DKW 86 7,410 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Michell..._gloria_steinem The Death Cry of Gloria SteinemBy Michelle Malkin Wednesday, March 5, 2008 From once-ripe feminist icon to idea-barren harridan, she offers nothing to young women but anachronistic man-hate, anti-military bigotry and woe-is-me wallowing. Hope and change? Try harp and whinge. Some things get better with age. The women's rights movement isn't one of them. In the dark and desperate days of gyno-candidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Team Hill dragged Steinem out of the leftist dustbin for a grieve-a-thon in Austin, Texas. The 73-year-old activist sulked about Barack Obama's ascendancy to The New York Observer, blaming voters who "want redemption for racism" and complaining that not "as many want redemption for the gynocide." What does she mean by gynocide? "There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female," Steinem asserted, making a passing reference to pregnant women killed by male partners. Presumably, she's not including the millions of unborn girls aborted around the world every year because of their gender. (Not exactly the kind of empowerment the fist-raising, bra-burning pro-choicers had in mind.) And nothing in Steinem's record indicates that she's thinking of the untold numbers of girls and women murdered for "honor" in the name of Allah by Muslim relatives. It's Western men Steinem detests. You know, the ones who watch football, whom the NOW propagandists tried to blame for a mythic rise in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sundays, and the ones who serve in the U.S. armed forces -- like that gyno-enemy, John McCain. As the Observer reported, Steinem launched into a full-scale tirade about McCain's war heroism -- peddling a double standard that simply doesn't exist: "Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight (sic) years. [The media would ask], 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?'" In fact, nasty anonymous fliers in South Carolina did attack McCain's years in captivity, and liberal websites have spotlighted the grievances, doubts and conspiracy theories of some of McCain's fellow POWs. continued... But it's not just about John McCain. "Steinem's broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises," the Observer helpfully explained. "I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn't been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn't even play war games as a kid," Steinem spewed, later adding that "from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people." From Vietnam to Iraq, self-contradictory feminists have always behaved as if serving in the military was about nothing more than "killing people" -- even as they clamored to put women on the front lines in combat roles in the name of gender equality. Leave it to the progressive left to smear their sisters after pushing for decades to integrate them into the "war machine." They don't care about the accomplished careers of women in the armed services. They care about haranguing Congress on government funding for their favorite contraceptive pills and abortions, portraying female soldiers as victims, hounding military recruiters, and exploiting accusations of harassment and abuse to undermine military institutions. American women are the freest, wealthiest, most educated in the world. They are liberated enough to choose someone for president other than a female candidate out of uterus-based loyalty. This should be viewed as progress, not heresy. But the old-guard feminists -- the "ruling people" -- deeply resent this independence as they cling to what's left of their power base and their shrinking absolute moral authority card. Like their increasingly whiny candidate Clinton, Gloria Steinem and the fading gyno-saurs just can't accept when it's time to quit. we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people I have to ask if anyone in 21st Century America thinks we need to be "RULED." Last time I read the Constitution, we rule ourselves. We do not elect Kings and Queens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 There are nuts on both sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 There are nuts on both sides Sure there are. But that's a kind of tepid response on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 There are nuts on both sides Sure there are. But that's a kind of tepid response on your part. Look, Malkin is an idot.But Steinems comment about Obama's rise is just us feeling bad about racism is way off.Regardless of your political beliefs he is recognized as a bright,charasmatic figure who has the ability to unite at least half the country behind him.Even my Republican friends admit that. As far as her comments about war,I belive the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake.I also know that we need a strong military.Humans make war with each other.Unfortunatly it is our biggest flaw as a species.(Since cavemen stealing each others food,invading each others territory,madmen,etc...)We all would rather make love than war,but Gloria,that just ain't how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 How is Malkin an 'idiot' ?? Gee, she's smart, attractive and a bane to Liberals for uncovering their ugly side, she's many things, but far from being an 'idiot'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,225 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 How is Malkin an 'idiot' ?? Gee, she's smart, attractive and a bane to Liberals for uncovering their ugly side, she's many things, but far from being an 'idiot'. He didn't call Malkin an idiot -- he called her an "idot." ... ... I don't know what he means by that either but for God's sake, get your reading comprehension skills in order! And, for the record, this passage by Malkin is pure gold: ... American women are the freest, wealthiest, most educated in the world. They are liberated enough to choose someone for president other than a female candidate out of uterus-based loyalty. This should be viewed as progress, not heresy. But the old-guard feminists -- the "ruling people" -- deeply resent this independence as they cling to what's left of their power base and their shrinking absolute moral authority card. Like their increasingly whiny candidate Clinton, Gloria Steinem and the fading gyno-saurs just can't accept when it's time to quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.