized that of course, many feminists do have a very radical agenda, and that to a certain extent the feminist movement got taken over and appropriated by such people. And those more radical people are, to a fairly large degree, those who tend to self-identify as feminists. I find I don’t generally go around calling myself a feminist, although I agree with equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity and all that.

32. I’m for ALL people to have equal ‘opportunity’.

    Ward Connerly is a hero. His book “Creating Equal” pretty much explains how I feel with respect to any ‘ism’

33. I’m with you, Promethea. I’m a feminist, but I’m not a “rad-fem.” I’m very grateful for my forebears who fought for the rest of us to have the opportunity to compete and make a life for ourselves. In simple fairness. If we compete and can’t make the grade, so be it. Women firefighters should be able to carry as much dead weight as the job requires: not as much as the PC crowd has decided will do for publicity purposes. Who are they fooling?

    Not a man-hater. Not an affirmative action fan (never needed it, thanks)– in most cases. Though to be honest, it has been necessary in some cases to force open particular doors.

    And I’m in favor of the right of free association, and claim it myself, even if I’m jealous of men’s opportunities to join certain clubs and associations. But I think we’ll get further if we use honey rather than vinegar.

    And speaking of doors, when a gentleman opens one for me, I say “Thank you!” and give him a smile.

34. I guess we all agree!

    🙂

35. I agree that it takes some mental gymnastics to praise Pelosi while at the same time condemning her health care bill.

    Still, I think its great for the same reason you should argue your points using the words of the opposition. Paglia’s opinion challenges the thinking of those who would normally eat up the health care bill, hook, line, and sinker. If she, one of them–a member of the left, sees tremendous faults in the health care bill, her negative opinions will matter more in winning over left-leaning moderates than if they were uttered by a conservative Republican. Praising Pelosi as a person in the beginning is rhetoric that shows Paglia’s leftist credentials while the rest of her column essentially guts that initial rhetoric, if that makes sense (i’m writing fast).

36. I sense a bumper sticker in the making:

    “I support Pelosi, but not her policies.”

37. I think you are a little harsh on “feminists.” Some of us feminists worked quite hard for “equal opportunities” for women. This is not a bad thing, if you think about it.

    the soviets werent pure evil either…

    makes it harder to get rid of waht you should.

    i am not harsh at all…
    we are no where near as harsh as we should be

    and your next paragraph proves my case and point.

    Sure there are many kooky feminists—the ones who get the press are usually kooky—but many feminists are just nice people like me who are happy to see opportunities open up for women.

    really…
    you can say the EXACT SAME THING ABOUT SOVIETS..

    not knowing what you were working for is the problem.

    and your using the REASONABLE COMMUNIST argument…
    which is the same as the REASONABLE ISLAMIST
    which si the same as the REASONABLE FEMINIST

    did you know that femnism of the modern cut was started by terrorists? that they planted bombs? and by your helping, you gave the same support to them that some islamics give to islam…

    and of course you dont read the leaders, the ones who advice presidents and teach courses.

    no… you believe that your PERSONAL VERSION of feminism is the real feminism.

    yuo didnt understand my argument.
    you didnt step back and survey what each group says tehy stand for… and realize that its not anything meaningful.

    that they are playing on your ego.

    the equal opportunity law was not created by feminists… they dont want equal opportunity!!!!!!!

    takes knowlege of their history all over the world to get it.

    because if you know, say the history of the movemetn world wide.. you will find that england had copies of the same types at teh sam time US did..

    almost like they were delivered and then promoted, which they were.

    just cause they appeal to your ego, created a sense of self that is naked and scared withotu them, and took credit for tons of things that they didnt do, or that has nothing to do wih them..

    in case you didnt know..
    women are worse off than ever before.
    they are more unhappy… they are more alone
    they are more barren.. they have more deseases
    more mental problems.. .higher crime rate… more obesity.. lower age of menses… and tons more.

    adn the list goes on with all the negatives that are touted as positives..

    waking up to look at it might be a start…

    but that would take really looking at it and dropping the stuff you believe without confirmation (delivered assumptions).

    most will not..

38. Well, Artfuldodger . . .

    All those other women you mentioned may be miserable, but I’m happy. So I’m glad that I worked for equal opportunities for women, even though you think that such an idea is merely a communist plot.

    BTW, don’t you believe in any free will, or are all of us just dust in the wind or animals in the farmyard to be manipulated? The American spirit means that we Americans can shape the world if we want to do so.

    I’m not a puppet. You came from a puppet state, but now you are free. Enjoy your freedom and acknowledge that other Americans can enjoy their freedom too, even though they don’t follow your own personal plan.

39. promethea,
    being snarky will not win the debate..

    and your personal goodness does not make a system concieved to destroy the family by pitting mates against each other… any less destructive.

    Mothers’ rights making women unemployable
    By editor of Vogue magazine, Alexandra Shulman http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html

    i can go down the list…

    but your PERSONAL VERSION of feminism is not what the leaders promote.

    AND THATS THE PROBLEM when something is SUBVERTED.

    all the people like you defend it BLINDLY and through personal experience as if they are completely incapable of being dupped and wasting their time on other people ends and projects other than their own life and children and mates.

    So I’m glad that I worked for equal opportunities for women, even though you think that such an idea is merely a communist plot.

    ever think you should have been working for that for EVERYONE, not just a privledged section of society?

    i dont think it was a communist plot i was told by the leaders of feminism that taht is what they are working for.

    you have no idea of the history or any of the othe stuff. how about first taking a look.

    see neo… if you cut my quotes down, there is no preponderance… and if you dont, such people refuise to learn that they are wasting their lives on a futile end.

    no… not the end of opportunities…

    because that is not what they are actually working for.

    you only have to listen to the LEADERS….

    “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

    do you think i got to MacKinnon? that i infected her with my ideas?

    no… SHE IS THE INNER CIRCLE you are a useful idiot… they are not hding anything any more than hitler hid the work in mein kampf.

    its just that you sided with them and will refuse to your dying day to accept what you did, and then accelt what end you were really working for.

    that happened to walter duranty, and langston huges, so dont think that your not in the company of great people.

    “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

    “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” — Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman

    “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

    i would bet that these women dont speak for you because when i tell you what they represent and what they stand for and what they are working for, you attack ME… not them…

    why? i didnt make the movement, i didnt say that was the goal, i didnt get help from soviets, i didnt align mysielf with the north vietnamese cuba castro, and people like ayers dohrn etc.

    but you DID…

    you can call me all you want. but you cant change what you are or were a part of… you cant cahnge what it is.

    the best you can do is go back to sleep and beleive that it isnt what it says it is

    just as the german people went to sleep saying herr hitler didnt really mean all that.

    “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” — Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

    let me know…

    do these people represent your thoughts?

    becuse if you dont say no, there is no reason for me to believe that you are or have any other goals than the women you said you helped!

    its really that simple..

    either they represent you and desrve yoru help, or they misrepresent to you and are using you

    read the con artist thread.

    “For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men.” — Wendy Dennis

    “How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” — From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

    while you were helping them believing in equality for women, and not other people. did you realize that their goals were things you would fine ANTITHETICAL if only you took the time?

    you align yourself with this kind of person, and then belittle me?

    “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987

    oh…right… thats not feminism.. your the representative of feminists. that why the president calls you, thats why your on al gores campaigns thats why your writing policy statements..

    or did you come to a meeting and do what your told? having such fun helping the cause, getting them money, etc?

    did you ever take the time to actually read bout the world they are visualizing?

    “My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.” — Marilyn French; The Women’s Room

    these are the heroes and molders of feminism.

    you either agree with them and help them or you dont agree and dont help them.

    i assume you agree with them…

    which is why we are at odds. i think a family with a mom and a dad with a couple of kids raised in protected enfironment and loved is a good thing.

    you dont.
    and if you do, then your lying to yourself.

    “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female

    “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that” — Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981

    
    “If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” — Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 317
    .
    “The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be…. Most women…would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken.” –Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p.320
    

    are you going to tell me that germaine greer doesnt lead?

    “[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” — Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

    that babies are a plot by men to prevent an all woman lesbian utopia? (how do you get the lesbians then?)

    think that is silly?

    “[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children…. The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.” — Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
    

    they dont..

    “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…” — Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 3

    “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catharine MacKinnon

    “Feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men.” — Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified, 1987 (whether real or not)

    so many of them want to destroy the family

    and of course your saying, no matter how many leaders with followers who get to talk and give lectures to thousands and teach, they dont reaqlly beleive that stuff…

    and obama is not a socuialist.

    “[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” — Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
    

    have you noticed they are now taking wmoens children? in england they just started taking them if your too fat… or not smart enough.

    i bet your all for the children being taken away and being raised by the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    why not, the leaders you follow are!!!!!!!!!

    “The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation…[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women.” — Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
    

    “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan

    “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” — Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

    “The Women’s Caucus [endorses] marxist-leninist socialist thought.” — Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p.597

    even though you think that such an idea is merely a communist plot.
    

    I think?

    when i can give you ten icons of feminism from the highest ranks and they say thats what it is, how does it become MY Thoughts?

    easy… when you still want to have the false meaning they gave you…

40. by the way… i NEVER said that equal opportunity is a communist plot..

    i said that feminism is communism for women….

    just like the leaders say openly

41. by the way… take some time.
    you will find out that equal opportunity was already acheived when yhou started working for them

    they have been working for “equal outcomes”
    not equal opportunity with unequal outcomes.

    not the same thing.

    in the later the state plays favoriates along gender and race lines and any other lines it wants.

    its how jews had to give up their work and such…

    equal opportunity was made into law in 1963..
    the civil rights act was passed the next year

    5 years before the summer of love and the big feminist stuff.

    so what then were you fighting for?

    i couldnt be equal opportunity…

    and it wasnt…

    since then they have been fighting for EQUAL OUTCOME

    and if you cant explain the difference they duped you.

    when the state sets a salary between a nurse and an engineer to be equal, that is equal outcomes.
    that is communism.

    I think a lot of liberals/leftists/Dems are confusing a basic concept. They confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. We are not guaranteed equal outcomes by the Constitution. We are assured though, of equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note the “pursuit of happiness”. There’s no guarantee that we’ll catch happiness, just the opportunity to find it for ourselves on equal footing with everybody else.

    this is why the right was upset when they heard the obama kids doign the songs. it wasnt the songs…. it was the line where they said he would bring equal outcomes.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome

    Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or Equality of results is a form of social justice rhetoric which seeks to reduce or eliminate incidental inequalities in material condition between individuals or households in a society. This usually means equalizing income and/or total wealth to a certain degree by, for example, granting a greater amount of income and/or total wealth to poorer individuals or households at the expense of relatively wealthy individuals or households.

    Equality of outcome can be distinguished from the concept of equality of opportunity. Government policies that seek to produce an equality of outcome for all citizens in various areas of life are controversial. As individuals have differing skills and talents, a society cannot easily be made ‘equal’. Policies that seek an equality of outcome often require a deviation from the strict application of concepts such as meritocracy, and legal notions of equality before the law for all citizens. ‘Equality seeking’ policies may also have a redistributive focus.
    

    and redistribution of wealth is communism.

    by the way, read stalin, read lenin, read mao. they use the word socialism..

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>