Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2021
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Muslim husband owns feminist wife
Liberals are quick to attack conservatives for violence and misogyny—but continue to give Islam a free pass.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Damned if we do damned if we don't
“I know this move!”
That’s what Sarah Mimms, a deputy editor at BuzzFeed News, thought this week when she read about an agreement between Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen Pence.
Mike Pence won’t eat alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, and he doesn’t attend events with alcohol unless Karen is present as well. Or at least he didn’t back in 2002, when he was a Congress member from Indiana. This detail about the Pences’ marriage was included in a Washington Post profile about Karen Pence.
The vice president’s office has not confirmed whether the Pences still have this agreement. We also don’t know whether it applies to Mike Pence’s women staffers, or just to social relationships outside of work.
Still, Mimms is familiar with members of Congress who follow similar rules restricting their contact with women: She reported on the phenomenon in 2015 when she worked for National Journal. She found that among a small group of congressional offices, women staffers were not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their bosses. For these young women, the rules could be a serious career hindrance.
I spoke to Mimms about her story to gain an understanding of why some congressmen would enact such a policy and how that could impact the careers of young female staffers. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Karen Turner
What did you learn when reporting out the story?
Sarah Mimms
We were doing a “women in Washington” feature at National Journal. We sent out anonymous surveys to women who worked on Capitol Hill. There was one question in the survey that was, “Has your gender ever gotten in the way if your work on the Hill?” And there were, I believe, two or three women who said point blank: I’m not allowed to spend any one-on-one time with my congressman boss because of how it will look, or for whatever reason.
So I started to report out the story. I talked to some female staffers who worked in offices where they weren’t allowed to drive around with their boss around or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served.
I talked to some staffers who worked in offices where women weren't allowed to drive around with their boss or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served. I also talked to male staffers who felt that they benefited from this policy because they were able to spend more time with their boss at evening events when a more senior staffer, who was female, was barred from attending.
Based on my reporting, it doesn’t seem like this is a very large problem on Capitol Hill. I didn’t find that a majority of offices do this. But there are certainly some. And for the women in those offices, this is a huge problem in being able to advance in their careers. What generally happens is that they hit a certain level and they realize they’re not gonna get past it. They move either to a new office or off the Hill entirely.
Karen Turner
Why does this happen? What was the cause?
Sarah Mimms
Between talking to some members who had informal policies like this and staffers who were in these kinds of offices, it seemed like this wasn’t about feeling like female staffers are lascivious or anything like that. They’re not concerned about what is actually going to happen. The concern is about giving people a reason to start rumors in a town that loves to start rumors about politicians and sex.
In some cases, it seems like it’s the wives that are uncomfortable with it. I heard that from a number of people. A lot of these guys, particularly in the House, they are from these more rural, small-town-based districts where the idea of walking around with an attractive woman under the age of, say, 30 at night, and being seen constantly with a young woman next to you could be a problem. So it’s really about trying to stop rumors before they start.
What’s interesting is when I talked to members who have this policy or who have similar, more informal policies in their offices, like not letting a female staffer drive them around, I felt that the idea that this could be preventing these female staffers from advancing in their careers honestly had not occurred to them.
When I was reporting out that story, I talked to congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Tim Huelskamp. Chaffetz, he won’t allow staffers to stay very late or show up very early, and Huelskamp said he likes to make sure that he’s surrounded by several people so that he can’t wind up being alone with any one staffer. Both [Chaffetz] and ... Huelskamp, who is actually not in Congress anymore, but who was at the time, were saying it’s really more preventing a certain perception. And I completely understand that. That makes sense to me.
But here’s what other women who have been in different offices are saying. They’re saying, I can’t become chief of staff if I can’t spend one-on-one time with my boss. They were saying, I can’t advance my career if I can’t spend this time with them. Men are being allowed to go to these events at night where, quite frankly, a lot of policy talk happens, and I can’t be there.
I got the sense that this just didn’t occur to congressmen who had this rule. It wasn’t something they had thought of. Again, this is not something that affects a large number of offices. But it still seems to be happening. It doesn’t seem to have changed. And I think the reason for that is that members of Congress have to get reelected. Everything in their lives is about perception. And it’s just such a big deal to them that that’s kind of taken precedence.
Karen Turner
Can you elaborate a little more on why this can be damaging to female staffers and their careers?
Sarah Mimms
Moving up in a congressional office is really about forming a close relationship with that member. It’s really like in any work environment. You get closer to a boss by being able to anticipate their needs, by understanding them on a policy level, by being able to write in their voice. And you can’t get that with limited access.
In some of these cases, I heard about how female staffers couldn’t sit with their boss in his office with the door closed. How are you supposed to have a conversation with your boss about raises, about moving forward in your career, about things you could be doing better, or issues with another office, how are you supposed to be having those conversations when the door is open? You really can’t.
A lot of women were saying to me, I had to leave my job, or I’m going to have to leave my job because I just don't see any other way for me to advance. And they’re saying, I care about my career and that’s why I came to Congress and Capitol Hill, because I wanted to work here and I want to do it at a high level and do it very well. But how can I move forward when men are able to have these interactions and I’m not?
Karen Turner
Is this practice discriminatory?
Sarah Mimms
I talked to a discrimination lawyer here in DC and Congress’s Office of Compliance. The lawyer, her name is Debra S. Katz, she said this was pretty cut-and-dried. If this was happening in the private sector, it would be discriminatory. These women would have grounds to sue. It would be a really, really major problem. The question is how does that apply to Congress and does it apply to Congress?
She’s been doing this for a while and reached out to a few other colleagues for me and passed on their responses as well. Their overall consensus was they had never seen this. Not in modern times. This is not something they had cases about, and they had not heard about this from clients. This was just not a thing outside of Congress.
And I think again that some of that is the nature of Congress. It’s very image-focused, it’s all about crafting an image around yourself, avoiding scandal, and it’s kind of the nature of Washington and Washington reporters. We love this kind of scandal. But also, it’s pretty old-fashioned up on the Hill in general. So it’s almost — I don’t want to say it’s not surprising, but if I knew that it was happening somewhere, it seems like Congress would be that place.
Karen Turner
Do you feel like the Mike Pence controversy fits into this practice?
Sarah Mimms
I was reading about the Mike Pence controversy the other day and immediately thought, “I know this move!” But for one thing, we do not know if this applies to meetings with staff. This is something that he said 15 years ago about having dinner with women or going to events where there’s alcohol with women without his wife present. So I don’t know if it applies to him having meetings with staff or anything like that, which was true in Congress. So just that caveat.
But with the Pence thing, this seems to be similar to the Billy Graham rule ... modeled after the famous evangelist. His rule was that you should not spend any time with a woman who is not your wife one-on-one as a married man. The rule says there’s no reason to do it, it’s better for the marriage, and you should avoid temptation and scandal.
Now, I didn’t see any particular correlation between this [female staffer exclusion] happening with very religious or evangelical members, although there were certainly some who fit that. But I do wonder how prevalent this really is outside of Congress and within the Christian community in general.
Karen Turner
Are there any women who don’t mind the policy?
Sarah Mimms
One former Capitol Hill staffer who I talked to was a young woman working for a House Republican, and he had a similar policy, not letting women drive him around and things like that. She was not bothered by this policy. She told me she appreciated that he was showing her that kind of respect. For her, it was more a sign of respect. Which I thought was really fascinating.
But that was a minority opinion of the women that I talked to. Now, it’s very possible that it was a self-selecting group of people who weren’t bothered by it who didn’t talk to me for the article. In particular, in light of this Pence thing, I have had a lot of people tweet at me about the topic, saying this is relationship goals, this is the way men should be — only wanting to spend time with their wives. So I think there’s a very interesting debate here.
But again, one of the reasons I wrote the piece and one of the things I talked to a lot of these members about was that I think what’s sort of flying under the radar here is just how much this can affect a very young woman’s career, particularly the career of a woman who wants to go into public service. And I think that’s the important part here.
Correction: This article has been edited to include that some male staffers felt that they benefitted from being able to attend events in place of a more senior female staffer barred from going.
Source
First of all I don't blame these guys. No one wants to be falsely accused. It almost cost Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court Judgeship. If these guys are Republicans that are doubly screwed because they already have a target on their back by a media ready to destroy them. It seems these feminists have trouble connecting the dots or they do connect them and they don't like what they see so they play the ignorance card. If he is alone with a female staffer and she gets mad at him or just PMSes out she can accuse him of sexual impropriety,guilty or not and the press will eat it up. If you women have a problem with this take it up with your fellow sisters. You know the ones who make false accusations and get away with it. If he isn't alone with her she cries discrimination. If you women have a problem connecting these dots you are in bigger trouble than I thought.
That’s what Sarah Mimms, a deputy editor at BuzzFeed News, thought this week when she read about an agreement between Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen Pence.
Mike Pence won’t eat alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, and he doesn’t attend events with alcohol unless Karen is present as well. Or at least he didn’t back in 2002, when he was a Congress member from Indiana. This detail about the Pences’ marriage was included in a Washington Post profile about Karen Pence.
The vice president’s office has not confirmed whether the Pences still have this agreement. We also don’t know whether it applies to Mike Pence’s women staffers, or just to social relationships outside of work.
Still, Mimms is familiar with members of Congress who follow similar rules restricting their contact with women: She reported on the phenomenon in 2015 when she worked for National Journal. She found that among a small group of congressional offices, women staffers were not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their bosses. For these young women, the rules could be a serious career hindrance.
I spoke to Mimms about her story to gain an understanding of why some congressmen would enact such a policy and how that could impact the careers of young female staffers. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Karen Turner
What did you learn when reporting out the story?
Sarah Mimms
We were doing a “women in Washington” feature at National Journal. We sent out anonymous surveys to women who worked on Capitol Hill. There was one question in the survey that was, “Has your gender ever gotten in the way if your work on the Hill?” And there were, I believe, two or three women who said point blank: I’m not allowed to spend any one-on-one time with my congressman boss because of how it will look, or for whatever reason.
So I started to report out the story. I talked to some female staffers who worked in offices where they weren’t allowed to drive around with their boss around or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served.
I talked to some staffers who worked in offices where women weren't allowed to drive around with their boss or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served. I also talked to male staffers who felt that they benefited from this policy because they were able to spend more time with their boss at evening events when a more senior staffer, who was female, was barred from attending.
Based on my reporting, it doesn’t seem like this is a very large problem on Capitol Hill. I didn’t find that a majority of offices do this. But there are certainly some. And for the women in those offices, this is a huge problem in being able to advance in their careers. What generally happens is that they hit a certain level and they realize they’re not gonna get past it. They move either to a new office or off the Hill entirely.
Karen Turner
Why does this happen? What was the cause?
Sarah Mimms
Between talking to some members who had informal policies like this and staffers who were in these kinds of offices, it seemed like this wasn’t about feeling like female staffers are lascivious or anything like that. They’re not concerned about what is actually going to happen. The concern is about giving people a reason to start rumors in a town that loves to start rumors about politicians and sex.
In some cases, it seems like it’s the wives that are uncomfortable with it. I heard that from a number of people. A lot of these guys, particularly in the House, they are from these more rural, small-town-based districts where the idea of walking around with an attractive woman under the age of, say, 30 at night, and being seen constantly with a young woman next to you could be a problem. So it’s really about trying to stop rumors before they start.
What’s interesting is when I talked to members who have this policy or who have similar, more informal policies in their offices, like not letting a female staffer drive them around, I felt that the idea that this could be preventing these female staffers from advancing in their careers honestly had not occurred to them.
When I was reporting out that story, I talked to congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Tim Huelskamp. Chaffetz, he won’t allow staffers to stay very late or show up very early, and Huelskamp said he likes to make sure that he’s surrounded by several people so that he can’t wind up being alone with any one staffer. Both [Chaffetz] and ... Huelskamp, who is actually not in Congress anymore, but who was at the time, were saying it’s really more preventing a certain perception. And I completely understand that. That makes sense to me.
But here’s what other women who have been in different offices are saying. They’re saying, I can’t become chief of staff if I can’t spend one-on-one time with my boss. They were saying, I can’t advance my career if I can’t spend this time with them. Men are being allowed to go to these events at night where, quite frankly, a lot of policy talk happens, and I can’t be there.
I got the sense that this just didn’t occur to congressmen who had this rule. It wasn’t something they had thought of. Again, this is not something that affects a large number of offices. But it still seems to be happening. It doesn’t seem to have changed. And I think the reason for that is that members of Congress have to get reelected. Everything in their lives is about perception. And it’s just such a big deal to them that that’s kind of taken precedence.
Karen Turner
Can you elaborate a little more on why this can be damaging to female staffers and their careers?
Sarah Mimms
Moving up in a congressional office is really about forming a close relationship with that member. It’s really like in any work environment. You get closer to a boss by being able to anticipate their needs, by understanding them on a policy level, by being able to write in their voice. And you can’t get that with limited access.
In some of these cases, I heard about how female staffers couldn’t sit with their boss in his office with the door closed. How are you supposed to have a conversation with your boss about raises, about moving forward in your career, about things you could be doing better, or issues with another office, how are you supposed to be having those conversations when the door is open? You really can’t.
A lot of women were saying to me, I had to leave my job, or I’m going to have to leave my job because I just don't see any other way for me to advance. And they’re saying, I care about my career and that’s why I came to Congress and Capitol Hill, because I wanted to work here and I want to do it at a high level and do it very well. But how can I move forward when men are able to have these interactions and I’m not?
Karen Turner
Is this practice discriminatory?
Sarah Mimms
I talked to a discrimination lawyer here in DC and Congress’s Office of Compliance. The lawyer, her name is Debra S. Katz, she said this was pretty cut-and-dried. If this was happening in the private sector, it would be discriminatory. These women would have grounds to sue. It would be a really, really major problem. The question is how does that apply to Congress and does it apply to Congress?
She’s been doing this for a while and reached out to a few other colleagues for me and passed on their responses as well. Their overall consensus was they had never seen this. Not in modern times. This is not something they had cases about, and they had not heard about this from clients. This was just not a thing outside of Congress.
And I think again that some of that is the nature of Congress. It’s very image-focused, it’s all about crafting an image around yourself, avoiding scandal, and it’s kind of the nature of Washington and Washington reporters. We love this kind of scandal. But also, it’s pretty old-fashioned up on the Hill in general. So it’s almost — I don’t want to say it’s not surprising, but if I knew that it was happening somewhere, it seems like Congress would be that place.
Karen Turner
Do you feel like the Mike Pence controversy fits into this practice?
Sarah Mimms
I was reading about the Mike Pence controversy the other day and immediately thought, “I know this move!” But for one thing, we do not know if this applies to meetings with staff. This is something that he said 15 years ago about having dinner with women or going to events where there’s alcohol with women without his wife present. So I don’t know if it applies to him having meetings with staff or anything like that, which was true in Congress. So just that caveat.
But with the Pence thing, this seems to be similar to the Billy Graham rule ... modeled after the famous evangelist. His rule was that you should not spend any time with a woman who is not your wife one-on-one as a married man. The rule says there’s no reason to do it, it’s better for the marriage, and you should avoid temptation and scandal.
Now, I didn’t see any particular correlation between this [female staffer exclusion] happening with very religious or evangelical members, although there were certainly some who fit that. But I do wonder how prevalent this really is outside of Congress and within the Christian community in general.
Karen Turner
Are there any women who don’t mind the policy?
Sarah Mimms
One former Capitol Hill staffer who I talked to was a young woman working for a House Republican, and he had a similar policy, not letting women drive him around and things like that. She was not bothered by this policy. She told me she appreciated that he was showing her that kind of respect. For her, it was more a sign of respect. Which I thought was really fascinating.
But that was a minority opinion of the women that I talked to. Now, it’s very possible that it was a self-selecting group of people who weren’t bothered by it who didn’t talk to me for the article. In particular, in light of this Pence thing, I have had a lot of people tweet at me about the topic, saying this is relationship goals, this is the way men should be — only wanting to spend time with their wives. So I think there’s a very interesting debate here.
But again, one of the reasons I wrote the piece and one of the things I talked to a lot of these members about was that I think what’s sort of flying under the radar here is just how much this can affect a very young woman’s career, particularly the career of a woman who wants to go into public service. And I think that’s the important part here.
Correction: This article has been edited to include that some male staffers felt that they benefitted from being able to attend events in place of a more senior female staffer barred from going.
Source
First of all I don't blame these guys. No one wants to be falsely accused. It almost cost Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court Judgeship. If these guys are Republicans that are doubly screwed because they already have a target on their back by a media ready to destroy them. It seems these feminists have trouble connecting the dots or they do connect them and they don't like what they see so they play the ignorance card. If he is alone with a female staffer and she gets mad at him or just PMSes out she can accuse him of sexual impropriety,guilty or not and the press will eat it up. If you women have a problem with this take it up with your fellow sisters. You know the ones who make false accusations and get away with it. If he isn't alone with her she cries discrimination. If you women have a problem connecting these dots you are in bigger trouble than I thought.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Keystone cops search for anti-feminist man posting fliers
WASHINGTON - Anti-feminism posters were plastered across campus of American University and university police are investigating the vandalism as a hate crime.
Pictures of the fliers posted on campus were tweeted out and posted on Facebook. One of the fliers posted had an image of a man in a suit and it had a message using an expletive in telling women to “stop talking” and “make me a sandwich.”
Images of person of interest believed to be responsible for posting anti-feminism fliers across campus at American University. Police searching for person who posted anti-feminism fliers at American University
The university called the fliers misogynistic, disrespectful and divisive and they were immediately removed because all fliers and posters must be approved, sponsored and placed in designated areas.
The American University Police Department is asking anyone who recognizes this person of interest to call them at 202-885-3636.
Source
This is a very horrible thing. Fortunately one of our armtwisters uh er representatives is meeting with school officials who are taking this very seriously:
But seriously this is a man after my own heart. There was a time over 20 years ago I was doing the same thing. Posting where they would get maximum exposure and posting them when my getting caught was at a minimum. I hope this guy is never caught and if he is I hope he skates. We need more courageous souls like him.
Pictures of the fliers posted on campus were tweeted out and posted on Facebook. One of the fliers posted had an image of a man in a suit and it had a message using an expletive in telling women to “stop talking” and “make me a sandwich.”
Images of person of interest believed to be responsible for posting anti-feminism fliers across campus at American University. Police searching for person who posted anti-feminism fliers at American University
The university called the fliers misogynistic, disrespectful and divisive and they were immediately removed because all fliers and posters must be approved, sponsored and placed in designated areas.
The American University Police Department is asking anyone who recognizes this person of interest to call them at 202-885-3636.
Source
This is a very horrible thing. Fortunately one of our armtwisters uh er representatives is meeting with school officials who are taking this very seriously:
But seriously this is a man after my own heart. There was a time over 20 years ago I was doing the same thing. Posting where they would get maximum exposure and posting them when my getting caught was at a minimum. I hope this guy is never caught and if he is I hope he skates. We need more courageous souls like him.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
It's cool to be a misogynist
Friday, November 11, 2016
Female Clinton Supporters Are Left Feeling Gutted
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It was visceral. Women felt gutted, shocked, appalled, afraid. The prospect of celebrating the election of the nation’s first female president had been crushed by Donald J. Trump.
In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.
Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”
Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.
The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.
Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.
And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.
“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”
She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”
Yeah,basically. You are way off.
In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.
“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.
We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.
“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”
Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.
“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.
Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.
“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”
Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.
Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.
“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.
Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.
How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.
“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.
“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”
Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?
Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.
Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.
“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.
“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”
You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.
That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.
Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?
Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.
“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.
“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.
Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.
Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.
“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.
“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.
There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.
And one more thing.
“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”
Source
My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.
In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.
Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”
Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.
The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.
Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.
And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.
“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”
She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”
Yeah,basically. You are way off.
In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.
“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.
We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.
“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”
Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.
“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.
Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.
“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”
Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.
Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.
“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.
Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.
How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.
“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.
“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”
Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?
Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.
Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.
“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.
“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”
You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.
That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.
Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?
Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.
“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.
“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.
Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.
Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.
“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.
“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.
There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.
And one more thing.
“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”
Source
My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Misogynist 2
They say that since I am a misogynist that I am oppressive and not understanding of women. That is not true. Most of the misogynists are women themselves. They hate each other. I am not oppressing these women nor am I misunderstanding them. They don't like each other. I've heard MRA's praise masculinity and feminists preach these supposed virtues of women and it turns out the MRA's were sincere. I look at it this way: it's straight from the horse's mouth. If they don't like each other because of their twisted way of seeing things why should I trust them? Why should any man? Like I said I can look positively at my masculinity. I know we are a good gender. I can say that and mean it. Women OTOH are not quite so sincere. But this is what happens. Your jerk girlfriend is no better than the jerk boyfriend (according to her) she complains about. If the I were to sit down with this supposed "jerk boyfriend" I would find that he is actually a cool guy in a bad situation. Jerk girlfriend OTOH lives up to her name. I not saying this is true 100% of the time and there are true male jerks but for the long run they don't last.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Time to say goodbye to a voice for men
ShlomoShunn • 4 days ago
Howzabout WOMEN learning to be more respectful of men...and not be so slutty, manipulative, passive, blame-mongering, childish, irresponsible, etc....hmmmm?
Frodo Mod ShlomoShunn • 4 days ago
Comment is bordering on misogyny sir.
Do not do it again.
I suggest you read the new TOS
Source
One would think this was posted on the NOW website or any other feminist website. It is not. The source is the A Voice For Men website. What has happened to this site? For one thing they let women and fags become moderators thus putting them in control of what real men can post. It has been demonstrated over and over again that women in the men's movement is a bad idea,even worse to put wannabe women in charge. If you are an MRA (by that I mean male MRA dedicated activist) then desert A Voice For Men and and instead work with us at the Men's Right's Blog. Here there are no female nor gay moderators and they're never going to female or gay moderators here. This is a dedicated men's rights site. No fags nor female cowshit here. Join us.
Howzabout WOMEN learning to be more respectful of men...and not be so slutty, manipulative, passive, blame-mongering, childish, irresponsible, etc....hmmmm?
Frodo Mod ShlomoShunn • 4 days ago
Comment is bordering on misogyny sir.
Do not do it again.
I suggest you read the new TOS
Source
One would think this was posted on the NOW website or any other feminist website. It is not. The source is the A Voice For Men website. What has happened to this site? For one thing they let women and fags become moderators thus putting them in control of what real men can post. It has been demonstrated over and over again that women in the men's movement is a bad idea,even worse to put wannabe women in charge. If you are an MRA (by that I mean male MRA dedicated activist) then desert A Voice For Men and and instead work with us at the Men's Right's Blog. Here there are no female nor gay moderators and they're never going to female or gay moderators here. This is a dedicated men's rights site. No fags nor female cowshit here. Join us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)