Re: Ladies, please... (USA)
- --- In email@example.com, Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@y...>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/printdw20050131.shtmlof it, the feminists who like to blow things up and then cry as the
> Ladies, please ...
> Diana West
> January 31, 2005
> I hate women.
> Let me rephrase that: I hate "women" -- the ones who make a career
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.
>professor at MIT who stormed out of the meeting. "My heart was
> "I felt I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology
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
>female candidates is a nice, comfy fainting couch. And let's send
> Clearly, what the hard sciences need to attract more qualified
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.
>fundraising letter about it all on the side -- Mrs. Boxer was now
> Having spray-painted Miss Rice a liar -- and dashed off a quick
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."
>whiff of vapors. This may well be beside the point. That is, sex
> That's ladylike. I like ladylike. Poise under fire, and not a
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.
>American feminism, the ideological movement the Barbara Boxers and
> But -- Condi Rice aside -- it's not something to crow about.
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?
>the faculty lounge, a cozy place where outcries against the mean old
> In the case of professor Hopkins, her privileged horizons end at
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
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
>votes (13) than any secretary of state has received in 180 years?
> Miss Rice was never in doubt of confirmation. So why more "no"
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.
>centrist Sen. Joe Lieberman's pathetic appeal on Miss Rice's behalf
> "Give America's national security the benefit of the doubt," went
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.
>diminished in the eyes of the world -- and particularly the world's
> For liberty's sake, it is the Boxer Democrats who should be
women. Will they notice?