Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetv
Don't ya just love it when so-called liberals are so open-minded and "tolerant" of viewpoints other than their own that they discount everything a woman might want to say, reducing them to nothing more than animals with no interpersonal nor verbal skills, with nothing more to compete/campaign with than cat claws???
Before you accuse me of being totally humorless, I do realize you guys are joking around a bit.
However, we women know how often we women ARE reduced by men in serious discussions to being nothing more than a b*tchy female who should have stayed at home cooking your dinner and folding/putting away your socks.
Honest people admit that, like 'em or not, Palin and Bachmann are smart, hardworking and straight-talking people who have EARNED their positions in politics.
They didn't get where they are because some self-proclaimed kingmaker like Rod Blagodovich said "this thing is f-ing GOLDEN", keeping his grip on it to sell it to the highest bidder in the political machine.
In 2008, the L.A. president of N.O.W. acknowledged Palin's hard work, smarts and savvy WHILE disagreeing with her. She had the maturity to say openly when she introduced Palin, "THIS is what a feminist looks like" while saying respectfully how much in disagreement she is with Palin on issues.
This Australian woman senator spells it out exactly like it is, how women are treated in the old BOYS' club. Chauvinism and childishness rule and ridicule....
But how many WOMEN members of Congress have been caught leading secret lives by spending their days sending nude pictures of themselves to strangers in other states, or using campaign money to hire a "videographer" with whom they had a secret love child?!?!?!??
This is a prime example:
http://media.theage.com.au/news/nati...w-2400087.html |
I'm one of those "so-called liberals" as well as a man, but I completely agree with all but one word in your post. Yours was an excellent reply to some pretty cheesy and chauvinistic claptrap.
The word I have problems with is your Palin adjective "smart". She is all the things you said, as well as incredibly physically attractive, which in itself is a powerful tool to getting elected to anything. (I desperately wish millions would not let glamor determine their vote, but they do, and that's another story.) But Palin is not "smart" in the sense of intellegent, knowlegable and able to make critical decisions based on a firm understanding of past mistakes and emerging trends. She has demonstrated repeatedly that she is far more reliant on her impulses and instincts. She implies that history is either irrelevant or just plain boring. She really believes she is always right when she shoots from the hip. I don't think she is smart enough to be an asset in any high government office and I'm scared to death of the prospect of her sitting next to the red phone.