The American Spectator : The Silent Sorority

Text Size

The Silent Sorority

By Lisa Fabrizio on 3.21.12 @ 6:07AM

Some women have had it with their liberal-approved counterparts.

For years, there has existed in America what came to be known in the 1960s as “the silent majority.” This referred to the great number of folks who did not take to the streets in protest or demand special rights, but simply went about their business every day, which was driving the engine of the American Way. Some of them eventually morphed into the more vocal Reagan Democrats, while now, many of them are silent no more through participation in the Tea Party movement. But there is still a group of people who are not often heard from and I’m one of them. In a word, I’m a woman who’s sick of women; liberal women, that is.

Night after night, week after week, and year after year we must be subjected to the strident voices of these women complaining. Their hypocritical yelps include, but are by no means limited to: complaints about the “glass ceiling” while fully availing themselves of corporate Affirmative Action; complaints about discrimination while bullying men with legislation like Title IX; complaints about the lack of paid daycare while simultaneously advocating for abortion; and complaints about their treatment as “sex objects” while at the same time lobbying for license to irresponsible sex via free contraception. All of this makes me very, very angry.

I’m angry first and foremostly with feminists and their male enablers who decided that, in seeking freedom from domestic servitude, they would instead make women slaves to sex and the burdens of earning a living. For determining that women could and should be free to assume the position as sole head of the household, to raise children alone as if men were a disposable commodity; as if the appellation, “the weaker sex,” was not both true and the watchword for a more tender form of treatment from our male counterparts.

I’m angry at Woodrow Wilson, the progressive “genius” who gave us the idea of a “living Constitution,” along with the Federal Reserve, the income tax and worst of all, women’s voting rights. Let me state for the record, that I am in absolute favor of repealing the Nineteenth Amendment — yes, you heard me right — along with all others that presumed to speak where the Constitution was deliberately silent in order to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states. More than anything else, the advent of women’s suffrage planted the idea that wives would and should have different dreams and goals than their husbands, thus creating a rift that only widens as the years roll by.

I’m angry at the way Hollywood portrays women, with a condescending and hypocritical attitude that at once praises us — particularly our black sisters — as innately all knowing and all powerful, while at the same time insisting that we must be drop-dead gorgeous; equally able to avenge ourselves against our male oppressors while balancing on spiked heels. Yes, we must be depicted as the fantasies of both man-hating feminists and 13-year-old boys.

Most of all, I’m angry at the majority of my fellow women who refuse to break out of their politically correct chains and stand up for themselves by refusing to be put into the molds their liberal sisters have so malevolently formed for them; allowing groups like NOW and NARAL to speak for them as representative of all women. It’s time for this silent sorority to loudly proclaim that we actually want to be wives and mothers and are proud of it; that we are enjoy being career women who have no problem coexisting with, and even liking our male co-workers, rather than seeing them as “the enemy.”

They can start by repeating after me: No, I don’t want free contraception, or any other benefits of so-called reproductive rights foisted on me by government mandate, thank you. I don’t want to hear intimate relations between man and wife referred to as “performance,” nor do I want to buy any aids or drugs that will prolong sexual activity when nature says it’s time to stop and concentrate on the things that are really important in life. I refuse to dress like a high school tease when I reach my 60s, further demeaning the traditional dignity of virtuous womanhood.

I love my Church, my family and my country and have no problem being “merely” the mother, sister, or wife of those who lead and defend them, as have generations of American women before me. I don’t want to be told, against all proofs of nature and scientific advancement, that a fetus is nothing but tissue that will, if not killed, become anything other than my fellow human being. I don’t desire any power over my husband save that of love. I don’t want him to view me as a professional rival or political enemy; I want him to love, honor, and protect me in order that I may love, honor, and support him in all that he does.

I demand nothing else from men in general except to be treated as a lady; provided of course that I act like one. And if any or all of this makes my liberal sisters angry, that makes me very, very happy.

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (159) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldfart| 3.21.12 @ 6:20AM

You are very dangerous. You actually think for yourself and don't submit to PC 'group think'. I can hardly wait to see of the shrews on the View will dare to comment on your column.

Carol| 3.21.12 @ 8:08AM

Here's an easy way to find out of the Demorats won the Sandra Fluke fiasco. Pick one of the two: A) I agree with Sondra that Georgetown Law School should pay for her contraceptives.
B) Fluke is a college skank who needs to get her sex partners to pay for her contraceptives.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 9:08AM

OBVIOUSLY, it's B. She's a Skank and a SLUT, and personally I think that she's a Lying B*tch, as well.

Have you SEEN this Pig? If you were a man, I'd say to you: "I wouldn't Fck this Pig with YOUR Dck." (That's guy talk. That's what guys say when they see a Pail a Worms Skank, like your Heroin.)

She's a LIAR. (What a surprise) There's no way she's spending lots of money on SEX, unless she's paying these Guys to lay on top of her, or behind her. (I would imagine that they're behind her, because I gotta believe that the back of this Horse, is much easier on the eyes, than the front of it, is.)

I'm a funny guy. I like to tell jokes. Some would even say that I'm a Comedian. And, as a Comedian, I hope that Carol won't have any problems with be "Borrowing" from one of the Democrat's favorite Funny Guys?

How much you wanna bet that this TW*T - Carol - thinks that Bill Clinton is the best thing to happen to women, since the Vibrator? (Laugh Track)

How much do you wanna bet that this Stupid C*nt - Carol - thinks that all of the women that Bill Clinton Molested, Exposed his Penis to, felt up, used to Moisten his Cigars, and used their dresses as a repository for his DNA, were LIARS, GOLDDIGGERS. and WHITE TRASH?

How much you wanna bet that this Stupid Bimbo MILF, thinks that Juanita Broderick DESERVED to be RAPED by Bill Clinton?

And, how much you wanna bet that this SKANK - Carol - would gladly take Julianne Malveaux's place, in front of Bill Clinton, on her knees, to thank him for all he did for the Women of America?

I know this B*tch like the back of her head.

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.21.12 @ 9:34AM

You need to calm down and actually read the posts. What you said about Carol is wrong and ignorant.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:06PM

Evidently, I mistook Carol, for the other Carol.

I'm not against admitting a mistake.

Carol, I apologize.

Read it again, and just replace Carol's name, with DRed.

Again: Carol, I apologize.

Paul McGrath| 3.21.12 @ 10:59AM

Carol is on your side, ya stupe.

Marylou| 3.21.12 @ 11:05AM

Another act of civility. Are you a Liberal? Sorry about your mental illness. Keep following the sheep!

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 11:10AM

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Can't you tell from his posts that Timmy is a devout Christian? The way he follows the teachings of Jesus is an inspiration to a non-believer like myself.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:32PM

Amazing. A self professed "non-believer" using faith as a weapon against the faithful. Oh, the staggering irony.

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 2:08PM

I've been to enough church to know that Timmy is every bit as good of a Christian as I am.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 4:13PM

Which means that you haven't been to Church enough if you think that. Last I checked, it was G*d who decided who was a good Christian (or Jew in my case).

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 5:09PM

Not if you don't believe in god. Timmy is a pathetic Christian. All he does is talk about how much he hates. He lies repeatedly. If he's a good Christian, than I'm the Pope.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:29PM

I do hate. I hate lots of things. I hate this POS President, and everything he's doing to this Country. I hate his wife. I hate his "Friends". I hate everyone he's ever associated with. I hate his Marxist Czars. I hate his Communist Czars. I hate his Maoist Czars. I hate that everything out of his LYING MOUTH, is a LIE. I hate his PUKE Press Spokesman - that Lying POS Carney. I hate his PUKE Political Advisor - David Axelrod. I hate his Stupid Bastard dumbfck Vice President - Biden. And I hate every stupid MFer that Voted for this Marxist, White Hating/Jew Hating/ America Hating POS.

What's not to hate?

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 5:48PM

You forgot to add lowercase letters to your litany.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:47PM

I think he did upper and lower case letters perfectly.

Actually, Tim's writing style has dramatically improved from his start. His thinking was always precise, lucid, and decent---now his writing expresses his point and pisses of Libs nicely. Witness you two.

TLP, good to see you in fine form, bro'!

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:48PM

Sorry, "Pisses off Libs."

oolong chang| 3.21.12 @ 6:50PM

Timmy's vulgar rants cannot be taken seriously. He has nothing to say. Nothing.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 9:59PM

And what have YOU said of substance, except to pile on to a conversation you're not even a prat of?

AVCurmudgeon| 3.22.12 @ 2:02AM

If you do not believe in God then you really have no business on commenting on the faith of people who do. You are too much in the position of a vegetarian giving his favorite recipe for beef stew.

Seek| 3.23.12 @ 1:58PM

You easily could put that in reverse. Religious people have no business commenting on the beliefs or motives of nonbelievers.

Reality: Everyone has a moral right to comment in opposition to anyone else on any subject. That's called freedom of speech.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:54PM

Wasn't there something about "bringing a sword?" It is OK to hate evil.

da monk| 3.21.12 @ 11:49AM

Pennell: Can't you make your comments without
resorting to coarse language? You have every right to your opinion, but you lose creditablity with your ungentlemanly remarks.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:13PM

I thought that this was somebody else. I misinterpreted her comment. I was trying to use THEIR BOY'S Language against her, but, evidently she (Carol) is not "HER". (The Carol I thought she was.)

If that's the worst thing that happens to me, today, then it's been a pretty good day.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:51PM

Tim: I must state that I do think the state should be paying for her birth control, as long as that birth control is a hysterectomy. No other type. Does that seem reasonable? ( My reasons are 3, all incontrovertable: Liberal. Skank. Lawyer.)

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:48PM

When one is discussing sewage, it's hard to avoid vulgarity at times.

Dmac | 3.21.12 @ 12:03PM

First Timothy, what makes you think Ms. Fluke has boyfrineds? She has all the traits of a dike lesbian.
Tim, you seem extra upset today. Don't let it get to you. Thats what the libs want, is to get you upset so you act like one of them, which i know you're not.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:16PM

Thanks for the moral support, but hey, I screwed up, and now I gotta take my lumps.

Too bad, too.

That was a really good rant.

oolong chang| 3.21.12 @ 6:53PM

Timothy, you screw up everytime you open your porn-polluted mouth.

Everytime you wag your tongue, the scent of excrement comes from your mouth.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:23AM

Dear Fan: Thank you for your interest in my writing. Unfortunately, I could give a sh*t what you say. You're not qualified to sniff my Jock.

Actually? I take that back. You ARE qualified for that. And it's called: Sh*t for breath. It's a pity that your Hormonal Imbalance, prevents you from saying what's really on your mind.

Call Alan. I'm sure he'll hook you right up.

Todd Powers| 3.21.12 @ 8:23PM

I thought he was mocking Bill Maher.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:15AM

He was.

Todd Powers| 3.21.12 @ 8:23PM

I thought he was mocking Bill Maher.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:16AM

He was.

JmsA| 3.21.12 @ 11:12AM

Alan Brooks| 3.21.12 @ 9:15PM

"For years, there has existed in America what came to be known in the 1960s as "the silent majority." This referred to the great number of folks who did not take to the streets in protest or demand special rights, but simply went about their business every day"

The business of killing Vietnamese babies, 1965- '72.

The Bruce| 3.22.12 @ 12:42AM

Alan,

As a nation, we've killed far more babies (about 40 million) right here in the ol' US of A since 1970.

Wait, let me rephrase that... we've exercise 40 million more "choices" since then.

Who needs an overseas war when we can commit so many more atrocities right here at home?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:45PM

A minor disagreement: when people get paralyzed in an auto accident, develop diabetes and have erectile difficulties in their 40s, or have a host of other problems, erectile dysfunction drugs can be a blessing in a relationship. I have prescribed them for that purpose for people in those situations.

You sometimes paint with too broad a brush, although your general comments and tone are correct.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:58PM

I am discussing the writer's comments regarding ED meds. Believe me, the loss of physical intimacy matters. A lot.

On the other hand, I get tired of seeing drug company ads on TV, anyway. Once upon a time, they advertised to MDs only. That was best.

Appleby| 3.21.12 @ 7:19AM

There are many, many of us women in the Silent Majority who understood going forward that liberation is a matter of either/or; that is, for women who want full time careers in formerly male-dominated fields, it would not be possible to at the same time be a full timel effective mother. We understand that motherhood is a vocation and a full time job, and we choose to forego it in the pursuit of happiness through other means. We respect the choice of our sisters to be married and have and rear children AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, to make decisions in concert with said husband, and to structure their lives and those of their children as seems best to them. At the same time, we emphatically deny the right of our sisters to hire a government that will extort money from us (called "finding" money) to augment the income of their husbands and/or themselves to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, medical care, prison space and entertainment for the children they and their husband have chosen freely to produce. Indeed, we invite our sisters to join us in charitable endeavours that provide these things on a temporary and limited basis for those whose circumstances require them -- and to get those people out of those circumstances as quickly as they can.

The image that must be abolished, for it is a completely false and destructive construct, is Ms. Have-It-All, the Angelina Joly Model that pretends that someone who is not, in fact, a hugely successful actress can be both a full time mother and a full time career woman and make a success of both.

I defend the right of any woman to be anything she wants to be. I deny her right to have everything she wants and send me the bill.

Moe Blotz| 3.21.12 @ 8:07AM

NASCAR now has the 21st Century "wonder woman" in the form of Danica Patrick. As a young woman Ms. Patrick could beat the "boys" on short tracks and was signed to a big IRL contract, but never won a major league race. Now that she is in the big time Sprint Cup, Ms.Patrick has had nothing to show but a couple wrecks. Will the clamour for an all conquering female driver in our major racing series end when a woman is killed in a crash during competition?

Appleby| 3.21.12 @ 9:19AM

A great many of us who have been following racing since Mario Andretti was, as he used to describe hiself, "Just anothe Wop in a dirt car" have been pointing out this salient fact about Danican't, as we call her, since she used to pose in practically no clothing draped across the hood of "her" car, something I have never in my lifetime seen a male driver do, by the way. The one race she "won" was gifted to her by another driver, who was heard giving an interview shortly therafter on the radio saying he had been ordered to move over for her and did so under the imperssion that she was unlapping herself. She "won" this race on the final day Champ Cars was racing in Long Beach before it went under, and was flown home on the RedEye by Tony George to be interviewed so she could step all over the Champ Car Last Hurrah.

There have been many women racing drivers who have been modestly successful, and most of them have won races. There are many more who are proving themselves talented mechanics because women are good at fiddly things, as I am told. Good women are getting their chances; but the sorry truth is that the other kind will always get their chances provided they are cute.

Skippy| 3.21.12 @ 12:17PM

If she wins races she is qualified.
Of course we need to recognize that many drivers go years without a win and are still valued and hired by team owners.
Tony Stewart hired her to drive his cars.
He is no bozo.
Let her drive a bit and see if there is anything there.

Mazzuchelli| 3.21.12 @ 4:51PM

I'm a female NASCAR fan. I'd be lying if I didn't admit to enjoying the looks of the drivers nearly as much as the roar of the engines. Nonetheless, it is exciting to see if Danica has the goods. Since her male open-wheel counterparts have mostly failed to make the cut, suspect Danica will have the same problem. While I agree with this post, Danica in NASCAR has little correlation with women libs. She came up through her own skills in Europe and hasn't followed up on the initial "splash." She'll move on soon enough.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:33PM

Didn't she win at Twin Ring Motegi?

Michelle| 3.21.12 @ 10:03AM

Appleby, Again could not agree more with both you and Ms. Fabrizio. Loved the Danican't nickname too.
Regards.

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:37AM

Thoughtfully and succintly expressed, Appleby. I agree wholeheartedly.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 11:15AM

I respect the sentiments of your comment, Appleby, but this situation illustrates a fundamental problem with socialism: When women consider it an entitlement to have as many children as they like and have the state provide housing, medical care, food and support for those children (along with themselves), then they're essentially housewives of the state and believe, accurately, the world owes them a living. They're like my housecat except she's smart enough to know the great deal she's getting.

The world cannot have everyone be a housewife, either of the state or someone else, because someone has to show up for non-childcare/housework such as mining coal, installing plumbing, building roads, and harvesting food. In other words, largely men's work. Feminists gripe that men's work is valued more because it pays more but this is because men's work largely involves doing things for OTHER people while housewives work largely for themselves. Few of them are willing to raise other women's children for free.

So the way humanity has functioned for most of it's history, is was men dealing with nature to procure resources and "working" for other men in order to EARN the right to have a family and women earned the right to have a family by being a good and loyal housewife. The welfare state mucks that all up. The most irresponsible women get to be housewives by default and can breed with the most irresponsible of men. Responsible men and women on the other hand are penalized and require to work to pay for someone else's breeding rights. This is the biggest indictment of socialism imaginable. Rather than robbing the rich of extra funds they could theoretically do without (so goes the thinking, just follow me here!), they instead of ripping off the working and middle class to reward the poor for voting for them. This is why the left loves the mantra about caring for the middle class: They know that they don't.

So where all this leads to is that men don't really have an option to be anything we want to be. Nearly all of us are born to be providers and protectors whether we like it or not. We may want to be an artist, but we instead learn welding because that's what we need to do to raise a family. A conservative society would not sanction him being a starving artist and not providing for his family. On the other hand, even with seemingly voluntary charity, women having children out of wedlock and then using them a emotional blackmail tools to get support is the inevitable result of making women into competitors with men in the workplace rather than their partners at home. This is the baby you can't separate from the bathwater. Eventually, sources of charity expire and you have the welfare state. You can't have women's equality without a welfare state.

Renaissance Nerd | 3.21.12 @ 12:38PM

I agree in part with your analysis, however there are purely technical reasons for women's equality as well. Upon a time a housewife had far more to do than today; everything from making the clothes for the whole household to scrubbing the floor on hands and knees with a brush. Even so simple an invention as the mop hasn't been around as long as it should have been. Labor-saving devices make housework FAR easier than it used to be, and free markets make it more economical to buy clothes, pre-butchered meat, packaged bread, etc, than to make them all.

What' more, a major reason for women's subjugation throughout history was due to the relative strength differences between the sexes. Muscle-powered weapons will always favor men, and when weaponless, it is a rare woman who can stand up to almost any man who means her harm. Having another man as a protector was not just a patriarchal order enforcing a custom, it was a necessity. The pistol changed all that--a small pistol makes a 98-pound woman the physical equal of a 250-pound man, and she actually exceeds his lethality. Handguns made it possible in the late 19th century for a woman to live on her own without being completely at the mercy of the men around her. While the injustices innate in our legal system were always injustices, they were in many ways necessary because culture takes a long time to adjust to technological changes, and while pistols had been around for a couple of centuries, it wasn't until the 19th that small, light, easily concealable pistols became available in quantities that allowed women to carry them. The percussion cap was the true origin of women's liberation.

What the petite-fascists have done is try to put women back in their place, but with the government as protector. Instead of a frontier woman who could shoot and dress a deer and defend the cabin at need, we have completely useless women who only have utility to the political class that exploits them. What could be better than fatherless children who grow up dependent on the state for all their wants and needs? Socialists of every stripe, whether communists, Nazis or progressives (I call the last petite-fascists), do not desire independent women who are capable and intelligent. They want helpless victims that will provide them with generations of additional victims of their largesse. The welfare state is designed to destroy women's equality as well as all other independent actions and thoughts.

Which is not to say that equality before the law is the same as total equality in every way. I see women as individual actors who can decide for themselves what they will do or not do, rather than some great monolithic mass with the same desires and urges. I see no reason to deny a woman who wants to be a doctor the opportunity, provided she doesn't expect corners to be cut. I see no reason to require women to work in the home, and no reason to encourage them not to--each can decide for herself, as an adult. I think women who put themselves into situations where they are easily overcome by foul and despicable men are very foolish; they don't deserve what happens to them, but they are blamable only in failing to take reasonably adult precautions and behaving with adult responsibility.

I think it's wonderful that women can go jogging in tight or scanty clothing and have a reasonable expectation of safety. A woman who does it at midnight in Washington D.C. is a fool. The feminist movement wants women to be helpless victims when it's to their benefit, and strong independent women only when it suits. I think women should be treated as adults. There has truly been a haphazard movement towards that over the last century and a half, but women may still behave childishly with impunity. Perhaps I am mistaken, and women simply cannot be adults, but I refuse to believe it. I will continue to expect adult behavior from women, and likely go to my grave a bachelor as a result.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 1:47PM

I never said that a traditional woman could never leave the home. As I said elsewhere, historically the concept of a full time SAH mom was largely a luxury for either the proletariat or for frontier families where housekeeping, literally, was a full time job. The rest of women either had to work part-time or worked full time not out of empowerment but necessity.

I find your economic analysis about housework amusing because it's one of my pet observations that technology often creates more work. Sure, you can do the equivalent of a month's worth of cleaning in a mere day with a modern vacuum, but how many decent housefraus only vacuum once a month? You can do laundry more quickly than a 100 years ago, but a modern family with modern expectations has a lot more laundry than in the past where the average wardrobe was about 4 outfits per person (3 normal outfits and 1 for funerals and weddings.) And cars are faster than horses, but how many frontier mothers had to ferry a bunch of kids to gymnastics, football, and baseball practice daily?

The question isn't therefore whether all women should spend all day at home but whether making women into equal competitors with men in the workplace makes sense when (most) women require men to be providers and protectors. Wages are driven down, women become dissatisfied with men that they aren't living up to the traditional role (even as they don't intend to bake pies from scratch anymore), and crime and taxes go up to keep the welfare state going as families fall through the floor. And for what? For a woman to be a doctor (yeaaaah!) but what about all the families, men, and women who have their standard of living lowered in order for this so-called "equality" to exist?

Being a conservative means telling someone to eat their vegetables while liberals lie through their teeth about a future utopia if they can just get more taxes and power. This is a perfect example of how the liberals won when conservatives agree with their agenda but are simultaneously unhappy with it. You can't have women going around willy-nilly doing as they please while men and the taxpayers foot the bill and then get upset that fiscal conservatism isn't working out. It won't. Ever.

Yes, I know... SOMEDAY, when the yen does this and the dollar does that and the moon and stars align... women will be able to be just as equal to men if we just clean up things a bit and get rid of the "bad" feminists. But we already see that even when middle and upper class women have all these opportunities, they're increasingly following the path of the lower classes and either not having children or having them out of wedlock rather than marry down. If you give someone every possible tool to live up to equality and they don't, that's their fault, not ours. Yes?

The very phrase "man up" often used by women implies that women can't be adults since "manning up" is about being an adult. Sure, there are conservative women out there who have done amazing things as adults but bottom line, they still want men to live up to a higher standard than women. When a woman's husband dies in war and she financially supports her kids on her own, good for her. But that's what most men have been expected to do in peacetime whether a war is on or not. Feminism, like leftist diversity, has been tried now for decades. Howz it working out?

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 3:15PM

Appleby, amen, sister! Well-said. I especially like this: "I defend the right of any woman to be anything she wants to be. I deny her right to have everything she wants and send me the bill." I agree 100%.

Carol| 3.21.12 @ 7:23AM

Amen Lisa!

I have a liberal friend who is one of those feminists who works for the government. We try not to talk politics when together but since the phony Fluke issue brought to us by none other than Pelosi because the Dems have nothing else to run on, the feminists (and their male counterparts) are in a rush to hush Rush up and she is one of them.

She actually posted on Facebook a petition for people to sign to get Clear Channel to take Rush off the air. I responded by telling her I am ashamed of her for her attempt to silence anyone. This was about a week ago. She finally answered my post yesterday. Be ready to hurl because this is typical liberal response.

I appreciate your point of view. I also value your right to have, and verbalize, your point of view. However, if this discussion were about Rush’s access to his viagra or oxycontin, I think we would be having a completely different discussion. I want to ensure that when our granddaughters talk about the lack of women’s rights that they are in a history class, not discussing reality.

So I wrote back telling her she drank the koolaid and that she even gets her talking points from Media Matters.

I think our friendship could finally be Fluked.

jothepro| 3.21.12 @ 8:18AM

Carol, I have a feeling you would be better off without that friendship..You could get a dig in and tell her that Rush's ratings got a pretty good boost from this false story..

squalis| 3.21.12 @ 10:16AM

Rush's access to Viagra or Oxycontin is a false comparison. If Rush were to want these meds, he would pay for them himself, not ask you or I to do so.

da monk| 3.21.12 @ 11:54AM

Yeah, he can afford the pills. But did it illegally
by going to various "prescription doctors" At least Fluke was looking for women to get their prescriptions legally.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 12:21PM

Da Monk, this if officially a non-sequitur. Rush paid for his own illegal pills while Fluke wanted the taxpayers to pay for her legal ones. It's like comparing orange juice to apple pie.

Dmac | 3.21.12 @ 12:26PM

monk,
The point is when someone else ask you pay for their meds it becomes your business. What Rush did was between him, his conscience, his pharmacist and his lawyer.
As for Fluke, she publicly lied about her age and her past to members of Congress and the press. That would put her on the same footing as Rush during his drug addiction period, wouldn't you say?

da truth| 3.21.12 @ 1:15PM

The real point is how stupid da monk reveals himself to be with each and every post.

Andrew Keirns| 3.21.12 @ 12:49PM

I challenged some Leftists on their Media Matters supplied talking points and got this in reply -- it left me scratching my head: "Why not just call her a bitch too.. Since she actually took a risk and expressed what she thought!!!! ? So let's shift inappropriately to Viagra.. Do you think it should be covered by insurance?... Or just not for pedophiles... But then again... That would be getting into religion... Whatever."

MyGirlFriday| 3.21.12 @ 3:51PM

Carol,

The reality of course is that your friend's granddaughters may bed with any Tom or even Mary as they please, infect their bodies with STD's and even kill their unborn. But she cannot feign the fantasy that women in the U.S. have no rights. What she is saying is that the tax payer has no rights. The public at large, specifically, those who oppose of paying for contraceptives, the day after pills, and abortions are to be held as prisoner's of conscience. This administration has now deemed that our personal conscience is no longer a right nor are our religious rights. The Bill of Rights has been shredded.

Now that it is mandatory (the administrations news dump last friday) that taxpayers purchase/invest their hard earned money into other peoples matters of personal choice and behavior; I would say, we as taxpayers and investors of these new found rights are also partial owner's/investors of these women's wombs! These Flucke ninnies arbitrarily handed over their rights of privacy when they demanded the public pay for their personal choice.

May I suggest your friend join "Slut Walk" as she will be able to tell her granddaughter's how hard she fought for their right to dress, act, and yes just be a slut.

GoVirginia!| 3.21.12 @ 7:24AM

Thank You! I was a career woman for 30 years, after being dumped by my husband and the father of my boys, but managed to stay feminine, to raise my boys to respect and admire women (and open doors for them, too) and to avoid the pc demands of the libbers. I then gained the wonder and joy of years of being "just" a wife, sister, mother and daughter through a man who also loves, admires and respects women. What a total joy it is, especially allowing me to tend my mother in her last years. Thank you again for this column. And thank you, dear husband and sons, as well.

Melvin| 3.21.12 @ 7:41AM

It's interesting that I read this article from Lisa, because yesterday while waiting for my vehicle to be serviced, the TV in the waiting room had some whiny MSNBC male bemoaning that women's rights still had a long way to go.
I thought to myself when this Country was formed colonial (Tea Party) women weren't exactly living the life of Riley. Everything was manual labor, children, farming, fighting Indians, rebuilding the house after the Indians burnt it down.
Then the as the Country moved West women already toughened up by our war for independence wanted a better life for they're families. It was even harder. The Indians were meaner and tougher, the land refused to yield, and yet women persevered and prospered.
If there was ever a depiction of Hell, the Great Depression was it. The American Woman fought to keep their families together, and many died trying, and for many right along with their families.
World Wars came about and again women filled the void, in keeping families and the Country together.
The American woman is to be admired, not the whiny bitchy type. But the woman who knows she is strong but doesn't advertise it. The American woman is strong, courageous, loyal, doesn't ask for much, stands with her family and husband. And at times when she is dirty and filthy from all the hard work, she is still beautiful, with grace and poise.
I suppose this is a tribute to the American Woman, that the Liberals and Elites refuse to acknowledge.
Without her this Country would have ceased to exist years ago. The American woman isn't hyphens, or categories, she is just American period, and for over two hundred years, the American woman has stood beside men, and built this great Country into what it is today. I would like to say one phrase that I learned from my daughter that is extremely fitting for the American Woman, "You go girl."

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:40AM

Nicely said, Melvin. I cannot relate to the women's movement at all as it has moved into a bunch of complaining ninnies. "We don't need a man, unless we want him to pay for something."

Marie commenting| 3.21.12 @ 12:34PM

Melvin, Thank you from the bottom of my 77 year old heart. You and men like you have made it worth while to work hard along side a husband to keep a family on the right track and to teach a love of God and country. We never asked for anything but did without. Life is good times and bad times sometimes nightmares but love of another sure keeps you glued. Have no riches no big accounts still struggle but it's been a good life.

Glen H| 3.21.12 @ 8:00AM

I fail to see any benefit to women or society in general, from either a liberal or conservative perspective, that would be advanced by repeal of the 19th amendment.

I am sympathetic to much of the argument in this column, but that is a deal-breaker.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 10:04AM

I see one already: Mitt Romney and his wife pandering to women. Granted, most of their pandering is stuff I agree with too (high gas prices keeping soccer moms from getting their kids to school, etc) but the fundamental problem is the women's vote has created a matriarchy defined by women's interests. It's a consumption driven society while before the women's vote, it was a "supply side" economy since even with all the affirmative action programs, men are still the primary providers for most two parent families out there and ultimately the economy.

Feminism is naturally aligned with a democratic socialist system since they are net consumers of taxpayer resources via the welfare state rather than producers (taxpayers). Most conservative women also tend to be married because socialists are net takers from their families rather than providers.

Jill Johnson| 3.21.12 @ 11:51AM

As Ann Coulter pointed out while also offering to give up her right to vote, if men had been the only ones voting, the Republican would have won every time in the last (I think she said) 75 years.

That would be a benefit to all.

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:36PM

Glen H, the very simple fact is that women too often vote for emotional reasons (the same party, 'he's so cute, I like the way he looks) and although men sometimes vote that way men tend to vote on facts (the candidate's voting record, what makes sense, etc.). I challenge anyone reading this to ask people why they voted for a particular candidate (any office) and you will find that women are more likely to have subjective reasons while men have objective reasons. That is why we would all be better off if women couldn't vote.

jothepro| 3.21.12 @ 8:19AM

Why Glen H?

Peppermint Tea| 3.21.12 @ 8:31AM

Benefit? Without the 19th amendment, Bill Clinton would have never been elected. Go back and check the data if you don't believe me.
Remember Bill? He was the one who brought us a nuclear North Vietnam, national embarrassment, Bosnia (we are still there) and the whole housing bubble. Not to mention pardoning criminals on his way out the door. And his pretend wife Hilly, our sec of state watching our decline.

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:38PM

AGREED. As to Hilly she isn't a woman - she is first and foremost an opportunist. Being a woman means nothing to her.

Brush| 3.21.12 @ 8:38AM

Rush has apologized for his poor choice of words. He's right, "slut" was a poor choice. "Skank" is the right word.

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 9:43AM

It's a archaic term, but what about "woman of easy virtue?"

Drunken Sailor| 3.21.12 @ 2:57PM

In this case it seems to be "woman of little virtue".

Vacogito| 3.21.12 @ 8:57AM

Dear Lisa,
Life is more complex than that. I am glad I have voting rights, to counteract all my husbands liberal friends, who I love dearly because they love him dearly. He refuses to vote (thank God). I am also glad that I have a job. There have been a few times in our long (25 year) married life where his career hit a hic-up and my straight-forward job carried us through until he found a new job or got funding for a new project. I am happy that I have been able to support us in this way-- he has a career that he cares passionately about where I have a job I like. We have balanced each other well and managed to raise 3 children in the process. I do not want to return to a time when women were not able to access the same opportunities as men. I think of all those women in victorian novels without anything to do, sniping at each other, terribly bored and unhappy. I have been a happy house-wife and mother, and I have been a happy housewife/mother/worker/family social secretary.... I am mainly happy that no matter what life throws at the two of us, because I have options--he has options.

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:42AM

That's it, Vacogito! Husbands and wives should be on the same team, not enemies. It's the options women need (and have) not demanding public funds to pay for their choices.

Georgetwin| 3.21.12 @ 8:58AM

If this "issue" is framed as LADIES vs. Women, it goes away for a HUGE majority of the populace. Being a LADY is a CHOICE and it requires EFFORT. "Women" like Fugly Fluck, Joy Blowhard and Mammy Goldberg are a dime a dozen.

Sandra| 3.21.12 @ 10:12AM

You are correct, there is a BIG difference between a "lady" and a "gal." Even more than the maturity difference between Women and Girls.
Or as an well proven adage states "there are the girls you party with and then there is the woman you marry and raise a family with; there IS a difference between the two"

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 10:15AM

Those haints wouldn't know what "class" & being a lady consists of if you brainwashed it into them for a decade. They're hopeless. Whoopi shoulda stuck to comedy. Harpy Behar? Jist go away. Baba Wawa is just oblivious & I think slipping into senile dementia. Fluck WAS a nobody. NOW, I'll bet you my next paycheck that she'll have a show on LSDNBC.

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.21.12 @ 9:36AM

Sandra Fluke's hairstyle, or lack thereof, should be enough of a contraceptive.

Georgetwin| 3.21.12 @ 9:43AM

All Fugly Fluck needs for Birth Control is the light switch in the on position.

Mary| 3.21.12 @ 9:38AM

Thanks Lisa you hit the nail on the head. Women in this country have more rights than any other. Instead of focusing on women in countries that have no rights and speaking out against their true oppression, we have "victims" that always have some precieved right at the expense of someone else. Enough!!! We just want government to get the hell out of our lives and do what they are supposed to protect us against enemies who wish to destroy this country; however, that is hard for them to do when the main enemies of this country are the ones running/ruining it into the ground and changing it beyond recognition.

henry| 3.21.12 @ 9:40AM

Lisa, you sound like my wife. When she did her Masters in ethics she came up against female academics she seriously regarded as witches. You know the type: discard every allusion to God as “father”, worship Gaia, regard abortion as equivalent to having a haircut: “it’s my body and my choice”.
More strength to your arm, my sister. Don’t let them shut you up.

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 9:41AM

I get a great kick out of the fact that feminism started out critiquing maleness and then told women they can be just like men. Now they are. Except they can get pregnant and be tied to the rearing of a child. No wonder they support birth control so desperately. They've become just like men. So what happened to feminism if womens' goal is to be like men?

Marilyn| 3.21.12 @ 9:47AM

Thank you!! I am sick to death of the women's movement which has been absconded by progressive liberals. I am sick to death of talking heads telling us daily that "women like/don't like" some political action as if we are all the same and think the same which is how they tell women to think. I never agree with what they tell me I think. Have you ever heard them say all men think a certain way? I didn't think so. I am much smarter than that and I am tired of all these silly women who fall for the headlines and espouse them without any investigation or education on their part.

Stormzeye| 3.21.12 @ 9:53AM

Wonderful piece Lisa. I've been wanting to read words like yours in a respected journal for years. Women's greatest contribution to civil society is the effect they have on mens' animal spirits. True femininity enables men to serve women. False femininity acts as a challenge to men which only diminishes both sexes.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 9:53AM

It's about time! Women are realizing that feminism, in the long run, doesn't help them since it rewards and empowers women to act badly and weakens men's ability to provide and protect them.

But really, even as I commend Lisa for addressing the 500 lb gorilla in the room, conservative men should have been ahead of her in having the courage to take feminism head on, including women's right to vote, rather than being PC and supporting their daughters getting high powered careers while simultaneously griping that men are "boys" and not living up to the breadwinner and protector role. Ultimately, you can't restore men to their needed and rightful place as leaders with women saying the hard stuff, can you?

Something everyone needs to keep in mind: There's no going back because the situation of the past brought us to where we are today. We need to learn from the past rather than go back to it and the repeat it again.

As the 100th anniversary of the Titanic comes up, let's consider the reason why the "law of the sea" suggests tossing men into the ocean in the first place: The men of the USS Birkenhead being ordered to drown while women and children went to the lifeboats. While putting civilians first is certainly an appropriate order, the remaining seats should have been awarded by lottery or age. This so-called law of the sea doesn't exist but is now enshrined in tradition meaning, it was never legal. The civilian men of the Titanic were murdered by this tradition and it set a precedent that men were to be disposable everywhere else too.

So the result of this "noble" tradition is that unwed mothers are lauded no matter their actions while hard working, decent men trying to be fathers were treated like dirt by family courts and the legal system and over the last 40 years, conservative and liberal pundits alike bashed men in puzzlement that they weren't motivated to work hard and sacrifice before being tossed overboard both literally and figuratively. This hyper worship of women now has evolved into even putting children overboard as an article in amspec discusses abortion and infanticide. Of course, it's the natural evolution of a hyper chivalry which is secretly based upon craving acceptance from women.

The origins of chivalry of old was to act as humanely as possible even in difficult circumstances such as war and disaster. Period. Not to just protect women, and then children, but also non-combatants and the innocent. This should be a standard that applies not only to men but to everyone and is the (positive) origin to our (classically) liberal society which respects individual human rights and social conscience.

Bottom line: Men, stop apologizing for yourself, bashing fellow men and pandering to women. Rather than acting nobly, you're instead being suicidal.

Cuffs| 3.21.12 @ 10:03AM

Amen and amen again!!

gran torino| 3.21.12 @ 10:10AM

I am no liberal but this sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Do we really want to hand everything over to men? Are all men simply better at running things than women? Aren't women capable of independent thought? And worst of all, should women continue to suffer domestic violence in silence? I agree that feminists have been making a shrill hash of things, but I don't think voting rights have been all that bad--men are also perfectly capable of electing monsters.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 10:19AM

I don't think women shouldn't have any rights. On the contrary, in the past most women had to work outside of the home to help support working class households. Many women have also been strong leaders. In some ways, their traditional role gave them the resources to head local charity and community organizations. I remember when I was growing up the the women organized the church and neighborhood events and I knew practically everyone. Today, in the two parent working home, I barely know my neighbors since most of them go to work and come home to watch TV.

Look at it this way, Gran Torino, if women are just capable as men at being providers... then why aren't they? Why do they need affirmative action in addition to continued sexist preferences in family court, child-support and welfare and are still slipping in their roles as mothers? If they want to be men, fine. But that doesn't mean being a victim and getting stuff handed to you and still screwing up. Until this equality they claim to want is real, I can't take it seriously.

michelle| 3.21.12 @ 10:18AM

Something else that bothers me about my liberal counterparts - and I can speak specifically about a friend I am now disillusioned with-- is their tailor made life... That is to say- they decide they are going to school, travel the world, have as many intimate encounters as they want courtesy of the no fault pregnancy/birth control/abortion.

Then after they make it to 'Account Manager' middle rung status and have seen Beudapest and the Galapagos islands, and they are 40,a they need a husband and a baby to make it complete.

They then visit, say, match.com- go through the checklist of a perfect 'match' complete with salary requirements , marry. After years of birth control and given their age, they then go through fertility treatments/invitro/selectively choose the embryos- and now have twins on the way. Imagine the shock (sic) to find out it is a boy AND a girl on their first pregnancy!! What luck!.

Neither parent intend to stop working full time, (when at the age of 40+ after supposedly both with sucessful careers you would think that one would be able to) and now these 2 month old BABIES will be subjected to a life of daycare, wraparound care, latch key status..

It makes me sick, and makes me very sad when thinking about these babies not being raised in a loving home..

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 10:28AM

Michelle, I dated a lot of those women and the above scenario you describe is about as realistic as a trailer park factory worker skipping school and instead buying lottery tickets. Ok, it's not as bad as that but unrealistic nonetheless.

These women go on match and set up their searches that come back with maybe 5 matches: Tall, rich lawyers and doctors. Now if there were a thousand of such men per block, they'd be in luck but they wound up with the likes of, well, me. I'd feel sorry for them if they didn't treat me like "settling" for me was about as appetizing as going to Ruth's Chris and ordering a big salad.

This worked out for them during the late 80's when a combination of demographics, economics, and politics meant that the relatively few Gen X career women could get chased by the large numbers of older Baby Boomers who were freshly divorced from their housewives. Times have changed and the demographics are reversed. These ideal mates of theirs are rare and they know it. I know a few of them. They're often real jerks and if they're not, they get taken off the market pretty quickly.

So they date those jerks for about 10 years and then get desperate and as I said, consider me and by then I'm not in a mood to rush into marriage and/or children with them in the hopes they won't divorce me in a hot minute, serve me up with support paperwork, and take their prize away. It's not uncommon now for such women to the sperm bank. Another option is to find some dumb guy and sleep with him on the 3rd date, tell him she's on the pill, and "oops" him into fatherhood (with fatherhood being weekend babysitting). If a father isn't advising his sons of these dangers, he's being totally negligent but sadly most young men coming of age today probably don't have a father around to warn them...

Sparch| 3.21.12 @ 10:58AM

A true feminist, where the solemnity of your femininity is retained while maintaining the dignity of your humanity.

Marylou| 3.21.12 @ 11:01AM

Wow.... What's wrong with you? Are you Liberal? Sorry about your mental illness.

Joe D.| 3.21.12 @ 11:03AM

Lisa, that was a mouth full. It was great! It is about time some more women spoke up for the silent other side. My mother stayed home with us while we were growing up. She was wonderful, intelligent, conservative, good listener, and gave great common sense advice. I think it is a disservice to children to have to be latch key kids or feel guilty if we are not.

Seek| 3.21.12 @ 11:10AM

That someone actually believes that women in this country should be denied the right to vote is ludicrous beyond belief. Does anyone believe such a notion anywhere will be taken seriously? What exactly compels The American Spectator to publish this writer?

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 11:21AM

It was mighty nice of Lisa's husband to allow her to be a professional troll.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 11:22AM

Seek you need to go to the library and check out a globe. The world isn't just western Europe, the USA, and Canada. Plenty of men in the middle east think women shouldn't have the right to vote and they are now in the same political party in the states as the feminists are in. So apparently, feminists are ok hanging out at Democrat party functions with anti-suffragists.

In the meantime, feminism just isn't working out. No matter how many entitlements women get in order to be "equal", they can't ride very far with the training wheels on before they complain they need more stuff. Can women be "equal" with preferential treatment, welfare, taxpayer funding for everything they need, and long maternity leaves? Sadly, no. they still need more. And more. And more.

So like with Solyndra, when does the taxpayer and economy just decare: enough!?!?

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 3:24PM

Polish, can you please stop making the same mistake liberals make? Stop painting all women with the same brush, please. I am a woman, and I assure you, I do not want ANY entitlements, and if I happened at any point to need them, I would not "complain I need more stuff." I want equal treatment and protection under the law, not preferential treatment. I want the opportunity to be what I choose to be, whether that is President of the USA, soccer mom extraordinaire, jet setting socialite, or janitor at the local school. No handouts, no quotas, just fair dealing. Let's not forget that women didn't get equal opportunities even in the USA until very recently. Stop the cliches, please.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 3:57PM

Idalily, you had me until you came up with the damsel-in-distress claim that "women didn't get equal opportunities in the USA until very recently". Wiki up "Titanic" and "women and children first". (Note: women had a better survival rate than children on the ship!)

The problem is that if you allow women to compete with men, equally, and then drop all chivalrous patronage and protection, you do realize we're going back to the caveman era? What to do with all the children produced by poor women without breadwinners? Send them to the workhouse? Leave them on the street? Or subsidize so-called equality by supporting such women while poor men have the "opportunity" (or more like requirement) to earn a living?

In the meantime, as the bourgeois women's birth rates plummet as they either fail to marry or have fewer kids as they pay for all the bills on their own, the whole system, again, evolves much with cavemen as women who don't believe in equality tend to have more kids in the middle and working class and the poor children die off and the upper class feminists breed themselves out of existence. Even with all the federal funding and entitlement programs, this is largely happening.

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 5:00PM

Damn the Titanic. I'm talking about being able to own property, make equal wages for the same work, being able to vote and be represented in political bodies just as men have been allowed to do. No more, but also NO LESS. If you can't be chivalrous to a woman without demanding she cede something in return, you are a poor excuse for a man. Since when is honor tied to reward? Women like me don't want it both ways, but we want equitable treatment under the LAW. You talk about the children of poor women. What about letting the women and men who created those children decide who and how to win the bread? That's their business and their problem and their responsibility. And whether you support a woman, let her support you, or divide the task equally is your business and not my problem.

And if women are "failing to marry" don't men bear just as much of the responsibility for that?

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 5:32PM

Idalily, the Titanic illustrates that women had privileges men did not. So it's not all black and white. So saying "no more, but also NO LESS" and then only looking at the stuff men have had, but women didn't, is similar to saying: "What's yours is MINE and what's mine is MINE!" especially when you emphasize the NO LESS part. Same thing with the "real man" shaming ploy. When you use it, you undermine any honorable justification for women's equality. Which leads to the answer to your question:

"Since when is honor tied to reward?"

Because if you don't reward honor, pretty soon there won't be too much of it around. Or in other words: If you want to be treated like a lady, act like one. And if you want men to be gentlemen, don't take them for granted.

Next question (end of your statement)
"And whether you support a woman, let her support you, or divide the task equally is your business and not my problem."

So then are you willing to just let the unwed mothers sit with their brood on the street and starve to death? What about the voluntary charity we've read about here? How will this be handled? Does society have the, er, balls to be that harsh again and put the kids in Dickenson workhouses?

Next question:
"And if women are "failing to marry" don't men bear just as much of the responsibility for that?"

It depends upon why they're not marrying. If the men aren't living up to 1950's standards the women crave, that shouldn't be his fault if women's equality required undermining the existence of such men. You don't blame the buffalo for Buffalo Bill's inability to find anymore to shoot, do you?

Imagine, if you will, if society expected women to not only support their children but also men as well and enacted an affirmative action program to discriminate against women. How well do you think that would work? It's not only the fault of such women they can't marry but stunning that they just don't "get it" why it's not working for them. It's a stunning display of selfishness, arrogance, and stupidity and yes, it really begs the question as to why such amazingly vacuous minds are allowed to vote!

idalily| 3.22.12 @ 3:36PM

First, I got your point about the Titanic, but it's moot. You reference a privilege based on tradition. I'm talking about the LAW and the law applying to both sexes equally. And back in the day, there were plenty of privileges men enjoyed women did not. So again, your point about the Titanic is moot.

Second, how is expecting fair treatment under the LAW an example of me "not acting like a lady?" Are you saying that because I believe women should have the right to vote I am not a lady? Or are you saying that you'll only do chivalrous things like open doors for women who agree with you? Or are you saying that women who believe in the vote shouldn't allow men to open doors for them? What ARE you saying, exactly?

Third, a woman with a brood of children in this country has the right to abstain from having them. Her partner(s) had the choice to abstain, also. They created the children by their choices and decisions, and I expect them to live up the responsibilities and consequences of that choice. Should they be unable to do so, that's what charities are for, and why I give to charities.

Fourth, I'm not sure you know anything about what women "crave." Where do you GET these ideas about 1950's marriage? I don't want to go back to the 50's. I don't want a man from the 50's. I expect a man to behave in a moral and chivalrous manner toward me, and I have no problem doing the same toward him. And how in any way am I faulting men for women not marrying? You are throwing strawmen at me to justify your incredible chauvinism.

Fifth, your strawman about imagining a society where women support everyone has what to do with my points? Oh, that would be NOTHING. I do not advocate affirmative action plans and never have. It doesn't work and I never said it did. Your extrapolations are amazing. You should be a gymnast.

Sixth, I assume that these "vacuous minds" refer to females in your world view? What, there aren't any men out there with "vacuous minds."

Last, you, sir, are a perfect example of why so many women don't vote conservative. You provide all the ammunition they need to justify staying on the other side of the aisle. Thanks for nothing.

PolishKnight| 3.26.12 @ 6:41PM

Short response (since you're unlikely to read this and the best points are usually the most important.) Arguing that traditional women's lifeboat preferences were mere "tradition" is a red herring. The men giving the orders had legal authority and were backed up by society AND FEMINISTS of the time. On the Birkenhead, it was a military order for the men to drown. So they had no choice. Then on the Titanic, the captain gave the order and his underlings probably were armed. And the law backed him up. Sure, the men mostly agreed with it but the men who didn't probably didn't have a choice but to go along.

So despite all this talk about the precious rights of women to choices mattering, you throw away men's rights and choices when tradition, society, and the law look the other way to suit women. Bottom line: It was a benefit, women had it, period. So being a woman had it's benefits! That sexism wasn't ALL bad.

Your last point is also worth responding to: If you want men to say: "We'll be reasonable and hope that things work out and try to ban abortion and cut back on government spending", that would be great, but really, at this point, what good is it? It's like trying to bail out the Titanic with a bucket. More extreme, radical, measures are counted for and short of an open revolution again, my suggestions can achieve a lot of what most women want: Those 1950's breadwinner protectors (tm). You may say you don't want them and even mean it, but most women desire otherwise and if you think about it, isn't that democracy and a vote in a way? These women VOTE with their ACTIONS.

Oh, to heck with it, I'll respond to the whole thing. You can dismiss the brood(ers) with having kids and going to charity but it's questionable as to whether charity can handle all the kids these women have out of wedlock. I see you tried to drag the men into it. The fact is that a woman who wants to have kids simply can do so largely without men, so to speak, by finding even the most irresponsible man out there, or a sperm bank, so he's irrelevant in this context. It's like trying to fix most of the male cats in the neighborhood while letting the females go out and do as they please. It has zero effect on the problem. Most people do not trust charity to fully handle this problem. It's been tried (see Dickens). Anyways, at this point, it's such a mess that charity won't be able to take it on and the welfare state is committed to making it worse. So it's moot.

I merely used the example of women paying for everything as a thought experiment to show how unreasonable modern feminism is where they want men to pay for everything, live up to chivalrous traditions, continue to enjoy preferential employment, academic, and even legal treatment and then are surprised that men aren't performing like they used to. You may dismiss the importance of personal lives and families but think about it: for most (decent) people, the workplace isn't some fun place to achieve their childhood dreams but rather a place to support their families. If you don't want a family or care about it, great, but consider: in the end, evolution means that those who have families and kids form the next generation and society. Family is EVERYTHING.

Finally, (really!), you calling me sir may be a bit of a backhanded title but in reality, if women want to enjoy continued equality you need to understand that tough discussions like this are necessary. A democracy is about respecting people's strong opinions within certain limits. I didn't say we should put babies and puppies into microwave ovens here. I'm not a monster. Since most women still love elements of sexism from the 20th century (those lifeboat seats and doors held open) then EVERYTHING else in that context is fair game. You can try to weasel around tradition versus hard, coded law but that's merely a quibble but the topic remains the same.

Richard| 3.21.12 @ 11:35AM

The best way for liberal women to become conservative women is to marry and have children.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 11:47AM

Probably does happen quite a bit but I know several cases where the liberal women do the simple double dip which is what they intended all along: They vote liberal democrat to discriminate against men, promote "diversity" and stop drilling for oil and then they drive a gas guzzler home to the suburbs and tell their hubby she's "traditional" and that he pays the bills.

Getting away with this only spurs the rest of them on rather than discouraging them. Fortunately, that's becoming increasingly difficult for them to accomplish.

Slacker| 3.21.12 @ 11:50AM

I take no exception to anything the author wrote; however, her observations make me feel bad for…well everybody.

Conservative men and women are fed up and angry. The feminists are, as always, outraged. Unmarried women are desperate and countless men are basically saying “fuck-it” and opting out.

Only proves it was easier to break something than improve upon it. Story as old as time I guess.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 12:18PM

Not necessarily Slacker. I saw one feminists on Foxnews with the latest series of articles/stories dribbled out from the NYT that women are beating men in the workplace and education and the feminists gloating about it. I only saw a portion, but the Fox and Friends cast let the woman go on and on about how much better women are at school, etc. but then the immediate question is: So now can they compete without AA and billions in federal programs to give them other special privileges?

I'm wondering if this switch in the narrative is perhaps due to them realizing that women being supervictims all the time probably was not helping the women who do have good jobs but nonetheless go to an empty home every night. So they are getting a jolt of "grrl power".

Slacker| 3.21.12 @ 4:54PM

Gloating will not appease them. I think what you are seeing is that once the feminist tinkers achieve their ambitions of debasing men, they will turn inward and wage war on each other.

Going home to an empty house makes them pissed but, where can they direct their rage? The sexism card is nearly tapped out. Now about all they can muster are weak grumbles that there are no good men to marry (after they have burned through 30 relationships) and perhaps something was wrong with feminism.

It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is headed: More rage.

Citizen Jerry| 3.21.12 @ 11:56AM

Nice piece of clear-headed thinking. Of course, the male enablers are what we call the new castrati who have been neutered by the feminist bullies.

Rush came up with this oldie in 1988, but it's still just as valid today: Undeniable Truth #24 -- Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

Dmac | 3.21.12 @ 12:29PM

Here's what I find funny with the liberal women of today. They insult Sarah Palin, but she is exactly what the feminist of the 60's and early 70's said women should be doing, and they hate her for doing it better than they do. While the liberal women pander to the media and politians, Palin leads.

cicero| 3.21.12 @ 1:27PM

Before the industrial revoluction, most men and women were dependant on agriculture, on a small scale, to survive. Both had to work together, under severe conditions, to raise a family - which was necessary for survival in thier later years, if they had any. With the industrial revolution, the family mnoved to the city, where both had to work to provide basic sustenance. It wasn't until the Womens' and Childrens' Labor Laws that were passed in this country in the late 19th century that wages were driven up for male workers sufficiently that a man, as the sole bread winner, could support a family. We seem hell bent for leather to reverse this on the basis that women should have the right to work outside of the home and let others raise their children. But at what price for our women? Who gets the first "mamma" Who will see the first "step" As a culture we have to ask ourselves, is the cost worth the product? I am not suggesting that women (I am the father and father-in-law of several smart, strong women, who are the strength of my family) not ahcieve their potential. I am only suggesting that we not insist that one size fits all.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 2:06PM

But isn't that largely what happens with women's equality? That by allowing, or even subsidizing, women to "achieve their potential" in high income or glamour professions that the rest of society including men, children, and most women really then are stuck with the fallout from these womens' empowerment?

In the meantime, men are told all the time they can't achieve their potential. A guy who wants to be a poet and have a family is told to simply pick one. Feminism is the notion that women should be able to do as they please with few if any consequences and conservative men, loving their daughters, don't want to tell them they can't have lollipops and ice cream for dinner. Equality for women would mean that if they don't compete successfully with men, they wind up poor and childless and even on the street. Instead, and what's worse really, it's now increasingly the well educated women who don't want to marry down who wind up childless with the poor women having a dozen kids. There's just so much wrong with all of this!

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 3:31PM

Wrong. True feminism is when women live within a society that enables them to be free to choose their own path in life. Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to be advocating not that, but something else, some distant past where women couldn't vote. Do you want to go back to women not being allowed to own property, too? We got where we are because when men were legally and morally in charge of all financial and familial decisions on our behalf, women got screwed, figuratively and literally. The fact that some women have gone whacko and swung the pendulum so far the other way is no excuse to take away from women the true equality under the law they have fought so hard to gain, which includes the vote.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 3:51PM

Ah yes, the old argument that before feminism, women were clubbed in the head by cavemen and dragged around by their hair.

Something to keep in mind: Back in the old days, not all men were doctors and scientists with private jets and limos and stores selling $500 designer bags and shoes. Most men and women couldn't vote or own property. Life wasn't about being "free to choose your own path in life". Philosophically, back then, even serfs and slaves could choose their own path in life, so to speak, with the resources they had. A slave could commit suicide or a serf could run away with the clothes on his back. But choices were limited. They still largely are. This notion of all women being able to become a doctor or lawyer (or both!) and then marry a rich guy and have the taxpayers foot all her contraception bills is nice, but it's not gonna happen no matter who sits in the white house. It just isn't possible! It's not The Real World.

In answer to your question: women often could and did own property (ever hear of Queen Elizabeth?) but I find it funny that women who say they want 'traditionalism' when justifying their choice to marry up don't realize that men in traditional households controlled all the money and property. Regarding the pendulum swung too far: The problem is that this isn't a pendulum so much as a absurdity. How is any of this equality? And if the pendulum truly had swung, women would have been demanding men get the lifeboats on the Costa Concordia. Instead, it's just been a goodie grab. Women cannot have what most of them crave: men as 1950's breadwinners and protectors with the option to full equality. You gotta pick one and the choices women have made, freely. over the past 40 years speaks louder than words!

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 5:09PM

Women could own property IF it was willed to them UNTIL they married, at which point their property became their husbands. Divorced women had no right to their children, no right to support (though they were socially prohibited from earning a living respectably....I could go on and on about how women have been suppressed, and if you cannot at least acknowledge this, then you know nothing of history, property law, or marriage law in most of the Western World for the last fifteen centuries. And you are seriously using Queen Elizabeth as an example of what women were allowed to do? She was a QUEEN, for heaven's sake. The average woman of 1550 didn't have a fraction of the rights men enjoyed. And serfs and slaves chose NOTHING. They had no resources. America was founded on the principle of equal opportunity, and women should have access to the same opportunities as men. No more, no less.

As for what women expect, again you are painting all women with the same brush. I don't want a 1950's breadwinner husband and protector along with full equality. What I want is full equality under the LAW. It's up to my husband and I to decide how our relationship functions and who wins the bread, takes care of the kids, etc. It is up to the law to provide the equal opportunity for both sexes. What they do with that opportunity is their business and not my problem or the government's.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 5:50PM

Idalily, did you ever see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail?" I'm reminded of the line: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

Yeah yeah yeah, women were oppressed in lots of ways but not all of the above at the same time. I recall that Napoleon considered divorcing Josephine but hesitated because of divorce laws that favored her. So I can't imagine that divorce was all that bad for women if the dictator of France had to give it a second thought!

So even as you claim that I'm painting women with the same brush, you are trying to cobble together fifteen centuries of divorce law all together from a variety of places and times and classes. Yeah, ok.

Your position, albeit trying to be reasonable, is a perfect illustration for why women's equality cannot work. You want to claim that at work you can be equal and then come home and arrange a more "traditional" arrangement with your husband where he lives up to the "real man" chivalrous entitlements you cherry pick while simultaneously not having to let him manage all the money and property as "traditional" men did. It's a great idea, especially from your point of view, but that's why they're having a problem finding such men to live up to that role.

And then the mess created by the lower class women having children out of wedlock and the upper class ones who don't want to pay their contraception bills remains. Do we go back to the Dickenson era and if we do, how long does this faux equality last as women themselves say they don't want it? One thing is for sure, it would work a lot better than the system we have now!

idalily| 3.22.12 @ 3:48PM

Stop throwing up strawmen and twisting my words to justify those strawmen. I am NOT "cobbling together" these things. I am saying those fifteen centuries (more, really) are examples of the many ways in which women have historically been repressed by men. By not acknowledging this, you are ignoring history. Women (liberal or conservative) have a BASIS for their demand to equal treatment under the LAW, because for most of human existence it wasn't available to us. Sorry to hammer you with TRUTH, but that's how it was. Women WERE oppressed.

You sure do a lot of extrapolating. I didn't "claim" anywhere that I wanted a traditional marriage. You did. (On the record, I believe in marriage. So? What does that have to do with being treated equally in the eyes of the LAW?)

Stop confusing social mores with LAW. How people conduct their marriages is their business, not mine. How the laws of the country are applied is my business. In a free society, all people should be equal under the LAW. Get the difference?

"All men are created equal" applies to the ladies, too, and I can't believe I am having to make the same arguments Abigail Adams made 200+ years ago. It seems to me YOU are the one who wants to take us back to the Dickenson era (whatever that is). The system we have now is not flawed because women are equal in the eyes of the law. It's flawed because the law is still NOT applied equally. Affirmative action, and other such programs are prime examples of why it's still flawed. It's just flawed a different way. It's still not equal, and it isn't justification for depriving women of their Creator given, unalienable rights, one of which is taxation WITH representation.

Take your chauvinism and shove it. I am in every legal way possible your EQUAL. Don't like it? Too bad.

PolishKnight| 3.26.12 @ 6:19PM

Such a pity I missed this. Lots of good stuff here I read and would love to respond to but somethings a simple retort is the most effective:

Women were not oppressed on the Titanic when they got into those nice, cushy lifeboats. All talk of "equality" was mum then.

This women's equality lasts only as long as the white males hold their hands to demand it. When that ends, they're back in the kitchen in a matter of seconds.

cowgirl| 3.21.12 @ 1:59PM

"In a word, I'm a woman who's sick of women; liberal women, that is."

Amen Girl. I am sick and tired of them. Whiners.

THKrupp| 3.21.12 @ 2:05PM

Well the nice thing is that in this day and age women and men can do pretty much what they want. Theres not much pressure from society to be one way or the other. The issue is almost purely economics. If you can afford it you have the option of staying home if not then you work outside the home. It all depends on your economic choices and your value system. I grew up with my mom home all day long. My youngest brother grew up as basically a latch key kid because she had to go back to work for economic reasons. We have both turned out successful in our own way. There are always going to be pluses and minuses regardless. Families, traditional or not will have to figure out their own way of doing it. Luckily we live in a country where we are free to do that. I dont think that the feminist revolution turned out quite the way they origionally imagined when it was started. To be honest we are probably better off with the way things are now than we were before. There is a very low chance that we will go back to the way things were before with everyone basically living in the same pattern. How would you force people back into strict gender roles? The economics of the situation will decide.

writerthinker| 3.21.12 @ 2:17PM

I don't understand conservatives. Here you have this beautifully packaged issue--the Obama administration makes a massive overreach with the contraceptive mandate, receives bipartisan criticism, confirms his critics' worst fears about the expanding role of federal government.

And you guys throw out the advantage with articles like this one that actually advocate the disenfranchisement of women (from a female political writer, of all people)! With follow-up comments about how all women are welfare queens who need a full-time caretaker. The mind boggles.

THIS is why so many women just can't support the Republican party--because whatever the policy debate, the overarching message is, "You're too stupid to vote or support yourself--but please vote for us!" How do you expect any constituent embrace your message, however positive, when your primary way of viewing them is condescension?

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 2:33PM

Nobody here said that "all women are welfare queens" so you're putting words into our mouths. So you lecture about us being condescending is blown away by your own intellectual dishonesty. YOU said it, we didn't! And the Fluke issue actually helps illustrate just what you said: That even a privileged 30 year old student going to a private law school still wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for her private choices. How is that NOT being a welfare queen? The left is continually telling women that they can't do anything for themselves and this appears to be a message that resonates with many women. Conservatives are merely giving women the opportunity to show otherwise.

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 2:51PM

Here's the problem: you still think Sandra Fluke was saying taxpayers should pay for her contraception. That's factually wrong, and you still don't get it. This article, one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life, says women should lose the right to vote, which you somehow interpret as giving women the opportunity to show that they can do something for themselves. You complain about condescension after writing paragraphs after paragraph of condescending nonsense about women that seems primarily fueled by your dating failures with feminists.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 3:07PM

You've connected a lot of dots there. The "dumb" article said X which is interpreted to say Y (simply due to Y being a comment in X) and is driven by Z.

You also claimed that Fluke wanting taxpayers to pay for her contraception is factually wrong. Granted, at this time she's asking the "insurance" companies to foot the bill via a government mandate that would force her employer to pick up the tab but we both know that she supports socialist healthcare so that's a minor quibble.

And it's funny that you claim that my condescending nonsense is primarily fueled by my dating failures with feminists when Fluke is an overprivileged co-ed law student who went on a victim tour of the USA because Rush Limbaugh called her a name in a political diatribe. When they stop being perpetual victims only then will it be possible to credibly accuse me of condescending to them!

writerthinker| 3.21.12 @ 3:01PM

Yes, I was clearly hyperbolizing in illustration of the forementioned "mind-boggle." The phrase "welfare-queen" has not actually appeared.

However, going back to several of your comments, there is a clear implication that women cannot succeed without the largesse of either a protecting spouse or a paternal federal government. Hence, your assertion that equality and the welfare state are inextricably linked.

If one is speaking specifically about single mothers, there is some truth to your argument. Parenthood and singleness are singularly ill-suited, and for biological reasons women are more likely to end up as single parents. However, not ALL single women are seeking government benefits or would ever even consider such.

Further, just where are these millions of dollars in subsidies for women? I've certainly never seen any, nor am I acquainted with any woman who has. As for affirmative action--certainly not in higher ed, pal. Even an imagined need for such is long gone, as women have outnumbered men in universities for quite some time . Frankly, to believe all that you've said, you'd have to think that any woman's contribution or success outside of the home is feigned or imagined, even in highly results-based industries. Or, that no woman can lead an independent life without having children--a belief I've seen disproven a hundred times over in my quite conservative social group.

If your beliefs are not what I have read them to be, I certainly welcome your clarification.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 3:36PM

When you talk about women "more likely to end up as single parents" it implies somehow that it's like a virgin birth where the babies magically pop out of their stomachs. When the state stops paying for women to raise children in poverty as a lifestyle choice, then it will be "less like to end up" happening!

Again, I never said or even implied that ALL single women were seeking government benefits. That's another strawman that's easy for you to shoot down. Well done if I had actually said such a thing. I even said in a comment above that there were many single women doing excellent jobs making do with unexpected challenges such as the death of a spouse in war or abandonment but overall, these women are the exception rather than the norm. It would be similar to, say, categorizing ALL men as "privileged" and "wealthy" and oppressors in order to justify special treatment for women. Oh, wait, that's what man-hating feminists have been doing for years! That's their modus-operandi, not mine. Thanks.

Note I didn't say millions of dollars in subsidies for women. That's like pocket change for Obama. I said Billions. Get it right! And sure, there are tons of programs out there, federally funded, for helping women in business and education in addition to shakedowns of corporations that are worried about federal lawsuits if they don't send over money to multiple feminist organizations. Saying that the need for such programs is gone doesn't change the fact that they are still there and claiming they are not in higher ed is nonsense, pal.

I wouldn't say "any" woman's contribution or success outside of the home is feigned or imagined but it undermines the credibility of modern women's so-called equality when women still rely upon chivalrous patronage from men directly and special privileges from the government. If a baseball team is full of dopers, it's going to give a bad name even to the players who didn't shoot up. The left has no problems attacking the credibility of non-white or women conservatives implying that they used AA to get ahead, yes?

But let's go with your claim that not "all" women want to have children or a traditional 1950's breadwinner or have children. Agreed. Happy? But that said, isn't it more restrictive to women (and non-important people such as men and children) to force society to cater to the exceptions rather than the rule? For all this talk about empowering women, it's undermined the desires of most of them! And even for the few women that consider themselves beneficiaries of so-called pretend equality, most women who REALLY wanted to be a doctor or scientist could do so. Do you know who Madam Curie was? She wasn't born after 1960!!!! Thanks to the problems created by feminism, it's questionable whether even these women have been more hindered than helped by feminism since they are now often competing against women who are promoted, hired, or admitted based upon political quota rather than ability. In other words, it's a hot mess!

I feel strongly about this issue and am quite well educated on it because sure, I have personal experience but don't we all feel strongly otherwise why are we here? Isn't something such as this that strongly affects everyone and the economy, our families, and personal relationships something to get fired up about? Feminists gnash their teeth over paying too much for haircuts in California but getting fired up about treating the primary demographic of the Republican party, men, is something the Republicans better start doing before it becomes irrelevant.

writerthinker| 3.21.12 @ 4:58PM

I'm slightly baffled by your first paragraph; I wasn't implying anything of the kind. If anything, I was conceding that single mothers do, indeed, require a disproportionate share of welfare benefits. If you'd like me state it differently, what I meant was "Dudes who sleep around don't become single parents because they can't get pregnant." Better?

But I disagree that the entire concept of equality--equality taken in the philosophical sense that the Founders employed when they said "All men are created equal"--means that unmarried women become wards of the state. A society without sexual mores may truly foster a welfare state, but the simple fact of women working and getting an education is not. Even in today's world, the majority of women are not on government benefits, nor are they seeking such. In fact, recent polling has shown that most women don't even support the Fluke position. Meanwhile, many married women are also contributing financially to their households through their work. I disagree that responsible women are the "exception."

Returning to subsidies--yes, there are far more benefits in the form of scholarships available to women and minorities, and in that sense I suppose the young white male is getting the short shrift. Indeed, I agree such benefits, where they exist, are sexist at their root and essentially offensive. However, these benefits are far less widespread than you imagine, and certainly not enough to discount or call into question the accomplishments of all women. If you're seeking understanding, it is not okay to paint people with a broad brush.

My comments about affirmative action and higher ed still stand: there is no female affirmative action. It's illegal per Title IX. These days, many universities are struggling to recruit more men, not the other way around.

I made no claims whatsoever about women not wanting children. My comment pertained specifically to single women; women are able to be single and not have out-of-wedlock births, especially if they respect traditional morals (yes, it does happen). And the simple evidence of people's choices suggest that most women do not seek 1950s style breadwinners in the "lay-around-eating-bonbons" sense. I am sorry if you have encountered such people, but I assure that you that most women have much more positive aspirations for their marriages.

As for your statement, "the primary demographic of the Republican party, men,"--why, that's exactly the problem. There are many women who are open to conservative viewpoints, but can't stomach what, to all appearances, is a high level of hostility toward them. It would be highly helpful to us all if commentators would stop shooting off at the mount about these things--I mean, honestly, is this really the time to express an outlier view that women shouldn't vote? Really?

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 9:35PM

I didn't mean to harp on you about the semantics of single parents tending to be women but rather emphasizing that the welfare state is an enabler of unwed motherhood and feminism. And yes, "better". Please stop harping on radical positions which require "all" women to be on welfare or stay at home full time or never do anything responsible or other such obviously ridiculous positions because I never implied or said such things. I'll summarize what I said to be clear:
Most women are not equal (or greater) than men when it comes to responsibility and most resist such responsibilities to the point that it becomes unworkable social policy. So sure, women often work part or full time and help with the household finances but the couple clearly understands that while her income is to "help" with the finances, his ability to produce a decent income is necessary for the continuation or establishment of a relationship between them while hers was not. That's not "equal". Get it?
When the supply of 1950's breadwinners dries up compared to the supply of successful career women, a natural economic system with women's equality in place would require a market correction: namely, the women who are unable to find a breadwinner and also unable to support themselves would need to change their attitudes. Quickly. The welfare state is a safety valve for feminists to release excess supplies of truly desperate unmarried women. This is why in the states that even poor women have a "feminist" attitude. This doesn't require all women go on welfare for this safety valve to benefit so-called women's equality. It merely prevents these women from rebelling against feminism because it let them down in providing them support to raise a family. The taxpayer foots the bill for the failures of feminism rather than the ideology itself. Again, are you following so far?
You initially had claimed that affirmative action wasn't in "higher ed" adding "pal" and now you're saying these benefits are far less widespread than I imagine. Yeah, other than nearly every university advertising preferences for women and minorities openly next to "equal opportunity employer", how can it be widespread? Maybe you define "widespread" as the program having to exist on an intergalactic level. Keep in mind I didn't paint them with a broad brush. The rationalizations for these preferences that poor, helpless women can't be equal to men without preferences comes from the legal arguments and justifications used by judges themselves defending them. They often claim that these programs are "successful" by the higher success rates of women in academia and the workplace. In any case, whether the women only needed moderate handholding or complete handholding one thing is certain: The training wheels are still on, right? You can argue that Sally can ride the bicycle just as well as a man and those training wheels aren't a big deal, but as long as they are on... I have my doubts. OK?
I have heard the claim that universities are supposedly "struggling" to recruit more men yet the preferential programs remain in place. Yet, for some reason, the campuses continue to fill up with women! What a surprise, eh? For some reason, the womens' resource center, the women's studies center, and the women's dean can't seem to explain why there campus is empty of men. Their half hearted outreach to practice "affirmative action" for men seems more like a snide, cynical rationalization of the preferences program for women than an attempt to enforce quotas that would just happen to benefit men instead of women.
I never said anything about bonbons. Again, this is a strawman. I merely said (more or less) that most heterosexual women would rather remain single than marry down. Sure, they might work part time. Or even "contribute" from their full time job to a man who was chosen by his breadwinner abilities but again, repeat after me so you get it: That is NOT equality! They can still have positive aspirations for the marriage, but it's not equality. If you like, I'll explain to you what "mad money" means sometime.
This is worth quoting: "As for your statement, "the primary demographic of the Republican party, men,"--why, that's exactly the problem. There are many women who are open to conservative viewpoints, but can't stomach what, to all appearances, is a high level of hostility toward them."
This is a problem, granted, but then again John McCain going to LaRaza and offering them all a green card and amnesty and directions to the welfare office probably didn't help with his election bid against Obama, did it? How many of them showed up to support him?
Indeed, based upon demographics, the Republican party as we know it may be dead. The Republicans cannot offer "conservative women" more than what the Democrats may offer them while simultaneously leading to voter apathy with their main demographic. In addition, the Democrats are at least smart enough to engage in political strategy that increases the size of their electorate. I'm thinking that in a post Republican America, the socialist party will split into a 'right wing' much like has happened in Europe. Keep in mind that the Democrats threw working class white males under the bus. They could just as easily do it to women. How did Hillary's 2008 campaign bid go?
Something to keep in mind here: I don't consider my position anti-woman since I am offering women a role as a wife and mother unlike the affirmative action proponents who discriminate against men while griping that the men are "deadbeats" who don't send women checks. My position, albeit sexist as hell, is at least HONEST and WORKABLE. What am I really doing anyway? Any money they lose in their less than "equal" salary will come back to them via their husbands and their taxes will go down as fewer women go on welfare and their sons commit less crimes. It's all win win, baby!
And yes, a smart Republican woman doesn't mind seeing her party win even if she loses that vote. That's thinking big picture. If you could take away MY right to vote and have Ann Coulter win the presidential bid, I'd go for it!
"It would be highly helpful to us all if commentators would stop shooting off at the mount about these things--I mean, honestly, is this really the time to express an outlier view that women shouldn't vote? Really?"
Ok, I get it. Sshhhhhh! Wink wink, nudge nudge. Say no more! But seriously, the left laid out their plans out bare 50 years ago and their moderates said differently and many here still buy it like "women will live up to equality and not ask for special privileges" Hahahaha! Indeed, they really fooled us!

writerthinker| 3.22.12 @ 9:44AM

You aren't responding to what I've actually said. I admitted that there was more charity available to women than to white males, but still the majority of women don't receive this sort of benefit at all.
I also reaffirmed that there is NO affirmative action for women in higher ed. None. It's been illegal for decades.
Yes, your position is honest, I'll give you that, but it is based almost entirely on a worst-possible caricature of women based, presumably, on your own terrible experiences. As I mentioned above, polling data has shown that most women don't even support the Fluke position. Your views only make sense if most or all women are useless leeches unable to compete with men on any level. But if I take an exam in class with men and make a better score, how is that "affirmative action.?" Or if I work at a company and make more sales than my male coworkers, how is that a cheating system? You've constructed a vast conspiratorial network where there is none.
As for giving up the right to vote in order to win an election--that is NOT thinking of the big picture. The vote is a fundamental right that distinguishes our political system from tyranny. The vote is self-government as we know it.
My point about commentators like this is that these are by no means mainstream views. It's certainly this woman's prerogative to rant on about how she wants to be treated as the "weaker sex" (a term that was never restricted to mere physical strength) and have her vote stripped away, but she does not speak for any "silent majority" as she claims. Having spent years among some of our nation's most conservative evangelical circles, I have NEVER heard a woman express these views. Opposing abortion and being fiscally conservative does not mean that I, or any other woman, desires a life of dependence or a lack of basic liberty.

PolishKnight| 3.26.12 @ 6:16PM

I was on a river cruise last friday and didn't check in all weekend. Sorry. So I'll still read and respond even if you don't see the response. Cheers.

I disagree in principle with your claim that a majority of women don't still enjoy both preferential chivalry on a daily basis along with preferential hiring treatment. Even if they are not direct beneficiaries of the latter, it creates a preferential attitude in employment and academia for most women. And yes, I call BS that there's no more sexist preferences for women in academia. A case is coming to the SC this fall based upon racial preferences in academia but I haven't seen any legal precedent to continue racial preferences but not gender so where there's one, there's the other. Perhaps some of the universities are cutting back on their quotas, but the overall preferential treatment of women is now institutionalized as much as sexism against women in the old days but without the chivalrous benefits women enjoyed which leads to: All the goodies women get in the form of divorce and "child" support monies, etc.

You claim I don't read what you said but I know I've said several times that there are exceptions to the rule and sure, some women succeed on their own merit. OK. But overall, without all the preferential treatment along with continued chivalrous entitlements, how long would this much celebrated rise of career women last? We simply don't know but we are sure of one thing: Most women are terrified of letting it go. So sure, maybe you can get a better score on your exam than me but you have a net and training wheels, I don't. Until you let both of them go, this is all simply a different form of white male western Patriarchal patronage. Skipping ahead to your final sentence, women are still living lives of dependence upon men as career women with their breadwinner hubby being expected to pay the mortgage while her money is "mad money", or being able to go on welfare if she can't get a great job, or expecting to use her kids for "child" support and affirmative action helping create a great demand for women. All of that is dependency!!!! It's just a different white knight saving them from the dragon of real world risk and responsibility.

Regarding the vote as the separation between liberty and tyranny. It's so overrated, really. After all, if the vote was the most important thing then the Bill of Rights and Constitutional limits wouldn't have been created by the founding fathers. Just let people vote for the politician they like and be done with it. Perhaps I come across as non-caring about women's rights by suggesting yanking the vote from them but quite frankly, I don't think the vote is by itself responsible for our Democracy as it is. The problem is that the women's vote has helped to undermine all the other things that made (past tense) our Democracy so great but other factors were there as well. But so far, the woman's vote hasn't HELPED matters.

In addition, this notion of the vote as "basic liberty" is also hyperbole. Children don't have the right to vote as well as legal aliens. Yet, they clearly have basic liberty.

Finally, regarding the evangelicals: Abortion rights or lack of them is a stalingrad issue. There's no way to stop women from getting abortions in the country without a constitutional amendment and that isn't happening. In addition, the evangelical women you know of, without me knowing them personally as you do, may also be part of the problem of wanting women to have things both ways. You can't have women all marry up while being equal. That's the fundamental paradigm problem here.

Aoborn| 3.21.12 @ 6:13PM

Actually all the conservative women I know are not members of either party. They are very independent and vote for the candidate that most closely represents their views. I am opposed to leftist feminist that are hypocrits who say they support women's right when what they really support is the leftist ideology. This is not a R issues. This is a moral issue. I do not agree with all this article has to say but there are many valid points made. I suggest you vote for someone who does not lie everytime he opens his mouth like Obama does.

cicero| 3.21.12 @ 3:40PM

Equal is not same. It merely means that everyone has an equal shot of fulfilling their goals. The problem is when politics sets the goals. Anyone , male or female, cam be a doctor or a lawyer, as those professions do not take a lot of upper body strength. Some professions and occupations are gender specific, and it is pretty obvious. However, the society and culture depends on the continuation of the population, and nurturing of the next generation. To insist that all women enter the workforce, and at the same denigrate the only really essential vocation, the birthing, rearing, and civilizing of the next generation is shortsited (suicidal) as a culture. Women alone are physically capable of doing the first; best at the second; and, paired with a strong man, helpful in the last. Why we would insist that this is not a satisfying career choice is a mystery to me.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 4:14PM

FYI:
e·qual
[ee-kwuhl] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, e·qualed, e·qual·ing or ( especially British ) e·qualled, e·qual·ling.
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with ): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.

Mazzuchelli| 3.21.12 @ 5:05PM

But, let's get one thing straight. My parents are both conservatives. They were far-seeing enough to realize that the 'times they are a-changing' and instilled in me a need to achieve on my own. They wanted me to be able to take care of myself before entering into long-term relationships or marriage with a man that no longer held the same principles and convictions of prior generations. They were right. I can't tell you how many of my girlfriends got married, had kids and were soon left. Their husbands went onto second marriages, more children but in a great deal more monetary comfort than the women. So, while I detest the thoughtless, man-hating women's lib songbook, there are a lot of men then and now who turned their back on responsibilities simply because they could.

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 5:20PM

Bingo. I despise the crazed feminist left because they paint all women with the same brush: to be for women you must be pro-abortion, pro quotas, pro free contraception, etc. But I also despise the flip side of the coin: the chauvinistic male who seems to think his chivalry or decency to women has the price attached of her subservience to him as the man of the house. Both are equally reprehensible.

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 5:41PM

Idalily, you can't demand to be a damsel in distress and the white knight to ride up to your rescue and still be treated as his equal. If a man was helpless and crying in his beer while you killed a dozen dragons, would you share credit with him?

When the sexual harassment enforcement broke out during the early 90's, many men I know including the super traditionalist types took it to mean that this was the feminists way to get men to treat them like "ladies" at gunpoint. If he said something that offended a "lady", she could get him fired. So instead of men opening doors for women out of respect, they learned to treat them like live grenades.

The feminists made that world. Don't forget to thank them!

idalily| 3.22.12 @ 3:58PM

Yes, I can. And yes I do. Because I expect that of men. I also expect it of women. Courtesy and honor are not exclusive to men nor are do they come at the price of suppressing others. Expecting a woman to give up having doors opened for her with the right to vote, own property, support herself with equal pay for equal work is your EXCUSE to not be a gentleman. Sorry. Honor doesn't have a price tag. You attempt to justify a trade whereby a man only gives up a seat in a lifeboat to a woman if she gives up her right to vote? Seriously? You are trying to equate two things that have nothing to do with each other. One is the law, the other is custom. Get a grip.

And for the record, I don't agree with the misapplication and overzealous use of sexual harassment law. And yes, men have been oppressed by overzealous sexual harassment law. Well, welcome to the party, pal. Three times in my working life, I've had men demand sexual favors of me to keep my job. I told all of them to pound sand and I got another job. I didn't take advantage of the law, but it's there for a reason. And guess what? Men did crap like to women long before there was a sexual harassment law. That's why the law got created--there was a REASON for it. Ditto for rape, etc. Are there women who take advantage of that? Of course. So what? Does that mean the LAW is wrong? No.

PolishKnight| 3.26.12 @ 5:52PM

Hello Idalily. You probably won't read this but I'll respond anyway. I was, ironically, on a cruise last friday and didn't check in until now. Glad there was no need to fight over lifeboats!

The more you wiggle around to defend women's entitlements while demanding so-called equality, the more you illustrate precisely why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Voting is about making decisions and accepting the consequences. If you can't choose whether to eat your cake or have it too, then you shouldn't vote.

You try to hide behind custom and law where men should be entitled to nothing while women should get everything. If it's a custom for women to be SAH mothers rather than CEO's, then it's her RIGHT to ignore that custom and still be a "lady" but if a man tries to ignore the captain's order to give up his lifeboat seat as a "custom", then he's a CAD if he exercises that right. OK, got it. What's yours is yours and what's mine is yours. Then you're surprised that men are becoming such cads. Where did they ever learn to be so selfish?

One of the ironies of the modern SH laws is that women such as Fluke need ever fear such a classic case of a man trying to threaten her job to get nookie with her. Not just her but most such successful women. The supply of 1950's breadwinners they crave are drying up. And that leads to this final observation (that you'll most likely never read)

Even as feminists try to say that what goes on in the home and workplace should be separate and they can compartmentalize their lives as they like, the world is an interconnected, holistic place just as economic policies mean that not everyone can choose to go on welfare or become a highly paid government worker. This is perhaps why women vote socialist more than men: They think the world revolves around them. As most women crave 1950's breadwinners and are unable to find them, this causes social friction and problems that ultimately undermine the choices and lives of nearly all women including the career women they were meant to empower. In the end, the women lost more than they gained including a concept of feminine chivalrous entitlement that is unique in human history. Never again will men happily jump into the water to save the lives of noble, virtuous women. Such women never existing outside of romance poetry written by crazy or elitist nobility but for the rest of humanity, men stay on the cart while women pull. Enjoy these last gasps of hyper chivalry while they last!

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 5:56PM

Were these women's names Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, and Goldie Hawn? I saw the film! The First Wives' Club! Bette Midler's character was a woman who helped her husband become successful and then he dumped her for a younger woman, Sarah Jessica Parker (yuch!) while poor Bette Midler's character and her son languished in Dickenson poverty.

But unless they were born before Queen Victoria was inaugurated, these women were entitled to alimony and child-support and often got the house as well. (Zsa Zsa said she was an excellent "housekeeper")

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:21PM

AGREED!!! I'm only angry for not writing this article myself, but realize it would be hard to top. I thought I was the only woman in America who opposes the 19th Amendment - glad to know I'm not alone.

Kingofthenet| 3.21.12 @ 5:40PM

You know you don't HAVE to vote, i actually would PREFER you didn't as you are as dumb as a rock.

Brad| 3.21.12 @ 7:07PM

We feel the same about you, Knaveofthenet. Your inane blatherings prove you to be DUMBER than a rock - or about as intelligent as a MessNBC host...

Remember, for you progtards, election day is November 7th...

Kingofthenet| 3.21.12 @ 5:31PM

Wait did Lisa actually say she would REPEAL a women's right to vote? And that a women should share all views of her husband?
The REAL reason Lisa is angry is because she KNOWS she a TRAITOR to her Gender, and like ALL TRAITORS she is not comfortable in her own skin.

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:54PM

Kingofthenet,
Yes she did say REPEAL women's right to vote. And it is a very good idea, most (not all women) vote very subjectively and that is how we got Clinton and Obama. Most (but not all men) vote objectively which is how we got Reagan. I went to a girls high school, a girls college, and went on to get a Ph.D. in a predominately female field. I've taught college women - and believe me, I don't trust most women to think before they vote.

Kingofthenet| 3.21.12 @ 5:55PM

You and Lisa Fabrizio are the TRUE face of the 'American Taliban' Cograts!

Brad| 3.21.12 @ 7:10PM

Since the Taliban seek complete government control over the people of their country, they are the Progressives of the Middle East.

In other words, MullahOmaroftheinternet, you are of the 'American Taliban'. Congrats!

Brad| 3.21.12 @ 7:10PM

Since the Taliban seek complete government control over the people of their country, they are the Progressives of the Middle East.

In other words, MullahOmaroftheinternet, you are of the 'American Taliban'. Congrats!

Grannybarbara| 3.21.12 @ 7:25PM

That was powerful. Thank you!

Kultursmog| 3.21.12 @ 9:06PM

I think I'm totally in love with this woman!!!

slhancock1948| 3.21.12 @ 11:14PM

Very well-stated. I recently blogged that women should not vote, and explained my reasoning. I agree with you on this totally. I was both a career person...RN, but a stay at home mom when my kids were little. I did not feel cheated by that. I liked working, but not full-time, and enjoyed the challenge of the job more than making money. My husband & I often bemoan the situation today with men not being men, rarely standing up for anything any more, seeing women in need, but never responding. There is no honor any longer, nor any shame, it seems. We are reaping what we've sown. So, it is wonderful to read something like this and know that there is hope. I hope it catches on!

Kingofthenet| 3.21.12 @ 11:47PM

Weak Men supporting this drivel I can see, Women supporting it is INSANE, against your OWN interests, but I guess that's nothing NEW for Republican Women.

The Bruce| 3.22.12 @ 1:47AM

I found this article (along with most of the comments) a bit disturbing.

The results of the "voting" class certainly affect those of ALL of its citizens, not just those with the "right" to vote. Why discriminate against CITIZENS (females/minorities)?

Granted, women/minorities in our current society mostly vote in favor of socialist (Democrat) ideologies, but why shouldn't their vote NOT be counted???? Don't they have as much a right to determine the direction of of their government as we (white/landowner) do???

I'm not saying I agree with the feminazi or dependent/welfare class, but isn't our system of government supposed to represent ALL of its citizens?

The last time I checked, women are affected by elections.

The last time I checked, minorities are affected by elections.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote, putting aside the partisan arguments issued? Does the author (along with a bunch of posters) believe that we should become the reverse definition of Animal Farm that we've now become? Why?

The Bruce| 3.22.12 @ 2:05AM

Let me clarify:

I don't believe that the right to vote should be based on things that the voter has no control over (race/gender).

Behavior is another matter (convicted criminals).

A Representative Republic isn't so much if it only represents a narrow sliver of the Republic. In this case, bigger is better, regardless of whether or not you individually agree with its outcome.

How would you like to be denied the right to vote? How would you like to be told that your opinion doesn't matter?

It's very undemocratic and, frankly, UN-American.

If you disagree with the outcome, perhaps you should educate your opposition.

PolishKnight| 3.22.12 @ 9:11AM

People have no control over being born in, and living, and being a citizen of, another country. Or being a child.

So eliminate the age restriction on voting and grant American voting rights to the world. Otherwise, we're violating their civil rights! (Aren't oversimplistic moral rationalizations fun to play with?)

D. Singh| 3.22.12 @ 4:02AM

Sir

Another morally outstanding article by Fabrizio.

What I find amusing about 'women's liberation' and its desire for equality is this: it is abandoned in the bedroom in obedience to the law of nature.
There has to be submission for the act of consummation to be completed.

But woe to the man who finds his wife hot in the kitchen but cold in the bedroom.

POST American| 3.22.12 @ 5:01AM

----Putting aside the cliche of the fickle,
mind changing woman stereotype that's
always promoted ----------

SOME BLASTS FROM THE PAST

"From way back with the Milner Group
---Annie Besant and the Fabians they talked
always about using the deviant and disaffected,
disenfranchised women. They knew that
once on board they'd NEVER change their
minds ---no matter what the damage ---or the
horror. ----------NEVER."
-Informed radio

"The woman without filial affection,
the woman on her own, is a natural
destroyer. ---She can't even help it."
-D H Lawrence
1922

"---For propaganda and indoctrination
---we MUST ALWAYS target the women."
-Adolf Hitler

"--I knew a Rockefeller. Smart guy. I liked him.
Once we were talkin' and he said 'Hey, what do you
think women's lib was ALLLLL about? --we the
Rockefellers funded all that to double the tax base
and DESTROY the family."
-AARON RUSSO
(interview online)

------------ALLLLLLLLLL we need to know.

IN A NUTSHELL

Michelle| 3.22.12 @ 6:33PM

If the basic premise of being against the 19th Amendment is to let the husband speak for both parties, then who is to speak for unmarried women? Or widowed women? Or divorced women?

I'm not entirely sure that Ms. Fabrizio meant for voting rights to become the primary argument here, but it does seem to be what most readers are taking away from her post. I don't mind the pledge at the end, but also don't think it is mutually exclusive with being at home rather than at work. Ms. Fabrizio herself states that she enjoys both being a mother and working. So, why not just let that be it? Why throw darts at other women rather than just standing up for yourself, Lisa?

All in all the post seems tangled, contradictory, and irrelevant to me, but then again I did just comment on it so I suppose it struck a nerve somewhere.

PolishKnight| 3.26.12 @ 6:46PM

FYI, in answer to your question (in order): The unmarried woman's father or nearest male relative, the widowed woman's first born son, the divorced woman's father.

Something to keep in mind: In most cases, a woman's father and son's generally loved her and put her interests ahead of his own. They would probably be a better representative of their interests than a government bureaucrat that the woman's vote has ceded most of our rights to.

In addition, keep in mind that most unmarried single men in the old days had limited rights and social support as well and were first on the chopping block for layoffs and military conscription.

Kris| 3.22.12 @ 7:53PM

Yipee!!! Someone who is able to say it just like I feel it. Thanks a million

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|113 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|70 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Nation's Pulse

The Silent Sorority

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (159) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldfart| 3.21.12 @ 6:20AM

Carol| 3.21.12 @ 8:08AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 9:08AM

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.21.12 @ 9:34AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:06PM

Paul McGrath| 3.21.12 @ 10:59AM

Marylou| 3.21.12 @ 11:05AM

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 11:10AM

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:32PM

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 2:08PM

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 4:13PM

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 5:09PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:29PM

DRed| 3.21.12 @ 5:48PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:47PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:48PM

oolong chang| 3.21.12 @ 6:50PM

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 9:59PM

AVCurmudgeon| 3.22.12 @ 2:02AM

Seek| 3.23.12 @ 1:58PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:54PM

da monk| 3.21.12 @ 11:49AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:13PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:51PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:48PM

Dmac | 3.21.12 @ 12:03PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.12 @ 5:16PM

oolong chang| 3.21.12 @ 6:53PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:23AM

Todd Powers| 3.21.12 @ 8:23PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:15AM

Todd Powers| 3.21.12 @ 8:23PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.22.12 @ 6:16AM

JmsA| 3.21.12 @ 11:12AM

Alan Brooks| 3.21.12 @ 9:15PM

The Bruce| 3.22.12 @ 12:42AM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:45PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.12 @ 5:58PM

Appleby| 3.21.12 @ 7:19AM

Moe Blotz| 3.21.12 @ 8:07AM

Appleby| 3.21.12 @ 9:19AM

Skippy| 3.21.12 @ 12:17PM

Mazzuchelli| 3.21.12 @ 4:51PM

Con Chef (NB) | 3.21.12 @ 1:33PM

Michelle| 3.21.12 @ 10:03AM

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:37AM

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 11:15AM

Renaissance Nerd | 3.21.12 @ 12:38PM

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 1:47PM

idalily| 3.21.12 @ 3:15PM

Carol| 3.21.12 @ 7:23AM

jothepro| 3.21.12 @ 8:18AM

squalis| 3.21.12 @ 10:16AM

da monk| 3.21.12 @ 11:54AM

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 12:21PM

Dmac | 3.21.12 @ 12:26PM

da truth| 3.21.12 @ 1:15PM

Andrew Keirns| 3.21.12 @ 12:49PM

MyGirlFriday| 3.21.12 @ 3:51PM

GoVirginia!| 3.21.12 @ 7:24AM

Melvin| 3.21.12 @ 7:41AM

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:40AM

Marie commenting| 3.21.12 @ 12:34PM

Glen H| 3.21.12 @ 8:00AM

PolishKnight| 3.21.12 @ 10:04AM

Jill Johnson| 3.21.12 @ 11:51AM

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:36PM

jothepro| 3.21.12 @ 8:19AM

Peppermint Tea| 3.21.12 @ 8:31AM

Susan Benton| 3.21.12 @ 5:38PM

Brush| 3.21.12 @ 8:38AM

Bill| 3.21.12 @ 9:43AM

Drunken Sailor| 3.21.12 @ 2:57PM

Vacogito| 3.21.12 @ 8:57AM

Beth| 3.21.12 @ 10:42AM