Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Angry Feminism Hits A Wall

By the time I went to college, feminism was entering a truly vile period. Gone was the talk about equality, respect and giving women “choices.” In its place was the hateful agenda of identity politics: affirmative action, squeals for equality of outcome, groupthink, suppression of opponents, and nasty misandry. At the time, this seemed to be the future of feminism. But three recent statistics tell me this version of feminism has played out.

I don’t think doctrinaire feminism was ever what it pretended to be. It claimed to want equality of opportunity and respect, but like many such 1960s movements, its leaders had a different agenda. Indeed, under the guise of equality of opportunity feminists soon began pushing for equality of result. This was particularly true in the economic sphere in the 1970s where they pushed things like the ERA, which sought not only to award equal pay within a profession, but identical pay across professions based on leftist notions of labor comparability.

Moreover, the harder-core adherents quickly devolved into man-hating. For example, feminist academics began writing papers claiming that our entire history was nothing more than a male plot to oppress women and that all sex is rape because women, lacking economic power, can never consent -- an identical argument made for why blacks "can't be racist." They also demanded the erection of gender studies departments in colleges, the appointment of women to positions for which they weren’t qualified, and the removal of gender references from the language.

By the late 1980s, this twisted view became feminist doctrine. Thus, sensible ideas like “no means no” were twisted into “no means no, even when it isn't said until after the fact.” Colleges started having rape awareness nights where everyone was supposed to walk around in the dark to protest a rape epidemic that didn’t exist -- we were told for every real rape, ten somehow go unreported and we heard ludicrous statistics like “one in four women will be raped.” College professorettes started doing things like demanding “Herstory” departments to counter “History” departments, they designed re-education programs, and they tried replacing the generic "he" with "she" in textbooks (which is a dead giveaway about their mindset because they claimed the use of "he" was oppressive; in other words, rather than looking for a gender neutral word, they simply wanted to become oppressors). They also took the stance that if there weren't enough women's sports teams, then schools had to eliminate men's sports teams. Meanwhile, extremely unkempt girls started showing up in literature and history classes talking about “male oppression,” claiming that all the female characters were lesbians, and whining that our very language keeps them down boo hoo hoo (fyi, "unkempt" because grooming standards were male attempts to oppress. . . seriously, there's feminist theory on this). And angry girls went to law school, where they would proudly (and unethically) proclaim that they would only represent “womyn.” This is what feminism became.

This version of feminism had three main planks that it pushed: (1) the forcing of women into “power professions,” (2) unchecked abortion, and (3) the destruction of marriage.

The power profession thing was easily the most interesting. Feminists kept talking about giving women “choices,” but that was a lie. What they really wanted was to force women into occupations that feminists believed would let them oppress others. This meant that any woman who chose to stay home and raise a family would be ridiculed by feminists -- even Hillary Clinton stumbled into this when she denigrated cookie making, which was common jargon among feminists at the time as a way to insult stay-at-home mothers. Moreover, women who chose “inferior careers,” i.e. traditional female occupations, were typically branded with the bimbo label. Basically, the only "allowable" choice for women was to go into politics, law or finance.

The abortion thing resulted from the realization by feminists that so long as women cared more about their children, they weren’t going to be as successful as men in the power professions. This meant women had to be kept childless so they could climb the career ladder, which meant breaking the motherhood bond. Thus, in the 1990s, you saw an assault of studies claiming that children actually benefited from being abandoned by their mothers, and you saw a strong push to ensure ideological rigidity on the abortion issue, with feminists uniformly portraying all women as being pro-abortion and portraying abortion opponents as creepy, male religious freaks intent on enslaving women. There was even a study claiming that having an abortion made women healthier.

Finally, the destruction of marriage was key because women who marry tend to drop out of the workforce. Thus, feminists pushed the idea of no-fault divorce, and single motherhood was glorified. But what really became a big issue for feminists in the 1990s was whether or not women should take their mate’s last names if they married. Indeed, if you read any feminist-infused magazine from the period, you will see that it was assumed that all women would (and did) keep their own names and the only question was whether or not to add the husband's name as a hyphenated name. Women who didn’t toe this line were dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned and usually religious zealots.

Well, now things are falling apart for feminists. Every month I get bar journals from various states. Last month, I came across a very shrill article by one veteran feminist who was horrified that the number of women entering law school has been dropping for several years now. In the 1990s, when the number of women exceeded the number of men, feminists proclaimed that one day women would run the legal profession, and thereby the world. Apparently not. The number of women is now below the male number again and falling fast. The woman who wrote this article bemoaned the failure of young women to go to law school and openly feared that this will result in the oppression of women. . . no, I’m not kidding. The number of women in politics seems to have petered out too. And what’s worse, many are the “wrong kind” of woman, i.e. conservatives.

Then I came upon an article that talked about marriage rates and how marriage rates in the US are on the rise and people are no longer divorcing at nearly the rate they used to. Almost the next day came a study lamenting that the number of women keeping their own name in marriage (in any form) peaked in the 1990s at 23% (far less than the nearly 100% figure portrayed in the media) and has been falling steadily since. It is currently 18%.

Now, we hear from Gallup (which has a consistent left-ward bent) that only 27% of people believe abortion should be legal under “any circumstances,” i.e. the feminist position.

What this tells me is that "feminism" peaked in the 1990s and has been in steady decline ever since. What seems to have stopped it is the emergence of vocal conservative women who demanded that feminism actually be about choices as advertised. When this group of women demanded that feminists stop denigrating stay-at-home mothers, the end was near for modern feminism because that undercut the entire purpose of radical feminism.

Does this mean radical/angry feminism is dead? No. It lives on and it always will. But like Marxism or cults, its appeal is now limited to an ever shrinking fringe. The question now is: how do we use this lesson to take the radical out of other worthwhile movements that have gone astray, e.g. environmentalism?

46 comments:

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I can't find a single thing to argue with as you discuss the march of radical feminism. Fine analysis, fine historical development. After all, I was there (boy, was I there) when the most radical thing the newly-emerging "liberated women" did was burn their bras.

So instead, I'll simply add two results of radical feminism that really annoy me.

First, there's the concomitant war on boys and the feminization of men. The gelded metrosexual "male" nearly destroyed the meaning of the word "man." While women were cultivating the hair under their arms, men started shaving their chests, legs, and regions I don't care to discuss. Men no longer wanted a strong body, they wanted a "sculpted" body. Aw, crap.

Second: The bastardization of the English language. The (s)he, (s)shim nonsense was bad enough, but the mixing of singulars and plurals to avoid identifying a word by sex drives me nuts.

Traditional: "England expects every man to do his duty."

Feminist: "England expects everyone to do his or her duty" (too wordy), or the far more exasperating "England expects everyone to do their duty."

Then there's the double whammy of feminist and jargonistic murder of the language as demonstrated by Benjamin Chavez, convicted felon and former head of the NAACP: "We're here today to celebrate the great victories of the heroes and sheroes of the Civil Rights Movement."

That's it. I have to go and be sick now.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk,

I hadn't heard that from Chavez, but it's utterly ridiculous.

I wasn't there during the early part of the movement, so my view is looking at them in hindsight and where they headed. And I can tell you that by the time I hit law school, this was an ugly scene.

What I always found so ironic/telling about the language thing is that they would insist on the one hand that the use of masculine pronouns somehow kept them down -- which is pretty pathetic if you ask me -- and then they would turn around and try to insert feminine pronouns instead, but only in good roles. This, in law books, the judges are always "she" and the criminals are always "he." It struck me as bizarre, pathetic and unprincipled.

What I'm glad about is that conservative women have cut through this garbage and put into place the ideas the feminists claimed to want without the nasty parts the feminists actually wanted.

And now I think (based on the things I mention) that this style of feminize has played out and is in collapse.

Tam said...

I just read Dr. Laura's book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands (for a book group, which I won't attend because I think it is a form of betrayal to discuss a spouse and marriage without the spouse present...) and I loved that she exposed the destruction of marriage and men the feminist movement has had. She also highlighted the double standards women apply to roles and "rights" within a marriage. Very interesting. I hope we are seeing a return to traditional family values where we honor and celebrate femininity AND masculinity within our relationships, because honoring those differences makes everyone happy. Why would anyone rather be "equal" than happy?

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Lawhawk, you should have seen this bar article. You could literally read the woman's bitterness in her shrill words about "young women failing" to go to law school. It truly read like a betrayal.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I think we actually are seeing that. I see signs today of people openly talking about wanting "traditional values," which you literally wouldn't have heard in the early 1990s for fear of being ostracized. Back then, anyone who didn't toe the line got blasted by these feminists. Today, women in particular are quite open about choosing to be mothers first and wanting traditional husbands. And I think a lot of churches are actually pushing men to become more traditional again and take responsibility for their families.

In terms of equal or happy, I actually think that's always been a false choice. I think as humans we can all be equal while still acknowledging that we are different. The problem is that feminists (and other similar groups) try to equate "equal" with "the same," whereas "equal" should only mean "subject to the same rights and respect as others."

Thus, there's no reason to say that a man and woman need to have the same job or do the same functions within a house or have the same personalities or ideas to be equal. That, to me, has always been the real problem with feminism, it's not looking for equality for women, it's looking to force women to become men (or in some instances, take away masculinity from males). Thus, you see feminists pushing young girls into sports, into math, into combat, and into other "male-dominated" areas, not because the girls want to do it, but because it suits the political goal of creating a genderless society.

To me, real equality is everyone having the right to choose how they want to live, and feminists don't actually want you to have that because it doesn't help their cause if you make "the wrong choice."

I think that's the big victory conservative women have produced here, is to give women these choices.

DUQ said...

Speaking of genderless, has anybody seen these people who won't tell anyone what sex their kid is? What a bunch of jerks to experiment on their kid. That kid is going to be seriously confused.

Tam said...

Andrew, that is exactly why I put "equal" in quotes. It is a false choice. I think that my husband and I are very much equal partners in our marriage, but with completely different roles. I don't want to do the things he does to provide for our family, and he doesn't want to do the things I do. I think that recognizing and honoring the different ways we contribute equally (in marriage, and society in general) is the key to being happy (in marriage and society in general.)

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Yeah, I saw that... shameful. People should not be experimenting on their kids. The only good thing is that kids tend to be resilient and as this one grows older, I expect it will entirely rebel and break their hippie hearts.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Well said! I think that's entirely true.

BUT, I can tell you that I've known a lot of women (particularly female lawyers) who scoffed at the notion. They bought into this feminist way of thinking and their view is that life is about power and until women earn 51% of all income in this country, they will continue to be victims of evil male oppression. Needless to say, these aren't happy people, though I honestly think they have never understood why.

To me it's just common sense that people are different. Even leaving gender differences aside (which I'm sure are hardwired), people still aren't the same. If you just take males, for example, we run the gambit from type A to very much not type A. Some are great at math, others couldn't add without counting their fingers. Some like sports, some don't. Some are work-a-holics, some prefer to be home. That's just the human condition that we're all so different.

And frankly, thank God! Could you imagine how dull our world would be if we weren't? So I always found it insane that anyone would really that there is only one way for everyone to be "equal."

Moreover, I think these people truly miss the point of what makes a human so special. It isn't our jobs or our possessions that give us human dignity, it's who we are apart from all of that. Yet, their crazy theory values everyone based on economic power fails, and that's the same thing as seeing humans as nothing more than machines. That's pretty sad.

Tam said...

What I hate is the hypocrisy and double standard. They complain about being victims of male oppressors, but seek to become dominant female oppressors. It's sick, really.

Euripides said...

Identity politics is a danger to the US system because its doctrine relies on socialist collectivism as a means to power. Collectivist strategies subvert the individual in favor of groupthink and protected class status.

Radical feminism fails, for me, on several levels: 1) It creates a "neuter" society which serves to destroy family relationships. 2) It promotes abortion as a defining institution. 3) It encourages "lifestyles" that are destructive of such institutions as the family, the military, and religions.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree. And that's the same problem I have with other "civil rights" groups. I absolutely agree with the ideas of equality under the law and equality of opportunity. Everyone should be given the same freedoms and the same chances in life.

But that's not what these groups stand for anymore. They want to replace their "oppressor" and become the oppressors themselves. They want power to push others around. And that's 100% wrong no matter who is doing the oppressing.

If people would understand that and actually live up the rhetoric about equality and dignity and respecting all individuals, this would be a much better world. Instead, they are offering more of the same only with a new boss.

AndrewPrice said...

You have passed T-Rav. :-)

T-Rav said...

Thank God. Anyway, I first got introduced to "radical" (read: shrewish) feminism in high school when I took a summer honors course. We read a book entitled "Politically Correct Fairy Tales," which was about as exciting as it sounds. It had all the new spellings for the female gender: "womman" (singular), "womyn" (plural). And it completely retold the classic stories from an oppression theory and women's liberation point of view: for example, Cinderella was now about the title character convincing her stepmother and stepsisters of their common identity. So they tore off all their fancy, oppressive clothing and then the men were so overcome with lust that they killed each other or something. I don't know if this book was intended as snark against PC-ness, but the teacher and a lot of the students took it to heart and caused to spend a lot of the class talking about male dominance and so on. Which is why my conservatism first developed as a reaction against stupidity.

AndrewPrice said...

Euripides, I agree. Radical feminism like other group identity groups is highly destructive because it divides the country into warring camps and then it decides your rights based on the ability of your group's leaders to get your share of the spoils. That's incredibly destructive to a society.

I also agree with your criticism of feminism. I think it's goals are highly destructive of the very institutions that bind our society together. They are seeking to destroy the distinction between male and female, the institution of marriage and the other institutions that furthered marriage, and which all have been the glue that has kept society moving forward in a health manner.

Without those, you end up in a brutal, lonely world were economic power is all that matters and people are nothing more than isolated inputs for the state's GDP. That's a pretty horrible prospect.

What's worse, it's unlikely that a society like that can last without collapsing into a world of might makes right where the strongest and nastiest rule the weak. That's not a happy future.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Conservatism is often a reaction to stupidity..... "what do you mean I'm paying taxes so other people don't have to work?".... "what do you mean the guy who robbed me is 'the victim'?"

I actually know the book of which you speak. I believe it was intended as a joke at the politically correct. Why am I not surprised idiots would take the book seriously?

Still, let me add that what you are talking about was very, very common in the 1990s. I was finishing college and then law school at the time and I can't tell you how much BS I heard. I had professorettes who would go into grooming theory about how good grooming was "a plot to infantilize women." Seriously. They complained that women's clothes were designed to make women physically easy to catch and easy to leery at. They complained that having separate bathrooms was discrimination because apparently guys make deals in restrooms. It went on and on.... nothing but unchecked hate and paranoia.

The problem was, that they were so loud and nasty about it that most people just shut up rather than face the problems of antagonizing them. That all started to change in the late 1990s when conservative women started demanding that they stop attacking women who chose to stay at home. That was like the moment the kid pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. It broke the spell and defused their power.

At this point, feminism seems to be in full retreat in society, though I suspect you are probably still surrounded by it in college?

T-Rav said...

Andrew, unfortunately college is still and will continue to be one of the last refuges for such ideas. Even there, it doesn't have a total stranglehold, but the notion that men are constantly oppressing women is thrown around a lot. Oh well, I haven't succumbed to it yet so I probably won't in the future.

T-Rav said...

Also, OT: I'd like all the Commentarians to keep us Missourians in mind. Obviously, the poor people in Joplin (several hours away from me, but too close for comfort) are trying to deal with the devastating tornado and need all the prayers they can get. And tomorrow, I'm not sure how much I'll be here, because we're slated for a weather outbreak that looks to be the worst it's been in several years and I may be spending quite some time in our basement. It'll be a long day and night Wednesday.

Euripides said...

Is that it? Is radical feminism only concerned with power and the Almighty Dollar?

Seems like.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, At the point where I was in college, it came up constantly in almost every class. In fact, it came up so much that it distracted from everything.

For example, I had a pretty high level Shakespeare course (yeah, I picked hard electives....) and there were two girls there from the "Gender Studies Department" who constantly claimed that every character Shakespeare wrote was gay and every story was about insecure males trying to kill off strong women. It got old fast, hearing how Romeo was a would-be rapist. The professor tried to tell them there's no evidence for what they are claiming, i.e. "shut the hell up," but they didn't care -- they just kept spitting this garbage out.

The business classes were infused with it too to a ridiculous degree. Sadly for them, I have a low tolerance for bullsh*t and I'm highly vocal. :-)

But the absolute WORST was a domestic relations course I took in law school so that I would know the issues for the bar (divorce, child adoption, etc.). The hate in that room could have set the building on fire if someone had stored something flammable nearby. The professor had to stop using "husband" and "wife" in examples because to these women, the husband was always wrong. What's even funnier, when the professor switched to "H" and "W", they all hated H because they know what it meant. Seriously, it didn't matter what the example was, poor "H" was to be hated.

Talk about irrational!

AndrewPrice said...

Euripides, It always struck me that they were about money and power and that's it. I honestly can't say what else they were after because all they seemed to want was money and power.

Though I suppose there's a pyschological aspect to this and maybe they were looking for something they couldn't find in themselves? But I'm only guessing at that one. All I heard was talk about money and power.

I know the prior generation had a different list of demands -- equality under the law, respect of person, etc. But those demands all vanished by the 1990s and it came down to money and power.

If you have an alternative theory, please feel free to share it! :-)

rlaWTX said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110524/ts_yblog_thelookout/parents-keep-childs-gender-under-wraps

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Definitely, we will keep you in mind and in our prayers. Stay safe.

And let me second your well wishes for everyone who is affected by these tornadoes or the flooding or any other natural disaster.

rlaWTX said...

I posted before I read the comments - that'll teach me

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I saw that. Unbelievable isn't it?

Seriously, to me, this is child abuse. They are intentionally setting this kid up to have problems in the future.

Here's your link: LINK

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's ok, it's a worthwhile addition to the comments.

rlaWTX said...

in college in the early 90s, about the only place I got that crap was in English Lit. I had trouble wrapping my mind around some of their translations of what I thought I had been reading in plain English. I was lucky in my history and govt classes (my majors) that the profs didn't go there... [but I think I managed to avoid taking any of the women profs in either discipline... hadn't realized that!;)] So, I got most of it from the popular media instead - dumb dads, brave single moms, etc...
This time around [Psych MA], it tries to pop up, but no one seems to buy into it - so when the subject comes up we just move on...

rlaWTX said...

not as bad as Joplin, but wildfire/grassfire has made its way into West Midland - evacuating areas... scary stuff...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It definitely popped up in the MSM and Hollywood. Somewhere starting around the end of the 1980s, Hollywood seems to have decided that all women need to be shown as hard-driving professionals (single if possible or with a weak husband) and all dads need to be shown as stupid or pathetic. In fact, I can't think of the last television dad that we were supposed to respect?

I'm glad you managed to avoid it, I ran straight into it and had some epic battles with the idiot brigade! That's where I learned to fight trolls. LOL!


Sorry to hear the fires are still going, I haven't heard anything about them in some time now and I thought they had burned out. I guess not?

Ed said...

Big round of applause for conservsative women! I think you're right. I think women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham and others like them really changed the terms of the debate. It always seemed to me before Ann came along that the stereotype of conservatism was pure male. Ann and Laura and others like them made it ok for women to be conservatives.

I'm not saying they did it alone, far from it, but they certainly forced the media to drop the narrative that conservatives were anti-woman.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I agree with that. I still remember people(?) like Eleanor Clift on McLaughlin Group always claiming that conservatives (and Republicans) were the "white male party" and that our "goal" was to return women to the home and blacks to the fields. That's total bull, but leftists kept saying it.

I think the emergence of young, hip and pithy conservative women like Coulter shattered that stereotype and you almost never hear it anymore.

Ed said...

Andrew, That's probably the reason they hate her so much. Plus, she's very good at zinging them with their own crap.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I think the worst example I ever heard of was last year, when a feminist writer for one of those left-wing websites--I forget which, they all run together after a while--published a piece slamming Taylor Swift for one of her new songs. Now, I personally like Swift for the most part, but I understand why many people don't--her music is often too tweeny and basically recycles itself after a while. But this individual was attacking for her love song, saying that such-and-such verse implies "she can't find happiness or define herself without the presence of a man," blah blah blah. I have to wonder, does this woman really think this is what Swift was thinking about when she wrote that song?

Which is why using gender analysis for literature, history, philosophy, etc., is thoroughly meaningless: academics and the intelligentsia in general keep assuming everyone else gives "gender issues" the same importance they do. Unfortunately, the same could be said about a lot of ideas.

T-Rav said...

Regarding the "genderless" child, we don't have to wait to see how this is going to turn out; the kid's two older brothers regularly dress as girls and are heavily confused in general. Boy, is this family going to be paying out the nose with therapy later on.

Also, I just love the asinine comments the parents spit out, thinking it's so profound. I bet it sounded that way in their heads, but then, going to meet with left-wing guerrillas in Latin America probably did too.

T-Rav said...

rla, that really sucks. You guys are on fire in Texas and all of us in the Mississippi Valley are practically drowning. Wish we could send some of our water your way; God knows we don't need it.

StanH said...

Always remember to point and laugh, humiliation is a wonderful mind altering technique (sorta-Alinsky). Look at it as a public service, civic duty if you will, when you see a village idiot in the making, inject guidance (ridicule) and perhaps save us their, $hitty, miserable, lives. To me, as has been said up thread, the left seeks to Balkanize America, getting us all into meaningless petty squabbles, totally missing the big picture. The first mistake we (the country) made was buying into the BS in the first place. When America is not free to exchange ideas, the country stops, and all the “isms…” are designed to squelch debate, you scream loud enough and long enough until you get your way, petulant children, who needed more spankings as a kid. Good read Andrew.

As a quick aside, my wife and daughter are the are two of the most wonderful things in my life. Treating them with dignity is an issue of love, and respect, like breathing air - - also if I didn’t they’d kick my a$$.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That could well be. The left seems to have special hatred for anyone who proves their stereotypes wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Excellent observation!

It's like psychology.... when you are sitting there and the shrink tells you "I think you have issues with your mother," there is a very good chance that the shrink is the one with the issues.

I can't count the number of times I've heard some critique of a book or whatnot and I know that the author never, ever, ever had anything approaching the thought the critic claims they did.

In fact, in many ways, criticisms are nothing more than Rorschach tests unless the critic is careful.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I always thought it was ridiculous when feminists claimed that women have always been the victims in history because it's patently obvious to anyone who knows married people that few of these relationships involve one person in control -- they almost always involve a sharing of power.

I agree about the left and their desire to Balkanize. That's the only way they can force people into voting blocks that they think they can control by controlling the leadership group. But in the process, all they do is generate chaos, anger and dissent.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

What really bothers me about feminism is the feminization of young men. It still is going on. I am glad it has hit a wall. I hope it dies a horrible death that is memorable so that it can be added to the ash heap of history.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think it's a problem all around and that is definitely a problem. I guess we'll see if it finally does die off. I think it's effectively dying, though I suspect it will always continue to some degree.

Writer X said...

Feminists have done more to hurt their cause (whatever it is these days) than anything or anyone else. Their hypocritical actions speak louder than their words. They preach pretty words like "choice" and "equality" but as soon as someone (e.g. a conservative woman) doesn't fit their mold, you see their true colors.

I say, Good Riddance.

rlaWTX said...

entirely off the subject - fires brought under control by awesome firefighters! as far as I know no houses damaged.

Lawhawk, this was one that was sparked yesterday and flew across 16 miles of open space. there 2 others further out also. the "big" ones are finally out, I believe.

T-Rav - some of my facebook friends have been trying to figure out how to ship us their water. Hasn't quite worked yet.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Very true. And you really see that with elections. They would rather elect an openly sexist male than a conservative woman. So if they really are for "women," then why don't ever support a single conservative woman?

It's definitely all hype. They don't believe in women or equality or any of that, they believe in group power and political spoils.

It's time to be through with them. Fortunately, as I say, I'm seeing hints that their power is waning.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It's too bad we can't send you all water. Hopefully your town isn't in any danger?

AndrewPrice said...

Ask and yee shall receive. No sooner have we moved on from this topic than the new head of the DNC tries the old "the GOP hates women" line. Debbie Wasserman Shultz called the GOP "anti-women" and said they are engaged in "a war on women."

I guess some dogs can't stop trying old tricks?

Post a Comment