Replies

You seem confused and totally mixed up on this thread, Mitt Romney for instance isn’t a freeper, he doesn’t post here, no one stalks him.

Hugh Hefner bigger than the radical leftist women’s liberation movement and Margaret Sanger, no, me not remembering the history unfolding before my eyes and in my reading in my life, no.

I have the largest feminist library that I have seen in a home including the many lesbian and feminists homes that I have been in, although it is mostly packed away now. I used to subscribed to MS and my favorite feminist book is S.C.U.M., I unknowingly cured the president of a university NOW chapter, she showed me her hand and told me that she had removed the NOW ring and resigned her presidency because of changes in her thinking, because of me.

I remember a little about the reality and history of the left’s most successful movement and one which is all woman.

You are being silly and anti-female to pretend that women were the victims and bystanders in the results of their own glorious emergence into political equality in the world, and don’t deserve credit for their own accomplishments and decades of hard work.

I think that you must be female yourself, it didn’t take long for the left to figure out how to appeal to women, to learn how to use the female traits to move both parties to the left, today when we vote for a republican, we know that we are voting for democrat lite, because frankly, American politics has been feminized, never to return to normal.

If you had the power to turn all voting over to one sex or the other for a 50 year shakeout period and with all campaigning taking place in closed sites so that the other sex couldn’t hear the language used and the arguments made and the issues that those voters naturally gravitated to and chose to focus on, and hear the proposed solutions to what seem like intractable problems today, to to see if we could get things back on track within 50 years, which sex would you choose to be those voters?

Stalking would be if somebody were going to search and dig up old forgotten posts you'd made, but you've been very visible posting on virtually every Romney/Mormon thread. You and about two or three other people are famous here (well, it's a small world) for your posts about Mitt and his church. So when I find you posting the same thing on current threads about Catholics or women it doesn't take much to make the connection. I didn't have to do any special rummaging or foraging.

Hugh Hefner bigger than the radical leftist women’s liberation movement and Margaret Sanger, no, me not remembering the history unfolding before my eyes and in my reading in my life, no.

All kinds of groups issue manifestos making all sorts of arguments. Those arguments don't take root immediately. There are a few trendy, early adapters, but to really reach critical mass with a larger public, people have to feel the idea or ideology corresponds to their personal experience. Then, once the experience and the ideology become widespread, part of the natural environment of the age, a lot of people come to accept it without much thought. It's getting over that big early hurdle that makes the difference. The wave of divorces about 40 years ago or so -- men leaving their wives and children for the most part, at least at the beginning -- did a lot to convince women that feminism and big government spoke for them.

Surely this isn't a novel or controversial idea. You can find it in many conservative or neoconservative publications, at least when the writers were trying to explain a complicated historical process, rather than simply looking for easy villains to blame changes on. This relationship between ideas and experience is a major reason why simply "putting back the clock" doesn't work (or "putting forward the clock" for that matter). You can't just replace one idea with another if it doesn't jibe with people's experience.

Replace "sex" with "race" and maybe you'll get a better idea of how you sound.