Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ladies, please... (USA)

Expand Messages
  • remarksman
    ... of it, the feminists who like to blow things up and then cry as the pieces rain down, choking on the vapors. Such vapors filled the air, apparently, up at
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 31, 2005
      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@y...>
      > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/printdw20050131.shtml
      > Ladies, please ...
      > Diana West
      > January 31, 2005
      > I hate women.
      > Let me rephrase that: I hate "women" -- the ones who make a career
      of it, the feminists who like to blow things up and then cry as the
      pieces rain down, choking on the vapors. Such vapors filled the air,
      apparently, up at Harvard when big, bad Lawrence Summers --
      Harvard's prez, who has just got to stop saying he's sorry --
      declared in a meeting that the dearth of women in the hard sciences
      might have something to do, not so much with (yawn) male chauvinism,
      but with the innate differences between the sexes.
      > "I felt I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology
      professor at MIT who stormed out of the meeting. "My heart was
      pounding and my breath was shallow," she informed reporters. "I
      couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill."
      Why, had she not left the room, she "would've either blacked out or
      thrown up."
      > Clearly, what the hard sciences need to attract more qualified
      female candidates is a nice, comfy fainting couch. And let's send
      one over to the U.S. Senate, too, while we're at it. "She turned and
      attacked me," Sen. Barbara Boxer whimpered on CNN in her twisted
      reprise of the poisonous little temper tantrum she and other
      Democrats threw along the way to the Senate confirmation of
      Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State.
      > Having spray-painted Miss Rice a liar -- and dashed off a quick
      fundraising letter about it all on the side -- Mrs. Boxer was now
      depicting Miss Rice as a bully. Why? For a response that exhibited
      more polish, more civilization than the smearing senator
      deserved: "I would hope we can discuss what ... went on and what I
      said without impugning my credibility or my integrity."
      > That's ladylike. I like ladylike. Poise under fire, and not a
      whiff of vapors. This may well be beside the point. That is, sex
      should be irrelevant in Senate confirmation hearings, even as the
      media harp on the statistical exceptionalism of nominees who are not
      men, or not white (or not both). But there seems to be something
      worth pondering in the fact that both Condi Rice, the new face of
      American foreign policy, and Barbara Boxer, its most aggressive
      opponent this week (rather, its most aggressive domestic opponent
      since I don't mean al-Zarqawi) are women. Approaching the Iraqi
      election this weekend, surveying the challenges that lie ahead in
      encouraging democracy in the wider Islamic world -- a world where
      power is derived in many ways from a perverted sexual order based on
      the oppression of women -- this fact should mean something.
      > But -- Condi Rice aside -- it's not something to crow about.
      American feminism, the ideological movement the Barbara Boxers and
      Nancy Hopkinses out there call home, has ignored the plight of women
      under Islam: the burqa-bondage of sharia law under which a woman's
      testimony in a courtroom is worth half that of a man's; polygamy is
      legal and divorce is a man's prerogative; inheritance favors sons;
      and violence (even the hideously misnamed "honor" killings) against
      family women is a way of life. Why?
      > In the case of professor Hopkins, her privileged horizons end at
      the faculty lounge, a cozy place where outcries against the mean old
      patriarchy clatter with the teacups. In Mrs. Boxer's myopic case,
      the cause of democracy abroad, indeed, the national interest of the
      United States, is second to a vital, gnawing Democratic interest --
      undermining George W. Bush. This is a strange cause in light of what
      his success would mean particularly for women.

      junior and his sycophants are exporting american-style matriarchy to
      the rest of the planet, and thus neither his domestic nor foreign
      agenda are counter to feminist interests, including the interests of
      ms boxer and her demoncrats

      they're both spoiled children , , ,

      and lately i hear lots about how junior is getting his policy and
      war directives from G-O-D

      why, then, all the inaugural security foofarah and expense?

      i mean, hey, if GOD is on your side, eh, "security" is rather
      extraneous, no?

      not to mention faithless . . .

      a real man -- especially one claiming authority through God -- would
      have disdained "security," trusted in divine power, walked slowly
      and confidently to the stand and swore his oath on the bible WITHOUT
      need of mere earthly protections (to say nothing of the kind of
      glitz, decadence, and self-indulgence more proper to a teenage
      girl's wedding than to a grown man's undertaking of serious

      > Miss Rice was never in doubt of confirmation. So why more "no"
      votes (13) than any secretary of state has received in 180 years?
      The crude message big Dem cheeses (your Boxers, your Kennedys, your
      Kerrys) sent the White House was intercepted by the rest of the
      world, our inability to present a united front even on the eve of
      Iraqi elections unnerving friends and inspiring enemies.
      > "Give America's national security the benefit of the doubt," went
      centrist Sen. Joe Lieberman's pathetic appeal on Miss Rice's behalf
      to fellow Democrats. Little wonder Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another
      singular Democrat who could see through the scrim of party
      affiliation to reality's dangers, worried that Miss Rice's rough
      treatment would leave her "diminished in the eyes of the world."
      That leaves the United States diminished in the eyes of the world.
      > For liberty's sake, it is the Boxer Democrats who should be
      diminished in the eyes of the world -- and particularly the world's
      women. Will they notice?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.