Democrats Working Overtime To Keep Uppity Women In Their Place

Start Thinking Right ^ | August 10, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

Are you a woman who does not understand her place? Do you have your values and your own opinions? Does anyone consider you attractive?

Well, watch out for the Democrat Party. They're out to destroy you.

I watched a documentary on the Soviet-era illegal biological warfare factories. An author who visited one of the plants after it was shut down, after commenting that it was two football fields long and produced enough biological death to wipe out every human being on the planet, said, "I finally thought I understood the meaning of evil."

I understood the meaning of evil as I watched the most unhinged, most vicious, most deranged attack of a human being I had ever seen as liberals targeted Sarah Palin, her family, and her little baby.

Sarah Palin stepped down, having successfully fought off over fifteen trumped-up ethics charge at a cost of about a million bucks to her family. But liberals thank the God they generally despise because they still have another target to unleash their hate on: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

See the Politico story titled, "For Dems, a new public enemy No. 1":

"Ask Minnesota Democratic officials about Michele Bachmann, and they can barely contain their anger."

Judging by the treatment accorded to Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean, and now Michelle Bachmann, the worst thing a woman can be is attractive, strong, and well-spoken.

Liberals hate that. And liberal women hate attractive women who are in control of their own lives and their own values.

Michelle Bachmann is no more "crazy" conservative than a LOT of her male counterparts. But the Democrat Party cannot stand a strong, independent woman.

I'm reminded of that famous ad where the gray-scale crowd of totalitarian-oppressed automatons watch a dictator lecture them on the giant viewscreen, when suddenly a beautiful young woman burst onto the screen - pursued by stormtroopers - and destroys the entire hypocritical fraud that is the regime:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo]

That's what is really going on here. Liberals cannot tolerate an attractive woman who stands up for her own conservative traditional values. Such a woman reveals them for the hateful trolls they are, and so any such woman must the destroyed at all costs no matter what it takes to protect liberalism.

I remember when Sarah Palin was first attacked by the National Organization for Women. And Kirsten Powers, herself very liberal in her politics, said:

"It’s not the National Organization for Women, right? But it’s not. It’s really the National Organization for Liberal Women. It’s not the National Organization for Women, because she’s a woman. And they put out a statement saying, “Not all women speak for women. Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women.” Well, look; this woman, when I look at her – even if I don’t support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about. She’s a mother, she’s successful, her husband helps with the children. You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don’t support her" ...

"I would agree with that if they had any kind of actual moral authority, but they don’t, because they don’t ever support any women who don’t support their very narrow agenda. So they should just rename themselves and say what they’re really for, and stop pretending like they really care about the advancement for women."

Without the false and irrational image of "we represent women," liberals are nothing. And women like Palin, Prejean, and Bachmann prove they are nothing. So the left has to destroy these women lest the automatons take their eyes of the regime's viewscreen and see it for the hollow, ugly scam that it truly is.

[boatbums]

If Clinton had not supported abortion, NOW would not have rushed to his defense, in fact they would have been among the first to call for his head.

I even remember one of the NOW leader back then saying ," I'd give him a BJ too as long as he kept abortion legal."

How's that for being in defense of women? He could rape, manhandle, molest and take advantage of women because of his position - but as long as he kept abortion legal, none of that mattered to NOW. A bunch of hypocritical, femi-natzies who stopped being relevant a LONG time ago!

[marron]

Because this is a NEW tactic that the left began with Sarah Palin.

Remember when they tore Katherine Harris to shreds?

[Michael Eden]

I totally agree.

The 1960s radicals “grew up” and took power in the 1990s. And they have been utterly vile ever since.

Identity politics, the politics of personal destruction, using racism as political weapon, have become standard issue Democrat weaponry.

Having said that, I would point out that they also have a strategy to their “anger.” They’ll opportunistically go after ANYONE who opposes them, true enough. And, being fundamentally amoral, they have absolutely no boundaries in their attacks. And they don’t bother with ideas; they make their attacks personal and try to destroy people. But they also have clear, sustained strategic targets whom they’re deliberately choosing to keep going after day after day, week after week.

One could have made the case that Sarah Palin was a target of opportunity - at least until they just kept going after her, even after the election, and even after she resigned. But why go after Michelle Bachmann now? Why suddenly target her now? And I’m arguing that there’s clearly a sustained movement to attack attractive conservative women that simply needs to have “X” attractive conservative woman to attack.

[reg45]

NOW is for women what KFC is for chickens.

[Michael Eden]

Except it doesn’t eat womens’ bodies, just their souls.

[Apple Blossom]

the worst thing a woman can be is attractive, strong, and well-spoken.

When you have any of the above mentioned qualities, you can't be squeezed into a "victim" category and they don't know what to do with you. You have to be labeled with some affliction that surely came as the result of persecution by men.

[TNdandelion]

I think the author has it wrong. I don't believe that looks have anything to do with the left going after women and other minorities that don't "know their place" and wander off the plantation.

If the woman is attractive, they'll ignore the issues and just mock her for her good looks. If the woman is unattractive, they'll ignore the issues and mock her for her not-so-good looks. Either way, her intelligence and common sense is thrown out the window and the debate becomes about her looks, sex appeal, fashion sense...or lack thereof.

I was told by a fake feminist that I owed it to other women to support abortion and other man-hatin' agendas. I replied that the women in my family in previous generations didn't fight for their rights just so that another woman could tell them what to do, think and how to vote. I have no doubt that Mr. Kenny Gladney was specifically targeted this past week because he is a minority that "stepped out of line." That's how they work. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.

[TNdandelion]

Michael I believe that our society gravitates towards attractive people because of our obssession with Hollywood looks. Carrie Prejean would never have had an opportunity to give her opinion onto the national stage if it wasn't for her looks.

As much as I hate to point this out, attacking unattractive women for their ideas is fairly common...even here. Helen Thomas....Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi...to name a few. I don't keep a Helen Thomas photo on my pc so my fellow Freepers will have to forgive me for not obeying "the rule." I would also say that I don't have a photo of Ann Coulter on my pc, either. I just named my daughter after her! rofl

[Michael Eden]

TNdandelion,

You unintentionally proved my point for me.

I said this was a LIBERAL tactic to specifically target attractive conservative women; NOT a conservative one to target attractive liberal women.

Conservatives attack ideas, because we THINK in terms of ideas. Liberals target particular people because they think in terms of identity politics.

That’s the thing I think those of you who disagree with me are missing. You’re thinking that liberals think like conservatives, only they come to the opposite conclusions. That isn’t the case.

So you try give me some examples of women who are not particularly attractive who have been attacked - and every single one of them is a liberal woman. You weren’t able to cite a single conservative woman who has been the ongoing target of an unrelenting attack.

[TNdandelion]

Micheal, I'm not going to point out out women who have been attacked based on their looks because I think that criteria is very subjective. I love what Michele Bachmann is doing but I personally think she's average looking. I don't think she's ugly or "hot." Sorta like with Ann Coulter. I love Ann, but the poor woman needs a sandwich, a haircut and to take a few breaths when she speaks--if you must really know what I personally think about the way those women "look." lol

The issue I have taken with this is that you seem to think that attractive women are attacked by liberals more than unattractive women. That isn't the case. Liberals are more than willing to attack a woman based on their looks whether they want to call her a slutty flight attendant or fat slob, b*tch, etc but their real issue is that the woman (or other minority member) dared to step out of line and speak for herself.

If you think that those of us who are not as attractive as Sarah Palin get a free pass from liberals when we express our ideas, you are sorely mistaken. Put yourself in my size 16 jeans (rofl) and let us know how well you get treated when you speak your conservative mind.

As I said, liberals will attack a woman's looks because it's an easy, cheap shot designed to reduce her to an "object" status and deflect the real issue she is speaking about. Just like when Mr. Gladney was called a racial slur rather than debated for his personal views.

[TNdandelion]

Wait! I just saw a TV commercial and I have the PERFECT candidate for your request. I wasn't going to do this but this one is just too perfect not to pass up! rofl

Now...I personally have no problems with this conservative woman and I don't think she's necessarily unattractive but she's certainly not "hot" or hip. I don't think I recall anyone ever talking about how beautiful she is with regards to her looks but many people, especially women, seem to hate her.

Michelle Duggar. I don't understand why people hate her. If she is able to raise and support 18+ kids...more power to her. But...she's religiously conservative and profile and many liberal women hate her. You've heard the saying..."It's a vagina..not a clown car!" Pretty vicious.

[Michael Eden]

You're right. She's a dog.

I'm sorry. In the realm of Republican politicians, she's a hottie.

I'm not going to keep screwing around with this because it just isn't worth it. You may feel free to post all the currently Republican politicians who are more attractive than Michelle Bachmann.

I cited THREE Republican women who are under sustained attack. Read the Politico article on Bachmann. She's JUST coming under fire as Sarah Palin leaves the daily stage.

I simply haven't ever seen in my life the unrelentingly vicious attacks on Sarah Palin. And then Carrie Prejean came along, and the same thing. And during this period, I haven't seen a single conservative of ANY gender attacked like those two. Day after day. Week after week.

Even after both stepped down.

I asked someone else to give me a similar example of a NON-attractive woman. No one did. Someone gave an example of Democrat women. You give me the example of some woman I've never even heard of (I googled her, and never saw her before in my life). Must have been a pretty unrelenting attack, indeed.

You say it's "subjective." But again, that's part of my point: Democrats LOVE to go after the subjective and avoid the concrete.

On my view, there's a clear agenda to attack attractive conservative women to undermine the fact that conservativism has something to offer. Women might look at a Sarah Palin, or a Carrie Prejean, and say, "There's a nice, attractive, well-spoken girl. She'd make a good role model for women." And liberals are determined not to let that happen, no matter how unglued they have to get to do it.

You don't think that's true, you don't think there's any validity to that, fine.

[TNdandelion]

I never said she was a dog, Michael. Putting those words in my mouth is pretty lame.

Maybe the problem here is I'm just a conservative woman actually dealing with these liberal attitudes personally and you are...a guy who thinks he knows what it's like for conservative women. rofl Anytime you wanna try it out, sweetheart....bring it!

As for Michelle Duggar....you've never heard of her? She's a prolife, religiously conservative, homeschooling wife of a Republican Arkansas congressman with a fairly long running reality show based on their family life. I'm not a fan of most reality shows but this family is hardly obscure.

You know exactly what I mean about looks being subjective. Some people like blondes, some like brunettes. Others prefer redheads. My congress woman is Marsha Blackburn. Is she a "hottie?" Or is she too old to be lumped in with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? lol See how silly this whole issue is?

The bottom line here is it's just as hard for less attractive conservative women as it is for the attractive ones. Although...on my next bad PMS day...maybe I'll ask my husband to call me a "slutty flight attendant" just to cheer me up! :D

[Michael Eden]

I would submit that the fact that I’m a guy means I’m capable of objectively watching what is happening rather than interjecting myself or my gender issues into something that is clearly much larger than me.

I’ve heard the notion that, being a guy, I can’t understand anything having to do with women’s issues from pro-abortion feminists. I say to them what I now say to you: arguments and ideas don’t have genitalia. If what I’m saying is true, it is true irregardless of whether “I am ... a guy” or not.

I have never watched a “reality show,” and hope that I never will. I had no idea who Michelle Duggar is - and would submit to you that she isn’t even in the same universe in terms of getting unrelenting hate and attack the way Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean did, and that Michelle Bachmann will start to get.

Now, after all my naysaying to you, I have to admit you score a significant point on Marsha Blackburn. She is another attractive lady (and absolutely DROP DEAD GORGEOUS by Congress’ standards). And she is an intelligent conservative - at least on my view.

I suppose if I’m right, they’re figure out some way to go after her, and then tear into her like pit bulls on raw meat.

[TNdandelion]

I believe that everyone has the opportunity to be objective on any topic. I would like to think that genitalia has nothing to do with the ability to understand and make an effective argument, however when you make the argument that attractive conservative women are at greater risk of political attack based on only two or three examples, I'm left wondering if YOUR genitalia is composing the argument rather than your brain.

History is full of women who have been viciously attacked for their conservative ideas and your main concern is for the hottie conservative babes? I have to give the liberals more credit than you. They hate all of us with an intense passion. Fortunately for us, we have some very brave women (like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, most recently) who are willing to put themselves out there and face the opposition head on. That is what makes them a target, not their looks. Attacking their looks (whether beautiful or homely) is simply the weapon.

[Michael Eden]

I'm left wondering if YOUR genitalia is composing the argument rather than your brain.

I have to give the liberals more credit than you.

Boy, you sure raced to the lowest road you could take.

I mean, geez, I might be wrong. But to be reduced to status lower than liberalism is just kind of insane. I could start working for abortion and even infanticide (like Barack Obama with his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act), demonize our troops as an antiwar protester, work for the militant homosexual lifestyle, push for Card Check and for the Fairness Doctrine and for government health care, and STILL get more "credit" from you.

Looking at your over-the-top missive (didn't I give you a major point for bringing up Marsha Blackburn?) I'm reminded of the depiction that Ann Coulter ascribed to certain women following Lawrence Summers last lecture at Harvard (in which he cited science that suggested that men and women might have different innate abilities in math and science) that got him fired:

"Some of the women paired off and went to the ladies' room to discuss possible responses. Others went on eating binges. Most chose to just sit there sobbing. A quick show of hands revealed that every woman in attendance needed a hug.

The Best in Show award went to MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, who told the Washington Post, "I felt I was going to be sick." She continued, "My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow" (page 183, Godless).

It seems to me that Ann Coulter would be asking you if you needed a hug or a carton of Twinkies. And I don't think she would be particularly proud of you for your embrace of your "You're a chauvinist pig!" argument.

Having two or three examples of something - especially given the fact that these three women have been unrelentingly publicly attacked as NO ONE ELSE HAS BAR NONE over the past six months - is more than adequate reason to suggest a connection. If three soldiers had been shot over the last six months, it would be fair to suggest that maybe there was a deliberate attempt to target soldiers. I simply had no idea that, "as ... a guy," I had no more right to suggest that there might be a relationship than Lawrence Summers had.

I'll give you the last word, because I have a feeling I would otherwise be getting into an argument that there would otherwise be absolutely no end to.

[TNdandelion]

Micheal, Twice you have compared me to those in liberal feminists groups and I haven't flinched. I shot back that at least liberals are concerned and hate all conservative women and this hurts your feelings? It's probably a good thing you don't have to give birth cuz THAT really hurts. lol And I have to disagree about the chauvinist pig remark. I don't hate all men. I just don't like stupid arguments and yours, which keeps changing I might add, fits that description.

Now...you are saying that because there have been 2-3 women in the "last 6 months" who have been viciously attacked by liberals...there is evidence that liberals hate attractive conservative women. Putting that "last 6 months" disclaimer saves you the task of doing any research to support your hypothesis but it still doesn't prove it.

I appreciate your machisimo and outrage that liberals hate our womenfolk....I'm just sorry that it's taken you this long to figure it out.

I don't really care if you give me the last word or if you want it. This has been an interesting discussion. Just please don't end it with..."I have good friends who are women." That would probably take the cake. :D

[Michael Eden]

I’m coming back to leave a comment here because tonight - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - Bill O’Reilly had Michelle Bachmann on and made EXACTLY the same point I made in this article.

He pointed out he couldn’t understand why so much vitriol at Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and provided his view: namely, that they are attractive women who could - as attractive conservative women - serve as role models and attract other women to the conservative cause. And therefore they must be destroyed.

Now, as to what you said in your last comment, TNdandelion, I think if someone reads our exchange, they will see that you immediately pursued a sexist line of reasoning against me - and I rightly pointed out that that is EXACTLY what liberal feminists have done for years. When you claimed I’m a man and therefore can’t understand, I pointed out that that is EXACTLY what liberal feminists say about issues like abortion.

Your line about my “machismo” and “I don’t have to give birth” and your attacking the straw man of hoping I don’t say, “I have good friends who are women” were just more of the same. A liberal feminist attacking me over being a man supporting abortion would have used the same attacks you did. That’s just a fact. And if you didn’t like me comparing you to liberal feminist groups, I would submit that you STOP ACTING LIKE THEM.

Believe it or not, TNdandelion, I could have been a woman and made the same point. My gender had nothing whatsoever to do with whether I was right or wrong.

In any event, I just thought I would point out that Bill O’Reilly just advanced the identical view I presented here tonight.

[TNdandelion]

Michael...I'm flattered that this continues to gnaw at you. I am NOT a Bill O'Reilly fan and find him to be an incredible flake. I would have said something harsher and more crude about him but I'm in a generous mood tonight.

Neither of us can stand liberal feminists but I'm concerned that you are mistaking issues that are important to women as being entirely liberal. That isn't the case. I consider myself a conservative feminist. I would imagine that Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin do, as well. Your fixation (as well as Bill O'Reilly's) on a conservative woman's attractiveness being a major issue is shallow.

Liberals aren't attacking Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann because they are pretty. They are attacking Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann because of their beliefs and their ideals and like any true liberal, rather than dealing with the issues that they disagree with, they find something else to attack them on whether it's their good looks, the poor looks, their religion, number of children, occupation (just a PTA mom, etc) and pretty much anything personal they can dig up or use against them.

If Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin were hunchbacks with warts on their faces speaking out the same way that they are now...do you really believe that the liberals wouldn't be going after them? If they were average looking women speaking out the same way and taking the national stage, do you not believe that the liberals would be attacking them viciously?

If you believe that they are being attacked because of their good looks...you need to pay more attention to the political discourse. I fear you don't don't understand liberals all that well...especially liberal feminists.

[Michael Eden]

TNdandelion,

I don’t really give a damn what you think of O’Reilly. All I pointed out was the fact that the man with the largest cable news program had just brought a point I made into the mainstream.

You truly do like creating your straw men.

I have NEVER tried to say that Palin and Bachmann “are being attacked because of their good looks.” And if you ever thought that was the gist of my argument, you’re just not very smart. Rather, I was saying - as O’Reilly said it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w0mDuY-y9Y&feature=player_embedded#at=125

- that these conservative women have been singled out because their attractiveness PLUS their conservativism potentially create role model status. And that they have a reach and appeal as “attractive” people that they otherwise would not have had.

If Sarah Palin was identical to “Sarah Palin” in EVERY WAY except she looked like Helen Thomas -
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/helen.jpg
- I don’t think she’d be getting all this attention. You think she would.

Since you are clearly so incredibly dense to it, I’ll explain my point re: feminist sexism yet again. You criticized me with an argument based on gender/sexism: i.e. that being a male, I couldn’t understand, and had no right to express an opinion about conservative women. I’ve heard that same attack many times before - and ALWAYS from liberal feminists, in arguments. As one example, over abortion: Since I can’t have a baby, I had no right to talk about aborting my baby. As another, over rape: Since I am a male, I can’t understand rape from a female’s perspective, and therefore had no right to an opinion. That’s exactly what you did to me here.

You’ve employed a tried-and-true liberal feminist tactic, whether you happen to like liberal feminists or not. And it’s an invalid tactic.

If you don’t like liberal feminists, stop acting like them. Arguments don’t have genitalia. I may be right or I may be wrong, but my point about Bachmann/Palin has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fact that I have an outie rather than an innie. For example, had I been the proverbial man named Sue, you wouldn’t have been able to say ANYTHING about my gender, would you?

I frankly don’t understand why you are so intensely resistant to the idea that “attractive people” are often given more access by the media, and therefore have a built-in advantage in becoming “role models.”

And please don’t be “flattered” on my account. I have a feeling you’re an unattractive woman who is reacting because I made attractiveness an issue. Just like it is most often the “weight challenged” who become unglued when someone starts bringing up the advantages of being thin.