posted on July 27, 2004 02:14:43 AM new
Why are the Republicans afraid of Democratic women? First, it was Mrs. Clinton, and now it is Mrs. Kerry. Democrats haven't picked on Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Cheney. Is it because these Democratic ladies are too intelligent, too wealthy and too outspoken?
I just have a feeling this is why this is happening!!!
They are running out of things to say. It's really childish. Now bear is making a big deal about Theresa Kerry being a republican and trashing democrats at one time when we all know Laura Bush was a democrat until she married GW. That fact was conveniently left out.
Now here this: People changing parties is no big deal. It is not a news breaker. It happens all the time We do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on July 27, 2004 08:16:31 AM new
Yeager it's this way, the Republican party is chiefly rich, white, males, and women who are controlled by them .
Men in general, and many women, think women are "less" than men... so they automatically hate and fear successful, intelligent, strong, powerful, rich women.
From neocons:
Ms. Edwards is fat.
Linda came right out and said women like Ms. Kerry made her want to gag.
Ronstadt's an "old bag".
They attack women's looks because they feel this is a woman's Achille's heel, her most vulnerable spot, there is NO other place to attack and this is an easy target....easier than THINKING about her good qualities.
Republicans are notoriously superficial (bumper sticker mentality) so to them a woman's worth is in her looks.
The minute she's not movie star perfect,barefoot, pregnant and cooking for her man she's an uppity, ugly, femi-nazi &itch.
But strong , intelligent women don't care what someone thinks of their looks.
I can guarantee that women like Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards, if they notice people like Coulter, or any other brain dead moron who judges women by their looks they all get a good laugh out of it.
posted on July 27, 2004 09:42:25 AM new
Neroter, I never said that or implied that .....what you said is just more neocon twisted illogic which didn't address the issue.
posted on July 27, 2004 09:49:58 AM new
yes, you did crow! you implied that if these women don't/do not take care of themselves (which I dont think is the case with any of the politicians wives, btw) - then thats just A-ok, because we shouldnt value looks, when the whole of society just happens to do that....shameful as it may be. Perhaps some of the liberal women could try to give their appearance more attention. He!l, I am probably one of them right now as I dont work outside the home, so I am totally into comfort. That doesnt it make it right or any better of me though!
edited to add: but why does Hillary always wear a pant suit? She reminds me of Ellen. I'd like to see her in a nice skirt suit sometime. Something a little feminine...JMO
[ edited by neroter12 on Jul 27, 2004 09:51 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2004 09:54:15 AM new
It is very sad that men still judge a woman's worth by her looks...even sadder when women judge their own sex by these same standards. We will never be judged equal by men until our own sex accepts and embraces the truth..mm
posted on July 27, 2004 09:57:18 AM new
Maggie, what is the difference between judging by looks and TRYING to take care of yourself, or making the most out of what you do have? Is that such a crime? The bigger crime is the self-esteem these women have...that they cant be bothered to even try. IO.
edit: It goes for men too!!
-------
[ edited by neroter12 on Jul 27, 2004 09:57 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2004 10:01:02 AM new
No, neroter I did NOT imply that, YOU read that into my post.
I'll try to make this clearer. This is not a beauty contest.
These women are DOING THINGS.
And it's perfectly fair to criticize their beliefs but
to attack their looks because you can't think of anything else to say is sexist, stupid, low, narrow-minded, destructive and UN-Patriotic!
AND you're implying that Coulter's description was correct!
Were you there???
Can you REALLY go out in public and tell Republican women from Democrat women by their LOOKS !?!?!?
If it's "shameful" to judge people on their looks should promoting that idea BE promoted?
posted on July 27, 2004 10:08:51 AM new
Crow!! -- Its not MY policy. Its the way it is. They've done studies on it. People who look better...healthier, etc...whatever you want to call it have prospered better. I dont make society's rules.
But if you go around in a tee-shirt and ripped jeans and dirty sneakers, chowing down on icecream cones dripping down your chiney chin chin.....do you really expect people to say, "wow, she's a real slob but she has a great mind!"
I realize people are not into looks and women especially who are doing important fundamental things. Ann Coulter was talking about the general population. And no, I dont think it lies in just demos that this exists -- but somehow it more acceptable. But if I go somewhere, I put on a friggin suit, or a decent dress okay and I try to look my best. If I went to this convention, I would TRY to look decent. That is all I am saying. People dont even dress right when they go to church, funerals or court anymore. Nothing matters anymore, its so free for all.
ed for spelling: which btw, is what you do with looks to words!
[ edited by neroter12 on Jul 27, 2004 10:10 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2004 10:12:32 AM new
Oh lawd! neroter says," but why does Hillary always wear a pant suit? She reminds me of Ellen. I'd like to see her in a nice skirt suit sometime. Something a little feminine...JMO "
Sorry neroter if you, too, are caught in the 50's ..the 1850's!
To set aside a woman's accomplishments and narrow down your view to "I'd like to see her in a nice skirt'
WHY? Would that give her more power on capitol hill? Would it make her smarter? Would it make her stronger?
It's right in there with "bare-foot and pregnant"
Obviously YOUR idea of "feminine" is quite antiquated...neroter, it's the 21st century and you're still in the 19th!
MY definition of femine as in FEMALE is:
strong
intelligent
active
independent
posted on July 27, 2004 10:14:06 AM new
Just an observation. Have you seen the Bush crowd. Nascar T-shirts covering their beer guts not to mention the men.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:15:25 AM new
bullcockey crow! You can be smart and still look feminine. She is a women. She's not gay. Represent women who like being women! There is nothing 1950ties about it. Women buys clothes and like to see other women dressed well.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:17:30 AM new
Coulter was NOT talking about the general population she was talking about the Dems at the convention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND AGAIN do you really believe ANN Coulter?????????
Why don't you call someone who was THER and get another view.
Do you really think Coulter is a good judge of how Libs look?
posted on July 27, 2004 10:18:04 AM new
And crow, if you think looks and presentation have nothing to do with nothing...or how you feel about ANYTHING...you are really dumb.
AND THE PEOPLE AT THE CONVENTION ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION?
I saw it myself on TV! I dont need her take on it.
You just cannot admit there is some truth to what she says. Its not all, but there is some truth to it. Sorry, crow.
[ edited by neroter12 on Jul 27, 2004 10:21 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2004 10:21:59 AM new
Hi Crow..and Nero...
I understand what you are saying Nero.. we should all take pride in ourselves...but
The point I am trying to make is that we (woman) have been fighting for equal status for so long.. How far have we come after all these years? Not that far.
In this society, no matter what anybody says, a female is still judged on her looks, instead of her intelligence, strength, accomplishments etc.
Until women truly begin rejecting these unhealthy and sexist images, we'll never find that perfect society where the sexes are equal. So stand up and tell yourself that you're beautiful, because we all are in some way or another.
I believe that sometimes we (women) are still our own worst enemy...but I still prefer to blame men.. mm
posted on July 27, 2004 10:23:15 AM new
neroter if you think women who wear slacks are homosexuals than you better take a look around you! Do you wear slacks, are you gay ?
Again, you have a very 19th century view of what feminine is.
To dismiss a woman because she doesn't dress according to your view of a woman's "place" is stupid.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:29:11 AM new
LoL Maggie...a voice of reason.
I agree we should not be judged on looks, but the fact remains that WE ARE. I was just trying to point out if your in the public spotslight....and yes, I would like to see hillary in a nice suit. There's something about pant suits that distinctively reminds me of Ellen (who I love, btw) - But I dont know.... I guess I want to see her in the image I would try to have if I were a non-gay WOMAN in the spotlight. I always think Ellen weans pant suits because she is gay? Maybe thats stupid, but thats how I feel.
Is that so wrong?>?
oh well, enough of this heated subject with crow. I got auctions to do.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:29:37 AM new
neroter said,"You just cannot admit there is some truth to what she says. Its not all, but there is some truth to it. Sorry, crow."
You are missing the entire point!
It does not matter if the women were fashion models or slobs....it's stupid to attack them for their looks....it's sexist to direct it at women alone....
it means you have nothing else to say so you must attack their looks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
neroter, you have very shallow standards if they're based on if a woman wears a skirt or not!
posted on July 27, 2004 10:31:19 AM new
Crow, now you are reading into my posts.
I never 'dismissed' anybody. Just said women can take better care of themselves and their presentation and still be smart as a bookworm! You dispute that, though!
posted on July 27, 2004 10:35:34 AM new
Crow you dont 'get it' and I doubt you ever will.
Go be happy with your but*** self. Like I care. I get out just fine and probably have more exposure to real women, and real life than you ever had or will ever have.
And yes, this excludes gay women, ok? I dont apologize for that either.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:38:41 AM new
and you're stupid because:
1.you just can't understand the point, you still have no idea what I said nor do you want to
2.you think women who wear slacks and pantsuits are all gay
3.your idea of "feminine" comes from BOTH the 1850's and the 1950's
4. you say a woman can only be smart and successful if she wears skirts!!!!!
we better end the conversation until you can look away from the TV or computer screen and realize you're in the 21st century.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:54:47 AM new
ummm..er.. I don't think anyone understood what I was saying... sorry, sometimes my verbal skills are lacking..
I am just hoping that I will know equality before I die..Imagine if "women" would embrace "Womanhood" and love each other as men do... we would Know Power then, wouldn't we..
WE ARE STRONG.. WE ARE INVINCIBLE..WE ARE WOMAN.. YOU CAN BEND BUT NEVER BREAK ME..IT WILL ONLY SERVE TO MAKE ME..MORE DETERMINED TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS.... WE HAVE BEEN DOWN ONCE BEFORE.. NO ONE'S EVER GOING TO PUT US DOWN AGAIN... LOVED THAT SONG.. MM
posted on July 27, 2004 10:55:05 AM new
oh, by the way, neroter, for many years I raised and trained horses.
You may be interested and very surprised to learn that women no longer ride in long dresses nor do they use side-saddles. They wear pants and ride astride just like men!
They will be very interested to learn that this makes them all lesbians.
posted on July 27, 2004 10:59:38 AM new
Sorry, maggie, I wasn't ignoring your posts...read them all and as usual you have excellent points.
Any "ism" whether it's sexism, racism, age-ism gets my blood boiling....it's so backwards...does not help anybody advance...stunts mental growth...well, you get the idea.
Have a good day....off to work, Yuck!
