Misogynistic Hatred for Hillary…

If you dislike a male politician, then there is something wrong with that particular politician. If you dislike a female politician then you often find something lacking in the entire female sex. This article in the Seattle Times talks about misogynistic hatred for Hillary Rodham Clinton on the internet. I vomitted a little in my mouth reading this article.

Facebook, popular with high-school and college students, has dozens of anti-Hillary groups, many of which take great delight in heaping abuse on Clinton as a woman, imagining her reduced to a subservient role, and visiting violence upon her.

One is “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich,” with more than 23,000 members and 2,200 “wall posts.”

Another Facebook group, more temperate in tone and with about 13,000 members, is “Life’s a bitch, why vote for one? Anti-Hillary ’08.”

Is this merely some adolescent “guys gone wild” (most but by no means all Hillary haters are male)? The rank rituals of the rec room revealed for the whole world to see?

The proprietors of the Facebook group “Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Run for President, She Should Just Run the Dishes,” with 2,159 members, offer a pre-emptive disclaimer to offended visitors.

Daniel Jussaume, a 20-year-old junior at the University of Southern Maine, was not among the creators of “Just Run the Dishes.” After he joined, however, he volunteered to chair its “Feminist Liberal Complaint Dept.”

Is it so surprising that this is being tolerated? Let’s remember one of the most evocative moments in the presidential race so far…

At a campaign meeting in South Carolina, a woman of patrician bearing asked Arizona Sen. John McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?”

A surprised McCain laughed along with the rest of the small crowd.

“That’s an excellent question,” McCain said after regaining his stride. He proceeded to explain why he could beat Clinton.

Viewed nearly 1 million times on YouTube in the week afterward, “How Do We Beat the Bitch” has entered the lore of the 2008 campaign, but with barely a hint of soul-searching.

“Can you imagine if that woman had said, ‘How do we beat the “n-word”?’ ” asked Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics.

For McCain, or at least for those who think the nation might have benefited by examining why that woman felt so free to say what she did so publicly, “it was a terrible missed opportunity,” Walsh said.

Thoughts readers? How can we make people see their own misogyny in a culture that seems to have accepted it as normal and allowable?

Trump knows beauty when he sees it…. on stage of his corporate owned beauty pageant

Donald Trump has caught entertainment headlines today by claiming that George Clooney is “short” and Angelina Jolie is “no great beauty.” Although I’m sure there are those out there willing to disagree (especially Brad Pitt) this statement was not what caught my feminist eye. What took me aback was not the assertions he made, but the rationale he uses to justify them. Rather than rely on the explanation of subjective opinion (which 99.9% of the population uses) he states the following:

“I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she’s [Angelina Jolie’s] not.”

Thanks for explaining that, Mr. Trump. I may have confused ‘understanding’ with previous knowledge, intelligence or careful thought. However, Mr. Trump is quite explicit in equating understanding with ownership. And ownership of one of the most derogatory programs on TV today. Mr. Trump himself is not present at these pageants, he does not judge the ‘beauties’ and he does not set the criteria for qualification into the pageant in the first place. But he (or at least his giant corporation) owns the pageant, and therefore that makes him an expert on beauty.

I understand that this is most likely a drumming of a publicity for the flailing Miss. America and Miss. USA ‘scholarship competitions’. However, at the end of the day, a man like Mr. Trump can stand up and declare beauty to be his realm (and a narrow, white, tall realm it is) due to the money he possesses; the money that entitles him the ‘ownership’ to these women’s bodies and beauty.

Trump knows beauty when he sees it…. on stage of his corporate owned beauty pageant

Donald Trump has caught entertainment headlines today by claiming that George Clooney is “short” and Angelina Jolie is “no great beauty.” Although I’m sure there are those out there willing to disagree (especially Brad Pitt) this statement was not what caught my feminist eye. What took me aback was not the assertions he made, but the rationale he uses to justify them. Rather than rely on the explanation of subjective opinion (which 99.9% of the population uses) he states the following:

“I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she’s [Angelina Jolie’s] not.”

Thanks for explaining that, Mr. Trump. I may have confused ‘understanding’ with previous knowledge, intelligence or careful thought. However, Mr. Trump is quite explicit in equating understanding with ownership. And ownership of one of the most derogatory programs on TV today. Mr. Trump himself is not present at these pageants, he does not judge the ‘beauties’ and he does not set the criteria for qualification into the pageant in the first place. But he (or at least his giant corporation) owns the pageant, and therefore that makes him an expert on beauty.

I understand that this is most likely a drumming of a publicity for the flailing Miss. America and Miss. USA ‘scholarship competitions’. However, at the end of the day, a man like Mr. Trump can stand up and declare beauty to be his realm (and a narrow, white, tall realm it is) due to the money he possesses; the money that entitles him the ‘ownership’ to these women’s bodies and beauty.

Violence Against Asian Women and Stupid Men’s Magazines

Tags

asian women, men's magazines

Sorry for the erratic blogging! I’ve been sick, I’ve been busy, I’ve been wrapping up a job and trying to start school. Now that I’ve provided you with sufficient excuses for all my blogging inequities… time to blog about something interesting! Well, of course, there are just so many things that I can’t decide which to blog about so I’m going to do a blogging round up of the two stories that I most wanted to touch!

The Things I Wanted to Blog About This Week But Didn’t:

• Asian women in Vancouver attacked: Apparently, Asian women in particular have been subject to violent attacks and muggings in Vancouver. This is an outrage, as are the apparent motivations behind these attacks.

Burnaby RCMP Const. Kalinda Link calls the attack “random, senseless and cowardly,” but others say it points to a larger trend of violence against women and Asian women in particular.

“It’s really not a single crime that has been committed, this is an epidemic,” said Irene Tsepnopoulos-Elhaimer of Women Against Violence Against Women. “Are women not supposed to go out at certain times or to certain places now? This is a societal issue that hasn’t been dealt with.”

Tung Chan, the CEO of SUCCESS, told 24 hours that a rash of assaults on Asian women has the entire community concerned.

“They are preying on this group of people believing they are new to the country and won’t report it to police,” said Chan. “This type of targeting is big concern.”
Chan says it’s an issue that affects the entire region’s livelihood. “An attack on the weakest element of society is an attack on society as a whole,” said Chan. “No one should stand for it.”

• Australian Men’s Mag Belittles Feminists with Contest: Okay, so it’s not a shocker that a men’s magazine is belittling feminists – especially since this magazine is of the horndog-Maxim variety. It’s also not surprising then that the contest asking for Sexy, Man-hating Lesbian Feminists to pose seductively in it’s pages is a satirical response to criticism from feminists of their Win a Boob Job for Your Girlfriend Contest (Oh, the novels I could write about the problems with such contests! Please feel free to rant in the comments… I give free reign). But did they really need to write this:

The lad’s mag today revealed its new competition – a search “for the hottest girl in sensible shoes” – promising the winner a year’s supply of deodorant and a sexy photo shoot.

“If you hate men, we want to see photos of you in sexy lingerie,” the ad reads.

Thank god someone responds to them:

The message is simple – women are okay as long as they’re playing by the men’s rules (which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered ‘fuckable’). Dissent is possible, but only if expressed in a cutesy pie, not-really-serious, isn’t-she-hot-when-she-pouts-I-just-want-to-bend-her-over-and-give-her-one kind of manner.

Stray from these strict guidelines all you want, but expect to feel the full force of derision – and often violent attempts at humiliation – wafting from the Smoking Room. Worse, expect to be told that your very valid objections are indicative of a complete lack of humour, a determination to ‘spoil it for the boys’ and a total absence of femininity and sexual attractiveness.

Indeed, “Feminist!” has become the rallying attack cry from the armies of men that refuse to acknowledge that a woman’s greatest aspiration isn’t uniquely connected to how much men want to fuck them. Its hissed utterance has become ubiquitous for a host of inaccurate and lazy ideas that only serve to crudely mask the speaker’s own ignorance and disinterest in directly engaging with those he seeks to demonise.

Holy Fricken Yes!!!! That puts so much I’ve wanted to say for so long into such great words!

Violence Against Asian Women and Stupid Men’s Magazines

Sorry for the erratic blogging! I’ve been sick, I’ve been busy, I’ve been wrapping up a job and trying to start school. Now that I’ve provided you with sufficient excuses for all my blogging inequities… time to blog about something interesting! Well, of course, there are just so many things that I can’t decide which to blog about so I’m going to do a blogging round up of the two stories that I most wanted to touch!

The Things I Wanted to Blog About This Week But Didn’t:

• Asian women in Vancouver attacked: Apparently, Asian women in particular have been subject to violent attacks and muggings in Vancouver. This is an outrage, as are the apparent motivations behind these attacks.

Burnaby RCMP Const. Kalinda Link calls the attack “random, senseless and cowardly,” but others say it points to a larger trend of violence against women and Asian women in particular.

“It’s really not a single crime that has been committed, this is an epidemic,” said Irene Tsepnopoulos-Elhaimer of Women Against Violence Against Women. “Are women not supposed to go out at certain times or to certain places now? This is a societal issue that hasn’t been dealt with.”

Tung Chan, the CEO of SUCCESS, told 24 hours that a rash of assaults on Asian women has the entire community concerned.

“They are preying on this group of people believing they are new to the country and won’t report it to police,” said Chan. “This type of targeting is big concern.”
Chan says it’s an issue that affects the entire region’s livelihood. “An attack on the weakest element of society is an attack on society as a whole,” said Chan. “No one should stand for it.”

• Australian Men’s Mag Belittles Feminists with Contest: Okay, so it’s not a shocker that a men’s magazine is belittling feminists – especially since this magazine is of the horndog-Maxim variety. It’s also not surprising then that the contest asking for Sexy, Man-hating Lesbian Feminists to pose seductively in it’s pages is a satirical response to criticism from feminists of their Win a Boob Job for Your Girlfriend Contest (Oh, the novels I could write about the problems with such contests! Please feel free to rant in the comments… I give free reign). But did they really need to write this:

The lad’s mag today revealed its new competition – a search “for the hottest girl in sensible shoes” – promising the winner a year’s supply of deodorant and a sexy photo shoot.

“If you hate men, we want to see photos of you in sexy lingerie,” the ad reads.

Thank god someone responds to them:

The message is simple – women are okay as long as they’re playing by the men’s rules (which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered ‘fuckable’). Dissent is possible, but only if expressed in a cutesy pie, not-really-serious, isn’t-she-hot-when-she-pouts-I-just-want-to-bend-her-over-and-give-her-one kind of manner.

Stray from these strict guidelines all you want, but expect to feel the full force of derision – and often violent attempts at humiliation – wafting from the Smoking Room. Worse, expect to be told that your very valid objections are indicative of a complete lack of humour, a determination to ‘spoil it for the boys’ and a total absence of femininity and sexual attractiveness.

Indeed, “Feminist!” has become the rallying attack cry from the armies of men that refuse to acknowledge that a woman’s greatest aspiration isn’t uniquely connected to how much men want to fuck them. Its hissed utterance has become ubiquitous for a host of inaccurate and lazy ideas that only serve to crudely mask the speaker’s own ignorance and disinterest in directly engaging with those he seeks to demonise.

Holy Fricken Yes!!!! That puts so much I’ve wanted to say for so long into such great words!

Apparently, I like my men wearing dresses (or so this article suggests)

Apparently, I like girly men. Well, that’s what this article about the ‘surrendered wife’ seems to suggest. That’s right… the SURRENDERED wife!!! Even the name of the movement points out its perversity and ridiculousness. The whole thing makes me want to vomit really.If one is surrendering… one would assume there had been some ‘war’ going on, no? The war in question is apparently about who wears the ‘pants’ in the household. Apparently, many women have found that their marriages are soooo much happier if they abnegate all their desires and defer to their husband – not only doing everything for him around the house, but agreeing to never refuse his request for sex – no matter how much they might not want it.

PETER HARVEY: Welcome to the world of the surrendered wife — sisters who have come out of the kitchen but now they’re going back in. Here in America’s Midwest, women like Crystal and her two-year-old daughter Catherine, who’s already in training.

CRYSTAL: We talk a lot about Jesse’s, ‘He’s your daddy and you’re supposed to obey your daddy and we want to honour him and we want to respect him’. And just talking about why we are cleaning. We want to have a clean house so that we can honour Daddy because Daddy likes the house to be clean. Put it right there. Do you know why we’re making the fruit pizza? We’re making it for Daddy. We want to please him. We want to do special things for him. Daddy’s the king of our home, isn’t he? You said that you wanted me to do the ironing.

PETER HARVEY: And does Daddy Jesse like being king of the castle? You bet he does.

JESSE: I think obedience is a good quality to have in a wife. An obedient wife does have a quality of being submissive and yielding her rights to the needs of her family and the desires of her husband. Okay. Gotta go.

PETER HARVEY: In their household, 26 year-old attorney Jesse literally lays down the law — written instructions for every moment of Crystal’s day.

CRYSTAL: Jesse, he really likes for me to do things like this. It makes him very happy, because I’m being productive. Because I’m doing it for my husband, it’s not just for myself.

The whole issue about sex as well is very troubling, because the language the couple uses really enforces a lot of unhealthy sexual stereotypes and beliefs that lead to a culture of rape. When women say no…. they mean no. They do not mean… continue to coerce me and maybe we’ll have sex. Men should be taught to respect that ‘no’… and not try to turn it into a yes. This myth that women want to be pursued is a nasty and pernicious one. FUTHERMORE, what kind of man who loves his wife would force her or coerce her into having sex with him if she doesn’t want it!!! That’s not love… that’s seeing your wife as an object for your pleasure. To be used. As some sort of masterbation aid (I’m just saying…).

PETER HARVEY: But these rules don’t stop at the bedroom door, no, sir.

SKYE: One of the basics of surrendering is that your husband always takes the lead when it comes to sexual intimacy. And another thing is that the woman always says yes to sex. And sometimes you might not feel like it but then when you start being together and kissing and hugging and just being together and getting that closeness, then, generally, I want to anyway.

PETER HARVEY: Oh, that’s okay then, isn’t it, Frank?

FRANK: Right now when they say, ‘No’, that might be true. But women are very much in the moment and what is true right now might not be true two minutes from now.

SKYE: He knows he will just keep pursuing me, you know? And he knows I’ll give in eventually.

FRANK: Nowadays guys are kind of like — they’ll bump up against a little bit of resistance with their partner and if there’s a little bit of resistance they back off. And that’s not what she wants, she wants me to pursue her to the end of the planet.

All these ‘self-help’ revolutions for women are so troubling, especially when they tell them that the way to have a healthy marriage is to give into your husband all the time. What about what the women want? What about their desires? Apparently, giving in is easier. There is one voice of reason in the interview though… Thanks god!

PRU GOWARD: There is no such thing as an adult who can entirely subvert themselves to another person. That’s called slavery and I think we abolished that several hundred years ago.

PETER HARVEY: Feminist Pru Goward can’t believe some of this stuff. Now a Liberal MP, she was the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She knows it when she sees it.

PRU GOWARD: If you have to lie to your husband and tell him you’re being obedient when you’re actually just running everything, well, you do have a problem. I mean, we live in the modern age and I think men are actually quite grown-up and they do know that this is a partnership.

Yay Pru! Voice of reason! Here’s the problem of being in a society that emphasizes equal partnerships while not entirely enforcing them. The equal partnerships are difficult to have, especially when one member of the partnership has some ingrained idea that they are better than the other member and that their opinion should matter more. I’d personally rather get divorced from a man like that and spend the rest of my life alone (and happy) than stay with someone like that. But then, I like my men in dresses apparently….

PETER HARVEY: But it comes to price. A century of women’s struggle for equality with men has to be set aside the moment you walk in the front door. And, inevitably, some men will seize on that.

FRANK: I think it’s hard for women in general just to stop the talking for a minute and allow their men to be men.

SKYE: I’ve discovered through experience, doing it for three years, that usually if I had done it the way that I was going to do it, it wouldn’t have turned out as great as it did when he made the decision. He wears the trousers, absolutely, without a shadow of the doubt. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I don’t want a man who wears a dress.

So, there we go. I personally like equal partnerships because I would never abnegate my own desires for someone elses but that’s because I don’t consider myself a second class citizen and there are certain compromises I’m not willing to make in order to keep the peace. Until I meet someone who won’t make me make those compromises, I’m very happy alone. Of course, any men who wear dresses feel free to apply.

Apparently, I like my men wearing dresses (or so this article suggests)

Apparently, I like girly men. Well, that’s what this article about the ‘surrendered wife’ seems to suggest. That’s right… the SURRENDERED wife!!! Even the name of the movement points out its perversity and ridiculousness. The whole thing makes me want to vomit really.If one is surrendering… one would assume there had been some ‘war’ going on, no? The war in question is apparently about who wears the ‘pants’ in the household. Apparently, many women have found that their marriages are soooo much happier if they abnegate all their desires and defer to their husband – not only doing everything for him around the house, but agreeing to never refuse his request for sex – no matter how much they might not want it.

PETER HARVEY: Welcome to the world of the surrendered wife — sisters who have come out of the kitchen but now they’re going back in. Here in America’s Midwest, women like Crystal and her two-year-old daughter Catherine, who’s already in training.

CRYSTAL: We talk a lot about Jesse’s, ‘He’s your daddy and you’re supposed to obey your daddy and we want to honour him and we want to respect him’. And just talking about why we are cleaning. We want to have a clean house so that we can honour Daddy because Daddy likes the house to be clean. Put it right there. Do you know why we’re making the fruit pizza? We’re making it for Daddy. We want to please him. We want to do special things for him. Daddy’s the king of our home, isn’t he? You said that you wanted me to do the ironing.

PETER HARVEY: And does Daddy Jesse like being king of the castle? You bet he does.

JESSE: I think obedience is a good quality to have in a wife. An obedient wife does have a quality of being submissive and yielding her rights to the needs of her family and the desires of her husband. Okay. Gotta go.

PETER HARVEY: In their household, 26 year-old attorney Jesse literally lays down the law — written instructions for every moment of Crystal’s day.

CRYSTAL: Jesse, he really likes for me to do things like this. It makes him very happy, because I’m being productive. Because I’m doing it for my husband, it’s not just for myself.

The whole issue about sex as well is very troubling, because the language the couple uses really enforces a lot of unhealthy sexual stereotypes and beliefs that lead to a culture of rape. When women say no…. they mean no. They do not mean… continue to coerce me and maybe we’ll have sex. Men should be taught to respect that ‘no’… and not try to turn it into a yes. This myth that women want to be pursued is a nasty and pernicious one. FUTHERMORE, what kind of man who loves his wife would force her or coerce her into having sex with him if she doesn’t want it!!! That’s not love… that’s seeing your wife as an object for your pleasure. To be used. As some sort of masterbation aid (I’m just saying…).

PETER HARVEY: But these rules don’t stop at the bedroom door, no, sir.

SKYE: One of the basics of surrendering is that your husband always takes the lead when it comes to sexual intimacy. And another thing is that the woman always says yes to sex. And sometimes you might not feel like it but then when you start being together and kissing and hugging and just being together and getting that closeness, then, generally, I want to anyway.

PETER HARVEY: Oh, that’s okay then, isn’t it, Frank?

FRANK: Right now when they say, ‘No’, that might be true. But women are very much in the moment and what is true right now might not be true two minutes from now.

SKYE: He knows he will just keep pursuing me, you know? And he knows I’ll give in eventually.

FRANK: Nowadays guys are kind of like — they’ll bump up against a little bit of resistance with their partner and if there’s a little bit of resistance they back off. And that’s not what she wants, she wants me to pursue her to the end of the planet.

All these ‘self-help’ revolutions for women are so troubling, especially when they tell them that the way to have a healthy marriage is to give into your husband all the time. What about what the women want? What about their desires? Apparently, giving in is easier. There is one voice of reason in the interview though… Thanks god!

PRU GOWARD: There is no such thing as an adult who can entirely subvert themselves to another person. That’s called slavery and I think we abolished that several hundred years ago.

PETER HARVEY: Feminist Pru Goward can’t believe some of this stuff. Now a Liberal MP, she was the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She knows it when she sees it.

PRU GOWARD: If you have to lie to your husband and tell him you’re being obedient when you’re actually just running everything, well, you do have a problem. I mean, we live in the modern age and I think men are actually quite grown-up and they do know that this is a partnership.

Yay Pru! Voice of reason! Here’s the problem of being in a society that emphasizes equal partnerships while not entirely enforcing them. The equal partnerships are difficult to have, especially when one member of the partnership has some ingrained idea that they are better than the other member and that their opinion should matter more. I’d personally rather get divorced from a man like that and spend the rest of my life alone (and happy) than stay with someone like that. But then, I like my men in dresses apparently….

PETER HARVEY: But it comes to price. A century of women’s struggle for equality with men has to be set aside the moment you walk in the front door. And, inevitably, some men will seize on that.

FRANK: I think it’s hard for women in general just to stop the talking for a minute and allow their men to be men.

SKYE: I’ve discovered through experience, doing it for three years, that usually if I had done it the way that I was going to do it, it wouldn’t have turned out as great as it did when he made the decision. He wears the trousers, absolutely, without a shadow of the doubt. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I don’t want a man who wears a dress.

So, there we go. I personally like equal partnerships because I would never abnegate my own desires for someone elses but that’s because I don’t consider myself a second class citizen and there are certain compromises I’m not willing to make in order to keep the peace. Until I meet someone who won’t make me make those compromises, I’m very happy alone. Of course, any men who wear dresses feel free to apply.

Hahahahaha – that is all…

Oh, dear. Okay…. so apparently I’m not feeling serious this morning. But really, I can’t help myself. This article is just too ‘precious’ not to mock. Terri Cummins from the News and Tribute wrote a column the other day entitled “The Male Species is Declining and it’s Unfair’.

So, as you have probably surmised, I have a problem with the kneejerk reaction that some people have (men and women) whenever women advance. Even small advancements in women’s rights are bound to make some people a red in the face. Oh, no! Women are getting ‘power’. How frightening. The thought sends a shiver up my spine. I shall give you dear Terry in his own words:

Women have been pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment. Well, how about a Fairness Amendment for men. Go back to our forefathers, who established our country. What were the foremothers doing while the men were fighting for independence? And we’re still fighting for it. For over 218 years, men have guided our nation. Now it’s Nancy and perhaps Missus President, who won’t rely on male interns to alleviate her stress.

Women out number men in colleges and they’re taking over large corporations and rapidly increasing in professions, business and politics. Wake up, it may appear subtle, but it’s a hostile takeover. But if we lose total control, then maybe it’s just as well we go ahead and die young.

“What were the foremothers doing while the men were fighting for independence?” Did he just say that? Yes Reader, that he did. And women’s advancement is nothing like the hostile takeover that he suggests. From his fear you’d think a bunch of aliens swooped down and tried to take over the world. Women are not that organized, nor that successful. Women might outnumber men in colleges, but studies show they are mostly concentrated in the Humanities departments and often end up with jobs that pay far less than men. And women still have yet to achieve anything close to ‘fair’ representation in corporate or political life. But our dear Mr. Cummins doesn’t want you to think he’s one of those ‘sexist pigs’.

Please, do not think I’m a male chauvinist swine. I fully understand there have been and are inequities. It’s just tough on us seeing the other foot being fitted with a high-heel shoe.

I’m so glad that he acknowledged that there have been inequities! Especially in the diminutive and passing way that he did so. Which he then followed with a sexist remark. But he’s no swine… no sirree. That was… well… someone else squealing earlier. Yes. Indeed.

Hahahahaha – that is all…

Oh, dear. Okay…. so apparently I’m not feeling serious this morning. But really, I can’t help myself. This article is just too ‘precious’ not to mock. Terri Cummins from the News and Tribute wrote a column the other day entitled “The Male Species is Declining and it’s Unfair’.

So, as you have probably surmised, I have a problem with the kneejerk reaction that some people have (men and women) whenever women advance. Even small advancements in women’s rights are bound to make some people a red in the face. Oh, no! Women are getting ‘power’. How frightening. The thought sends a shiver up my spine. I shall give you dear Terry in his own words:

Women have been pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment. Well, how about a Fairness Amendment for men. Go back to our forefathers, who established our country. What were the foremothers doing while the men were fighting for independence? And we’re still fighting for it. For over 218 years, men have guided our nation. Now it’s Nancy and perhaps Missus President, who won’t rely on male interns to alleviate her stress.

Women out number men in colleges and they’re taking over large corporations and rapidly increasing in professions, business and politics. Wake up, it may appear subtle, but it’s a hostile takeover. But if we lose total control, then maybe it’s just as well we go ahead and die young.

“What were the foremothers doing while the men were fighting for independence?” Did he just say that? Yes Reader, that he did. And women’s advancement is nothing like the hostile takeover that he suggests. From his fear you’d think a bunch of aliens swooped down and tried to take over the world. Women are not that organized, nor that successful. Women might outnumber men in colleges, but studies show they are mostly concentrated in the Humanities departments and often end up with jobs that pay far less than men. And women still have yet to achieve anything close to ‘fair’ representation in corporate or political life. But our dear Mr. Cummins doesn’t want you to think he’s one of those ‘sexist pigs’.

Please, do not think I’m a male chauvinist swine. I fully understand there have been and are inequities. It’s just tough on us seeing the other foot being fitted with a high-heel shoe.

I’m so glad that he acknowledged that there have been inequities! Especially in the diminutive and passing way that he did so. Which he then followed with a sexist remark. But he’s no swine… no sirree. That was… well… someone else squealing earlier. Yes. Indeed.

"Deliberately Barren" women not right for politics…

Well, isn’t this lovely. I’ve heard of female politicians being criticized for having children and being involved in politics, and thus not playing their proper ‘Mommy’ role, but now in Australia female politicians are being attacked for chosing NOT to have children. I didn’t know that one’s procreational choices were matters for public debate. Silly me.

Bill Heffernan said Labor Party deputy leader Julia Gillard did not understand the public because she had no children.

He has since apologised for the “inappropriate” comments, first made last year but repeated again this week.

Analysts say the incident will be an embarrassment for his close friend, Prime Minister John Howard.

Mr Howard has made it clear he does not support Mr Heffernan’s comments.
“The question of whether people have children, whether they marry and have children, is entirely a matter for them and I do not think it should be a matter of public comment,” Mr Howard told reporters.

I love how this isn’t the first time he’s made such remarks. I think someone should start criticizing him for being a bad father since he’s away from his children all the time for his political career. Then perhaps he’d understand the pressure female politicians (and women in general) face because they usually have to take on the burden of care for children.