Connie Schultz: 'How Can Grown Men in 2008 Believe It's Their Right to Tell a Woman She Should Rein in Her Ambition and Go Home'
April 14th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"Someone tell me, please, how grown men in 2008 can believe it's their right - their duty, even - to tell a woman when she should rein in her ambition and go home. Male columnists, male politicians, male talking heads, male 'surrogates' - all of them harrumphing that it's time for Hillary Clinton to stop it, just stop it, with all this talk of being president...
"Hillary Clinton, they insist, must quit. Well, boys, you'd better sit down for this one: This is no longer the playground of your youth. The girls aren't sitting in the stands keeping score and cheering whenever you're at bat. In fact, the girls aren't girls at all anymore. We're all grown up, and we are so done with this notion that the trajectory of our lives must end at the border of your comfort zone.
"Hillary Clinton marched across that border miles ago, and she is not about to surrender. Not now, anyway, and not ever because you said so...The problem here is that you don't understand the tenacity of American women."--Connie Schultz, author of ...and His Lovely Wife.
The amazing quote above is taken from syndicated columnist Connie Schultz's recent column Men, it's not your place to tell Clinton to quit the race (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/6/08). I actually agree with her central point, but she manages to create such a vile, misandrist argument around it that she forfeits any sympathy from me.
On the point of Hillary dropping out, I think she's right--Obama leads Hillary 1,631 to 1,488, a small 52-48% margin. Hillary's chances aren't good, but if I were her, I wouldn't drop out either, particularly given the enormous effort that she and Obama have had to give over the past many, many months. She still has a chance of becoming president of the most powerful nation in all of human history--why should she drop out unless she's been decisively defeated? Also, the primary system is way too long and very punishing--she's worked hard to get where she is, and shouldn't be expected to abandon it unless she absolutely has to. In addition, she apparently has a 20 point lead in the polls for the upcoming Pennsylvania primary.
I can understand why people, particularly Democrats, want the primaries to be over so they can focus on the general election. I can understand why they might think Obama is more electable than Hillary, so they want Hillary to drop out (though I question who's more electable).
It is true, as Schultz would say, that Hillary is the target of incessant stupid criticism. Yet since Bill Clinton has been the target of even more unfair criticism than Hillary, it's hard for me to see criticism of Hillary as evidence of sexism. I doubt that the people wanting Hillary to drop out are generally motivated by sexism, and I believe Hillary's gender works in her favor at least as much as against her.
Calls for one candidate or another to drop out for the good of the party happen in most elections. It would be nice if feminists would stop pretending that every manifestation of rough-and-tumble politics is a new thing invented by men to crush poor Hillary.
Perhaps an even more amazing part of Schultz's piece is this:
"And chances are [you men have] never cracked the spine of the book 'Women's Letters: America From the Revolutionary War to the Present' by Lisa Grunwald and Stephen J. Adler. If you had, you would have seen the letter Abigail Grant wrote to her husband, Aszariah, in 1776 after she found out he had been less than heroic in the battle at Bunker Hill.
"'Loving Husband,' her note began. 'I hear by Capt Wm Riley news that makes me very Sorry for he Says you proved a Grand Coward when the fight was at Bunkers hill & in your Surprise he reports that you threw away your Cartridges So as to escape going into the Battle. . . . [I]f you are afraid pray own the truth & come home & take care of our Children & I will be Glad to Come & take your place, & never will be Called a Coward, neither will I throw away one Cartridge but exert myself bravely in so good a Cause.'
"See, that's the thing. You've got to remember that there's a bit of Abigail Grant in a whole lot of us women. Granted, we hide it well. Most women are all fervor and no fanfare, running everything from companies and campaigns to families and food drives without so much as a plaque with their names on it at the end of it all...Remember: Abigail Grant lives."
Sorry, lady, but I have little sympathy for anybody calling men cowards if they don't feel like getting themselves killed in battle. I suppose if a combat veteran wants to do it, that's OK, but it isn't OK for you, it isn't OK for me, and it isn't OK for 99% for the rest of the population either. Does Schultz really expect us to believe that Abigail Grant is a courageous, strong woman because she wants her husband to go out and risk his life? How on earth is this courage?
The women who marched on Versailles during the French Revolution in 1789, yes, they had courage. The women who were guerrilla fighters during the Nicaraguan Sandinista revolution during the 1970s, they had courage. The women who served as Soviet Air Force pilots during World War II--dubbed the "Night Witches" by the German troops who feared their raids--were courageous. But what on earth is courageous about telling somebody else that they should risk their lives? I guess it's only because of the patriarchy that this courageous Abigail Grant wasn't awarded the Purple Heart.
To write a Letter to the Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, click here.
Schultz's publicly listed contact information is cschultz@plaind.com and (216) 999-5087.
Her full article can be seen at Men, it's not your place to tell Clinton to quit the race--thanks to Mike, a reader, for sending it.
Schultz's manbashing is nothing new--see my previous blog post Feminist Columnist: 'Abortion isn't men's business' for an example.
"));
19 queries. 0.449 seconds.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
"Someone tell me, please, how grown men in 2008 can believe it's their right - their duty, even - to tell a woman when she should rein in her ambition and go home."
MCA, all i want is to be able to live my life without fear of false accussations...
By building a straw man, and attacking it, she continues a cultural prejudice against men..
April 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The issue of Hillary dropping out is not a gender one. While the margin is slim, Obama has a lead such that it would be more than a miracle for Hillary to reverse the gap.
Worse yet, people want the primaries over because Hillary is taking the entire Democratic party down with her. McCain has surged in the polls past Obama for the first time recently and all the excessive, bicker infighting is taking a toll on the Democrat's public image.
The issue is not that Hillary is a woman, the issue is that she has essentially lost and rather than being a gracious loser, she has instead decided to drag the Democratic party down with her.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
As part of the man-hating Liberal party, I don't mind that she stays in, all she is doing is dragging both of the Misandrists into the position of a footnote in history.
For the benefit of the Democratic party, one of the two should quit, but since both are in a position to win, neither will quit, so the division goes on.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
If these "twisted sisters" can promote enough anti-male agit-prop,
Then it justifies the life span gap.
Then it justifies...un-equal protection under the law,
Then it justifies the suicide gap
Ect.
Ect.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
You make good points, Glenn and Schultz has written other misandrist stuff.
But I wonder, at this point, if your blog outweighs her column in the amount of people it reaches and the influence it has. I know your hit count seems to be growing, while newspaper circulations are sinking like stones.
So while Schultz is bothersome, it would be more bothersome if I felt people were actually reading newspapers. Bloggers are able to exercise more freedom of speech and back up their arguments with hyperlinks. Newspaper columnists are appearing more and more impotent by comparison because they can't do either of those things. There is no new Maureen Dowd. All the hot new editorial writers have come up through the blogs, not the newspapers. People now quote Steve Sailor, Matt Yglesis and Joshua Micah Marshall instead of Op/Ed columnists (most of whom I cannot name!). They also quote Glenn Sacks.
Newspaper columnists now appear like yesterday's baseball players when compared to bloggers. Old timers are great when you don't have a larger context, but when the clutch hitting rookie comes up to bat, well they look pretty outdated pretty quickly.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Will it ever stop .. they don’t get it .. is not about your gender, race, creed , sexual orientation .. its about who is the best candidate for the job …. And if they are going to be the President of the USA then they better be of the highest caliber that the land can offer …
Give me a break with this 60’s broken record already …
April 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Heaven help us if Hillary wins if only for the fact that we'll have to sit through four years of this type of crap whenever you criticize any policy or decision she makes.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Well, I guess then it's obvious that Connie believes that women should have no say in telling a male candidate to drop out, right?
Riiiiiight.......
April 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Let's quit playing word games shall we, and cut to the chase here: Hillary bashing has nothing to do with Hillary (or her pet husband) as a person or as a woman... it's candidate bashing. Every candidate for any office higher that town council is subjected to candidate bashing by an opponent or any other non supporter of that candidate.
This article is nothing more than candidate supporting under the cloak of feminist defense.
It's the same ol game of "I can call you names to my hearts content and pick on everything you do, have done, will do or might do... but if you call me names you're a male chauvenist beast who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant" we have been subjected to for the past 40 years.
As for Der Nachtflexen, the Night Witches (the Soviet Air Guard 588th Night Bomber Regiment, later called the 46th Taman Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment), yes, the Germans learned fast these gals meant business, but I wouldn't say "they feared them". The mission of the 588th was to harass the Germans, denying them sleep, more than anything else (a task they were ideally suited for). The Luftwaffe high command promised a Iron Cross with cluster to any fighter pilot able to bring down a 'Witch' (the PO IIs they flew were incredibly agile and had the ability to loiter at speeds far below the stall speed of German fighters, and therefore were impossible to get lined up for a firing run on). On one occasion a 'Witch' flew 18 combat sorties in a single night, a feat unmatched before or since in combat aviation history (who can name the pilot and navigator?) and it might be worth mentioning the 588th NBR as a unit received more 'Hero of the Soviet Union' medals than the rest of the Red Air Force combined.
Now, if Miss Mouth who penned the article wants to exemplify women worthy of exemplification: let her speak of Liliya Litvyak, the 'White Rose of Stalingrad' or Olga Yamschikova. The reference to Abi Grant was unnecessary really, and far from an ideal choice to illustrate bravery demonstrated by women in history.
Gunner Retired
April 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Justin: "Heaven help us if Hillary wins if only for the fact that we'll have to sit through four years of this type of crap whenever you criticize any policy or decision she makes."
Bingo...then you will have women saying that we have no right to criticize her because we are men. Or that if we do criticize her we a bullying her or whatever patriarchal BS they can fabricate. Remember, criticism is the tool of the patriarchy to keep women down...let's not mention the fact that we criticize men just as hard (if not harder at of some misplaced chivalry).
Feminists don't want equality - they want a special set of rules for women where the word of women is taken as gospel. I would be fine electing a woman, but not because she is a woman.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
"Someone tell me, please, how grown men in 2008 can believe it's their right - their duty, even - to tell a woman when she should rein in her ambition and go home."
I have never seen anyone, EVER say this to a woman. For a woman the only acceptbale response is that she is right whatever she does, because she's a woman. Indeed, no-one has said Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President because she is a woman. Plenty have said she SHOULD be President because she is a woman (which is horrendously sexist) yet no-one has said she should quit because she is a woman.
Yet we are quite happy to say this about men. Men should stay home more, men should do more housework, men should be less lazy, this list goes on.
Besides, this is all based on the assumption that staying at home is a bad thing. Lenin talked about freeing women from 'the drudgery' of working at home while ignoring the fact that these women were in far superior conditions to their husbands. Whose terrible working conditions drove Lenin's revolution in the first place.
Glenn has always said how great it is to stay home raising his kids. Why when a woman does it do we assume she is forced to? Or that it is worse than what she would be doing anyway? In my opinion, being a stay at home parent is probably the most fulfilling career there is. You get the freedom of being self-employed, with the steady income of the working spouse. You get to work with the people you love the most, in an environment that is intirely yours.
And yes, the Night Witches' biggest strength was not their valour, but rather their low speed flying in obsolete aircraft, which meant that the Luftwaffe couldn't engage them in a firefight.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Gunner retired, you seem an educated soldier???
My grandfather was a court reporter in WW2.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
My letter to the Editor:
Connie Schultz is incensed that some men in politics and the news industry have dared to express an opinion that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race. (“Men Shouldn’t be Telling Hillary Clinton to Quit the Race,” 4/6/08.)
She brands these opinions sexist for no reason other than the fact they are coming from men. The fact that similar men – and women – urged Ronald Reagan to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 is of no import. You see, only men are forbidden from offering such opinions, and only when they concern a woman.
Is this how it’s going to be if Mrs. Clinton is elected, Ms. Schultz? Any time a man offers his opinion, or heaven forbid criticizes Mrs. Clinton, he’ll be dismissed as a sexist “finger-wagging man telling a woman what to do”? Mrs. Clinton’s every act is to be afforded a free pass from anyone with a Y-chromosome, lest he be labeled a misogynist.
It is inane paranoia such as Ms. Schultz’s -- that sees sexism oozing from every crevice -- that engenders disrepute of the Clinton campaign.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Women are America's protected class, so men do not be critical as it will elicit indignation.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I'm involved in local politics in the UK and even at the local level it can be a dirty game, which is frequently unfair. But feminists, amongst others, want to use guilt so that that unfairness only ever works in their favour. I'm with Glenn, those asking for Hillary to quit may be misguided, but I believe that they doing so because they believe that it is in the best interests of the Democratic party. Being asked to act for the greater good is common in politics, but feminists believe that the forces which have created this greater good have also acted to oppress them.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Callum said
"Glenn has always said how great it is to stay home raising his kids. Why when a woman does it do we assume she is forced to? Or that it is worse than what she would be doing anyway? In my opinion, being a stay at home parent is probably the most fulfilling career there is. You get the freedom of being self-employed, with the steady income of the working spouse. You get to work with the people you love the most, in an environment that is intirely yours."
The problem with arguing this is that feminisits assert that women do not have free choice, only the illusion of choice. Society (i.e. "the patriarchy") has brainwashed them to want to stay at hme with the kids so as to leave men with a free run at power. There really is no answer to that argument - not because it is correct, but because it is like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. Any argument against is taken as a manifestation of these pernicious forces, just as arguments against conspiracies are taken as evidence of a cover-up.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
It never starts to surprise me how many women in conflicts past and, regrettably, present are eager to wave the flag or otherwise shame their menfolk into fighting. Yet so very few of them seem quite so willing to actively put themselves in harms way.
There have been exceptions throughout history of course - it wasn't uncommon for private soldiers' wives to get very close to the firing line in the Napoleonic wars for instance and Glenn has mentioned a couple of other examples too - but there were far more women willing to give out white feathers in WW1 than were ever present in Aid Stations in France or Belgium.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
menscollegeactivist,
Much there is to be learned from history if you choose to pay attention to it, and much there is to be re-learned if you choose to not (pay attention to history)... ie those who choose to not learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.
Military history is a subject I am moderately well versed in. If one chooses to point to the bravery of fighting men, one need look no further than Mission 115 '2SM' aka Black Thursday (October 14th 1943) or the crewmen of the destroyer escort USS Samual B Roberts DE-413 at the Battle of Samar (aka The battle of Taffy 3, October 25th 1944). Talk about a Teacup Poodle tearing into a pack of Pit Bulls!!!
Gunner Retired
April 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Malcolm: Sadly very true. I'm a big believer in evolutionary psychology. Yet I can't help but notice that perfectly plausible and reasonable theories that are supported with evidence are being shunned in favour of 'socialisation' which fits in more with modern (feminist) thought.
Ironically though, you see very few psychologists who can become feminists. It's impossible to argue that men and women are innately the same (although this usually only applies to positive characteristics) when the evidence says otherwise.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Two role reversals here:
1. How many times have we heard in print and on tv, movies etc "If a woman were president there would be no more wars".... Not sexist at all, right?
2. As far as men in the military...when women are allowed to serve on the front lines and take a bullet instead of only being allowed support roles, than a woman can talk smack about the military. They tried to make heroes of Jessica Lynch, et al, and yet even they had got lost in their truck, which was the only reason they saw combat. Suit up and take a post, otherwise shut up
April 14th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
It’s mostly theater.
If they can convince us it’s about gender or race, or about Democrats vs. Republicans, then they’re winning the battle.
Who are they?
I think most people know who “they” are. It sure as hell isn’t “us”. They are the people who continue to rape the taxpayer (that’s us) under the guise of various agencies and purported public “interests” as defined by a small group of people at the top.
People, who are thinking clearly, without prejudice, without focusing entirely on the “personality” of the candidate; people focused on the preservation of our Republic, realize that a drastic change is needed in our leadership.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Malcolm: "The problem with arguing this is that feminisits assert that women do not have free choice, only the illusion of choice. "
The best thing that feminism can do is to keep beating this drum. Most people - male and female - don't buy it anymore. Just look at any man that stays home. He is looked upon as a looser. Yeah, that's choice. Just look at any man that wears a dress.... yeah, that's choice. I'm not sure how they seem to think that women have fewer choices then men...as far as I can tell, women have all the choice and men are expected to take responsibility (just consider how many men vs women end up homeless).
April 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think Ms. Schultz is trying to hard to unearth sexism in places where it's just not present at all. It's one thing to educate about sexism against women, it's an entirely different thing to go around screaming "Sexist" whenever things aren't unfolding the way you think they should be in regards to a woman facing opposition in an occupation (in this case, Hillary and her campaign for President).
I will also refrain from making her comments personal because I've heard this too many times from radical women like herself about men holding them down. It would only waste my time if I allowed her the satisfaction of adding validation to her "opinions". Doesn't mean I won't speak out against them should I feel they are outlandishly wrong!
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, I don't trust her. She's transparent and a liar. Remember her fabricating the incident where she claimed to be under fire from snipers?
Don't forget her voting for authorzation to go to war in Iraq. She later claims to have been duped by President Bush, but she hasn't taken responsiblity for her decision nor apologised.
And what a shining role model for independent women everywhere by sicking her husband, Bill Clinton, on Barrack Obama when she felt criticissed. Having a man fight your battles for you. Yup, that'll leave an impression on strong women who have fought their own battles with men by their side but never hiding behind them like she did.
Back to Ms. Schultz. Sorry, madam, but you're no better than the sexist misogynists you imagine are putting their energy into devaluing women like Hillary Clinton.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Eagle 30,
They're ALL liars... and crooks to boot.
G_R
April 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
(callum) - "Lenin talked about freeing women from 'the drudgery' of working at home while ignoring the fact that these women were in far superior conditions to their husbands."
That is a very important historical observation, because feminism has always been based on a supposed transference of class warfare to gender warfare -- with no adequate theory at all.
The most elite female university students today have expressed that they want to graduate and then work for 3-4 years in high paying careers, and then marry a rich man and go home to make and raise babies!
Feminism vs. Evolutionary Psychology?
April 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Yeah, I keep forgetting that, Gunner. Politics is but a cesspool of lies and exagerrations for self-benefit. Hillary Clinton is not an exception.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Roy - I could give you more than a few examples of students like that in my co-ed liberal arts alma mater. Quite upsetting to me when they would use this dream as their excuse to not put their best into their major just because it got tough (or the job market was slim). Whatever happened to success at all odds? That's what I told myself.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Glenn has pitted a woman's recalcitrance over going to war vs. a man's willingness (and his obligation) to do so. That puts things in perspective. But day-to-day life is not so obvious, so let me extend the analogy.
If a woman enters the paid workforce, and supports not only herself but also her husband and children, then she has walked a mile in the shoes that men and fathers have walked in. But if she is given the CHOICE to (a) stay home, or (b) provide for spouse and children, she is indeed privileged. Men are not given such a choice. Women are. To say then that she, in the home, works "just as hard" as he does is to ignore the fact that he works a paid job by necessity, she works an unpaid job as her option. In short, he works harder because he never had the choice that he gave her, and if she doesn't like her domestic role she ought to get out in the paid workforce at the outset of the marriage and support her husband -- like a good provider should. If she's unwilling to offer this "option" to her husband, she ought to quit her complaining about her "domestic oppression" and start working on the evening dinner -- and be grateful to do so. After all, she chose the domestic life, and he was never offered the choice.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Eagle 30,
Exactly. And I for one would like to see a female president get into office, if for no other reason than to prove once and for all that a woman president WON'T bring an end to worlds misery in one fell swoop.
Of course, then they'll blame her failure to make the world a Utopian Paradise on the interference of the men in Congress (ooooooopsie, there are women in Congress too) okay the men in business (oooooopsie, how many women owned and run companies in the world?) or the men in... well hell they'll just blame it on men in the world in general (it's safer than admitting they were lying out their arses to begin with and found a conveneient excuse for their failure to thrive by scapegoating men for everything that ails them).
Gunner Retired
April 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Connie Schultz totally missed the boat on this one. People are not wanting Hillary to get out because she is female.
They want her to get out because they feel she is harming the democrats chance of winning the presidency. They give her no chance of winning. Connie Schultz is trying to play the female victim card and incite people.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
George Orwell would be proud, kindof, of Ms. Schultz. I believe that at some point, the pigs started saying that all animals are equal, just some or MORE equal.
Later,
Big B
April 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Oh, the usual condescending gender bogotry from a feminist. They never hesitate to attack our maturity by addressing us as "boys", making playground analogies, and implying insecurity over our sexual orientation and prowess.
Yet if we were to routinely refer to them as girls and tell them to put away their dollies and grow up, they would absolutely foam at the mouth with rage and call for investigations and resignations.
Connie, I actually admired Hillary for her willingness to stand up and run for office when many implied she should not. I respect an underdog. But when the feminists turned it into a gender crusade it turned my stomach and has caused me either to not vote or even vote republican.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Callum said
"Malcolm: Sadly very true. I'm a big believer in evolutionary psychology. Yet I can't help but notice that perfectly plausible and reasonable theories that are supported with evidence are being shunned in favour of 'socialisation' which fits in more with modern (feminist) thought."
Socialisation does have a role. After all, what is "culture" other than socialisation? Why do Indians accept the idea of arranged marriages far more readily than we do? Feminists seem obsessed with seeing any socialisation as the patriarchy entrenching male power and opressing women. Arranged marriages have a set of norms and expectations which apply equally to both men and women (at least in theory). I have no problem with genuine arranged marriages (as opposed to forced marriages), but feminists will claim that men enter into such arrangements because they are beneficial to them and that women acquiesce because they have been brainwashed into doing so.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
If men truly wanted to be stay-at-home fathers, you would have to believe they could make it happen.
So, the entire dialogue about domestic gender "equality" is totally just a mess.
Most women want to stay home and tend to their babies. (A very few want to be corporate officers and have low paid nannies raise their kids.)
Men like to work.
They want to make things.
Invent and produce things.
This is all just foolishness.... trying to find some abstract "equality" between women and men.
We're just different.
We want different things.
Equality of opportunity has been achieved .... women are 58% of university students today.
So, how can any intelligent person make a case for female oppression?
April 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
My e-mail:
Dear Ms. Schultz,
I agree wholeheartedly that Ms. Clinton should stay in the race. If she is beaten, then there will be no excuses, and no second-guessing.
By the way, I also appreciate your position that men should have no say or opinion about the campaign of a female candidate in this day and age.
Because I am sure you are attempting to promote equality between the genders, I will also conclude that you believe that women should have no say or opinion about the campaigns of any of the male candidates.
Will your next column be covering that equal and opposite aspect of true gender equality? Or are you just interested in silencing the voices of men whenever a female's interests might suffer? Hmmm. We'll see.
Very truly yours,
April 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The top of the book says "Pulitzer Prize Winner"
Does that mean this specific book? This misandric author won the top prize in literaturue? You've got to be kidding.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Callum said
"Glenn has always said how great it is to stay home raising his kids. Why when a woman does it do we assume she is forced to? Or that it is worse than what she would be doing anyway? In my opinion, being a stay at home parent is probably the most fulfilling career there is."
I can't remember the name of the principle, but it basically says that you should never accept a complicated answer when something can be more easily explained by a simple answer. The feminist assumption is that staying home with children is a chore and that they only choose to do so because they have been brainwashed. The simpler argument is that, whilst it is possible for both parents to decide to prioritise their careers (and with lower-income families necessary), it is not possible for both parents to prioritise staying at home with children, except in the very rare cases that there is a substantial private income. If one parent decides to stay at home, the other must prioritise their career. Women have the advantages that they stop work for maternity leave and that, in the case of divorce, they are very likely to get custody. If women dig their heels in, men will accept the situation, because they know the possible alternative could be worse. Glenn only got the opportunity to stay at home because his wife seemed to be equally happy with the arrangement.
This also has an effect in the workplace. A few years ago I read an article in whih a partner in a law firm was quoted as saying, "When men get married, it's good, because they have responsibilities. When women get married, it's bad because they leave." In one sense it's very sexist against women and does not justify employers automatically assuming that women will leave. In another sense it's sexist against men, since employer's can really screw men down, since they cannot afford to leave. Employers have to make women WANT to stay.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Tim M., Excellent letter!
April 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Hillary is not losing because she is a woman.
She is losing because she has zero integrity and all you have to do is watch her perform.
She would do a lap dance on John McCain if she thought that would get her elected.
That is a pretty ugly picture.... sorry.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Malcolm:
Occam's Razor.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Malcolm says "Glenn only got the opportunity to stay at home because his wife seemed to be equally happy with the arrangement."
Actually, I "got to stay home" because my wife, who is very career-oriented, pushed me to do it. Like many guys, I didn't think it would be a good idea, and I resisted it. However, I decided to try it for a little while, and it quickly became the greatest experience in the world for my baby daughter and I.
I must say, having had that wonderful experience with my daughter back then, I look back in absolute awe at my stupidity in resisting it. My daughter and I are still exceptionally close--she still falls asleep in daddy's arms practically every night--and part of the reason is that we had that special time together so long ago.--GS
April 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
WOW, what a wacko! Connie is so determined to blame everything on men she is now outright lying! What Connie seems to be missing is that both men and WOMEN want Hilary to drop out. She is in second place and the ongoing battle is dragging the entire party down. If or when the Democrats lose the White House again, it will be their own fault. They are doing a better job campaigning for the McCain than anything else. This is why EVERYONE is calling for Hillary to drop out. And I think calling Hillary female is a bit of a stretch, she is more male than most men! Eiiwwwwooo can you imagine going to bed with that thing every night? Oh, I think I'm going to be sick..................... Barf, I just tried to imagine the same about Connie. gag...
April 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hillary will ensure that it will be another 50 years before America will see another female presidential candidate.
If America exists in 50 years from now.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Glenn, True you are stay-at-home, yet, unlike stay at home moms for the past 10,000 year, you earned a thought leadership position in largest political injusties in America since slavery - fatherhood.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Ha, I think chances are [most people have] never cracked the spine of the book 'Women's Letters: America From the Revolutionary War to the Present' by Lisa Grunwald and Stephen J. Adler.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Mark Ruffolo Says "Glenn, True you are stay-at-home..."
Thanks, I wouldn't use present tense--that was seven years ago.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Glenn said
"Actually, I "got to stay home" because my wife, who is very career-oriented, pushed me to do it. Like many guys, I didn't think it would be a good idea, and I resisted it. However, I decided to try it for a little while, and it quickly became the greatest experience in the world for my baby daughter and I."
OK, but this doesn't affect the point of my argument that this would never have happened if she hadn't have wanted it. Also it shows that if feminists assert that women have been brainwashed into accepting the role of stay-at-home mums, we can equally assert that men have been brainwashed into being breadwinners. Nowadays most women have had experience of work by the time they have children, so they can weigh up the alternatives. Also there are plenty of role models for women who have pursued full-time careers after having kids. Men have not had the equivalent experience of being a stay-at-home dad and, like Glenn, may resist the idea, if it has even occurred to them.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The point is not that that Clinton has no real chance to get the nomination -- though that chance is very slim -- but that she cannot do so while retaining a realistic chance in November. Unless Obama eats a baby, the only way she might catch up is by persuading lots of superdelegates to ignore the popular vote. But that would split the party, enraging so many Obama supporters as to effectively anoint McCain. Consequently, many people feel that Clinton should quit, lest the blue on blue saps Obama's winning chances even before the convention.
This reasoning pertains to Clinton the candidate, not Clinton qua female homo sapiens. Evidently though, not all feminista want to let women be treated equally as something beyond their gender. What a surprise.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Malcolm: Actually arranged marriages are more about the economic circumstances of the marriage. Socialisation refers to people's core beliefs and actions.
For example, some may claim that women like wearing make-up because they are 'socialised' by the media into doing so. Yet it ignores (as another poster said) the simple explanation of men considering physical attractiveness a positive quality, more so than women. Therefore a woman has the best chance of finding a good mate if she looks good.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Glenn, It seems to me that you are more of a "Work from home Dad" than a "Stay at home Dad." I also must admit my envy of your position as I would love to stay at home with my son and raise him as my wife and I prefer as opposed to the new Social based raising of our children in day care. I salute your courage and choices! I also thank you for your work in Mens Rights, even if I don't always agree with your opinions. :-)
April 14th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Malcom stated: "OK, but this doesn't affect the point of my argument that this would never have happened if she hadn't have wanted it. Also it shows that if feminists assert that women have been brainwashed into accepting the role of stay-at-home mums, we can equally assert that men have been brainwashed into being breadwinners."
Of course, and that's a main point MRAs make, i.e., that men have strict gender roles that we are forced into by a society that gives women choices (e.g., career vs. stay-at-home motherhood) and men responsibilities; the converse (i.e., men's choices and women's responsibilities) is by no means symmetrical. As you note, is was only with his wife's permission (tacit or otherwise) that Glenn was allowed the privilege to be a stay at home father, while in the case of women it is considered a right, independent of spousal permission, for women to *choose* career, stay-at-home motherhood, or both.
Such is the Orwellian nature of feminist-style "oppression of women" in modern Western societies.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Callum
Yes, arranged marriages are largely about economic and family relationships, but people in India (nd other countries) are socialised to accept that these are important, rather than just love.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I hope Hillary does stay in the race. She still has not adequately explained her position on:
Why women outlive men by 5 years and what she is going to do about it,
Why women still are excluded from the draft,
Why we still have alimony,
Why women won't work at dangerous jobs but expect to earn the same income.
I suspect that we won't hear the answer to these questions no matter how long Hillary stays in the race. I guess what we need now is a reason men should vote for her. .. Crickets chirp.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I think HR Clinton SHOULD stay in the race. As a libertarian, I LIKE seeing Democrats snipe at each other, and try to top each other with a contest of who's the more underrepresented minority. The self destructive nature of this party is like watching two drunk women fight outside of a bar. Very amusing, with lots of screeching, hair pulling, name calling, clothes tearing, and makeup smearing. I'm hoping someone comes by to hose them both down.
I've got a modification of the "pot calling the kettle..." phrase that outlines the hipocracy of that party and it's morass of ideology, but it's somewhat inapproprate for this site.
I agree with Ms Schultz - people shouldn't comment on politicians of the opposite gender. Now, if Ms Schultz will limit her commentary to people of her same gender, she'll have some credibility. Oh, wait! This is one of those "Do as I say, not as I do", things, right? Gah, it's hard to keep track of it. I'm guessing that Ms Schultz feels it's just "time" for a woman to be president, and that should be sufficient justification. Oh well, the more people who speak up for HR Clinton with that justification, the more I think I should apply the same gender justification to my own vote. After all, since a man can't represent women, it stands to reason that women are incapable and unwillling to represent men.
Personally, I'd vote for Dr Condoleeza Rice, for any office, at any time. She matches neither my race nor my gender, but I have yet to see any woman running for office with more practical and pragmatic experience, and her integrity far outpaces just about anyone else in the mix.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
"Someone tell me, please, how grown men in 2008 can believe it's their right - their duty, even - to tell a woman when she should rein in her ambition and go home."
Someone tell me, please, how grown women in 1776 could believe it's their right, their duty, even - to tell a man when he should put his ambition aside and risk his life in battle.
Schultz quotes Abigail Grant in a manner that makes it clear that she has no problem with women calling men cowards and urging them to die in battle, while it's inappropriate for political realists to encourage a hopeless campaign to give it up if the candidate in question has two X chromosomes.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Glenn, it sounds like you had an amazing experience. I hope I get to have a similar one when I (hopefully) have children.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
"Yes, arranged marriages are largely about economic and family relationships, but people in India (nd other countries) are socialised to accept that these are important, rather than just love."
True. Western "true love" marriages are less satisfying in the long term than arranged ones because we believe the heart-racing, sleepless, worshiping love at the beginning of a relationship will last forever. When it doesn't happen that way we are disappointed in the relationship.
Callum, you have it backwards: psychologists give more credence to social psychology than evolutionary psychology because it is far more credible. Social psych has given us theories that evopsych has never been able to match in validity and robustness. Evopsych is useful when it makes predictions that can be supported with cross-cultural evidence, but all too often the most popular claims in the field are simply just-so stories based on popular prejudices.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Harq: Give one example of a theory that has not fitted with evo-psych that social psychology can explain (considering that most 'socialisation' arguments are circular 'boys play guitars because they see other boys playing guitars')
April 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
There is nothing sexist about attacking Hillary politically, even saying she should step down for the good of the party--I don't know why she would focus on this with all the actual evidence of sexism against Hillary. When news networks spend days talking about her tearing up a bit or what she is wearing or whether she has a "cackle," there is enough for an article without making up sexism where it is really not much of an issue.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
"just stop it, with all this talk of being president..."
No, it should be stop it with this talk of using the super-delegates to go against the will of the people, that's why the Dems want her out, because they dont want their party ripped in half by her selfishness. Can anyone really imagine Hillary stealing the nomination away from Obama and then winning the general election without the black vote, and with the young voters angry at her, not to mention a lot of angry white Dems? When you pile this on top of the fact that she cant get the nomination in a party dominated by progressive women, how the hell can she ever win the nation?
"We're full of fight, too, which is the only way we got the vote"
No, the sufragettes were full of fight, the rest of the women did bugger-all for the right to vote.
And as for the idea that women are brave because they tell men to die for them, well girls, that's what your beloved feminists mean by equality- we do the dying and you get the medals.
By the way, i notice that the ad under her rather amateurish piece features a fat husband hogging the popcorn bucket.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
"Harq: Give one example of a theory that has not fitted with evo-psych that social psychology can explain (considering that most 'socialisation' arguments are circular 'boys play guitars because they see other boys playing guitars')"
Individualist versus collectivist societies is one. Why would people have evolved such fundamentally different views of self and society in different parts of the world if humans are so closely related? Another is different standards of attractive bodyweight in different cultures.
There is a whole slew of things that fit within Evolutionary Psychological theory but that are better explained in social science research; the latter field also makes more specific predictions. Cognitive dissonance, stereotype threat, beliefs following actions, some cognitive shortcuts and various studies in conformity come out of social psychology. Of course, our very flexibility and sensitivity to social situations is an evolved thing. But just because evolutionary psychology can explain a lot in a broad sense does not mean it is great in terms of specific and accurate predictions.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
How the hell did writing this pedestrian win a Pulitzer?
That's what she got the prize for, her commentary in this paper, not the book.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
"Someone tell me, please, how grown men in 2008 can believe it's their right - their duty, even - to tell a woman when she should rein in her ambition and go home."
Notice how she maligns all men as if they're at one with those at the top of the pile.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
She makes it seem like a "woman" is still an "oppressed" class or under dog, and that all men are on top or think they are and still oppressing women. Men are not oppressing anyone and are not on "top."
April 14th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Yes, Ms. Schultz, you are correct: let's elect a president that only approximately half the population is permitted to question or criticize. The First Amendment rights of anyone with the Y-chromosome should be suspeded to the extent they would utter an anti-Hillary word. Any male daring to question a woman is a misogynist.
And you can go to hell, madam.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I haven't followed any of your presidential campaigns in the same detail as you guys , but I can't recall hearing before of an elder statesman ( Al Gore) being identified as a possible compromise candidate because of the party being so badly split . This seems the real reason for calls on Clinton to drop out , not because she's a woman - Obama would be facing the calls if he was the one behind not her .
April 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Uh, Harq...what's sexist about talking about her cackle? Howard Dean was put aside because of his cackle?
I think it is sad when feminists/society try to make every issue involving Hilary gender related. I would hope that our first female president will grow beyond her gender....as it stands, she can't help but bring it up at every turn to get sympathy.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Glenn Says:
"Sorry, lady, but I have little sympathy for anybody calling men cowards if they don't feel like getting themselves killed in battle."
Oh this is grand.
I really don't mean to pick on Jeana, but wasn't she the one that said women are not, by nature, war-mongers(sp?) or something to that effect not so long ago?
If Abigail Grant is any example, I actually agree with Jeana .... clearly her assertion is true as long as we're not the ones to go to war. But send off the menz to be butchered and maimed, and we're just as bloodthirsty as those in battle from our cosy living rooms at home, safe and sound.
As for Hillary, I would very much like her to remain in the race as we all know that if she drops out it will not be because of let's say: 1) her miniscule chance of nabbing the nomination, 2) the right thing to do to unite the party and 3) respecting the will of the people.
Oh no, we all know it will be because the big bad men and their patent sexism forced the poor woman out.
I've never denied that sexism still exists in some levels of our society, but it is really pathetic to watch this woman pull the victim card time and time again without no one calling her on it.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
there's a huge problem in society when men can't even look up without having a woman try and smack him down in the name of "sexism". Do we tell women they can't have an opinion about impeaching bush... no that would be sexist. double standard. I dont mean to preach to the converted, but It really sucks to be a guy and constanty read post-feminist sexism everyday of the week from women who feel they are entitled to dish it out... nobodys TELLING WOMEN anything. maybe grown women need to stop telling men what to do. double standards for men outweigh anything women are going through today.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I wonder what this writer would say if a man said, "it's not a woman's place to have opinions about male politicians"
April 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I wish this nasty letter writing lady's (Abigail Grant's) husband had taken her up on the offer. Ha ha ha! would have been fun. Bet she counted on that never happening. Chivalrists!
To all feminists (or chivalrists... there isnt much difference) here - a bullet is a perfect feminist - and not like their definition of feminism or equality. Completely gender neutral - no special preferences for anyone. Any chance this is why abortion is a national debate, Hillary's gender is a national debate, Deadbeat dad bashing is a national passtime and demanding equal representation of women in front line combat roles is not even on the horizon?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Glenn,
I can truly relate to your emotions about being able to spend real time with your kids.
I negotiated an extra month off instead of a salary increase when my first daughter was four years old, and I recall those summer months with her as the best time of my life.
It is amazing what you can learn by listening to a four year old girl. (They are really funny!)
You have to spend the time with them to understand their true identity.
I'm sure you know what I am suggesting.
We need a national "father's leave" law to let every new dad have that experience.
It would pay for itself in reduced unwed pregnancies and reduction in substance abuse among young women.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Harq al-Ada said
"Social psych has given us theories that evopsych has never been able to match in validity and robustness. Evopsych is useful when it makes predictions that can be supported with cross-cultural evidence,"
True. There is a significant difference in the proportion of mothers working full-time between different countries. For example, Scandinavian countries like to boast that the great majority of women do so. The difference between countries can only be explained by socialisation (and level of childcare facilities). Even so, the extent to which women are socialised to stay at home as against the extent to which they are socialised to go out to work may be a moot point. The porblem is that feminists only see socialisation working one way.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Another way to contact Connie Schultz is to send an email to her husband - Superdelegate and U.S.Senator Sherrod Brown. http://brown.senate.gov/contact/
April 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Guys, the problem is the dialogue with females. The dialogue must stop. We have had almost one hundred years of dialogue with females about what is "fair" and what isn't "fair," with the result that our civilization is now up to its neck in the wreckage of the "wymmins movement."
The destruction of marriage and family, resulting in fatherless homes and mass deliquency and deviancy of our youth, the sex-drenched culture we now live in, the moral degeneracy pervading every corner of our lives, with young girls permitted to engage in random sex with whomever, whenever, and now with early teen age girls found to be sending naked pictures of themselves to boys, and performing all manner of sexual acts with whomever they choose, females making babies with different men throughout their lives.
By subordinating our entire civilization to female whims and emotions, we have nearly destroyed ourselves and our civilization. It is time for this silly dialogue to stop. We need to take the whole thing back before it's too late, before we lose it all.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
In the Democratic primary, it seems Hillary's position is pretty hopeless now. Based on the likely results in the primaries still to come, it is extremely unlikely that Hillary can finish ahead of Obama in either the popular vote or the elected delegates.
So the only way Hillary can get the nomination is if enough superdelegates hand her the nomination. But if the nomination was taken from Obama despite him winning the popular vote it would divide the party, and disgruntled Obama supporters would be less likely to turn out for Hillary in November. So Hillary would have little chance of winning the general election.
Some commentators have suggested that maybe Hillary is staying in the race to damage Obama enough to ensure that Obama loses to McCain. That way, Hillary could run again in 2012.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Ah yes, another upper class white woman complaining about the patriarchy while she drives her BMW to work.
Yawn.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
"'Loving Husband,' her note began. 'I hear by Capt Wm Riley news that makes me very Sorry for he Says you proved a Grand Coward when the fight was at Bunkers hill & in your Surprise he reports that you threw away your Cartridges So as to escape going into the Battle. . . . [I]f you are afraid pray own the truth & come home & take care of our Children & I will be Glad to Come & take your place, & never will be Called a Coward, neither will I throw away one Cartridge but exert myself bravely in so good a Cause.'
Unless this Abigail Grant lady acutally tried to sign up but was turned away then she basically needed to come down from her high horse.
This Democrat Party situation is a sticky one. Its real easy for critics to assume that everyone that thinks Clinton should drop out is motivated by either sexism or party solidarity (I think its some from column A and some from column B myself).
Justin:
Heaven help us if Hillary wins if only for the fact that we'll have to sit through four years of this type of crap whenever you criticize any policy or decision she makes.
Heaven help us indeed Justin. No matter what poor decisions she makes and no matter what proof is offered to define those decisions as poor all critics and critisims of her presidency will be accused of having sexist motivations. And frankly I say the same thing will happen to Obama (over race) and to McCain (for being and upper class white male).
And if Clinton or Obama wins the White House I'm almost scared of the mud that Congress will get drug through the first time they would disagree with her/him on something.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The reason I'm not a Democrat anymore:
If you don't like Hillary, you're a mysoginist.
If you don't like Obama, you're a racist.
So what should we do about the credit / mortgage crisis.
????
So what should we do about Iraq?
????
Oh, did we forget to tell you that you're a mysoginist and a racist?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Baby Momma Heroism!
What emotional hyperbole! Check this out (don't forget to play the violin) Follow the link to her article and you'll see:
"You didn't learn about how women risked their lives birthing babies in open fields and harboring escaped slaves on their flight to freedom."
Have you noticed that when feminists try to justify their bravery and merit, they usually wind up knee-jerking to their role as baby mommas. "I'm so brave! I made a baby!" Er, don't these women lecture us that, turn up the volume, "WHAT SHE DOES WITH HER BODY IS HER BUSINESS!!! KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BODY!!!"
Yet, failing to measure up to men they knee jerk and start demanding credit for the VERY minor risks of their personal choices. "WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH!!!" they shriek. Well, people die taking a bath too. We don't give them a medal for it though. And in addition, millions of children are born with birth defects due to women acting irresponsibly and drinking or doing drugs. Oops, they forgot to mention that!
In addition, she tries to take credit for saving runaway slaves in the same line as women birthing in the fields. Hahahaha! I mean, how is a woman birthing in the fields helping runaway slaves? Isn't that rather difficult to pull off? While she's at it, she can take credit for curing cancer too while going through childbirth... In addition, how many slaves and free blacks were lynched due to false rape accusations by white women?
April 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
So she is condemning men for disliking Clinton because of her gender but takes the time to site the fact that:
She supports Barack Obama, but the thought of finger-wagging men telling a woman what to do really set her off. She might change her vote, and anyone reading some of the comments on newspapers' Web sites and blogs knows she's not alone.
she might change her vote. So its wrong for people not vote for Clinton because of gender but its okay for her to vote for Clinton because of her gender? I wonder if Obama can sleep easy knowing that he may be losing votes not becuase voters think she is the better candidate but because she is, well, a she.
And this other friend of hers:
"It feels so personal," another friend, Mary, told me. "Whenever I hear men bash Hillary, it feels like they're attacking me."
If she gets fired up over men bashing Hilary and not men specifically bashing Hilary only because she's a womanthen I think that friend of hers has more thinking to do. And this goes right back to what I said at 11:52. If they're attacking her only because of her gender then she should be fired up and it fires me up as well. But now people are just starting lump all Clinton opponents together (no matter why they don't support her) into at "They only don't like her because she's a woman!" pile.
And I find it very hypocritical that she congradulates Clinton on challenging tradional gender roles in one breath but in the next resorts to traditional genders in citing the letter by Abigail Grant in which she calls her husband a coward. So a woman deciding to go for the White House is trailblazing (which I think she is) for not doing what she is "supposed to" but a man that deciding not to fight is a coward for not doing what he is "supposed to"?
April 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
If you seek to uncover contradictions in what females do and say, get ready to disappear into a boundless abyss.
You cannot hope to reconcile female thoughts, or to discern rationality or coherence in what females do and say. If you indulge females that way, you will end up tangled in an endless morass of shallow tripe.
Attempting serious discussion with females is itself the problem.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Ben,
I totally aggree.
But you left one thing out of your argument.
Women are predators.
It has less to do with "indulgence" of women than with being men being targets for harvesting.
It's like indulging a tiger. (The tiger loves it, and sees you as food....)
Vampire planet, guys.
Get a clue....
April 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Roy:
But I would add that females are out-of-control predators for a reason, and one reason only - we set them completely loose, gave them lots of money, and subordinated our entire civilization to their emotional whims and fancies.
Viola! Destruction ad infinitum.
All we men have to do is look around at the cesspool we have created for ourselves and for future generations, deriving largely from our monstrous error in indulging females on the basis of a total fiction - "equality."
April 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Dear Mrs. Schultz,
How can a grown woman in 2008, such as yourself, believe it is your right to tell men to disengage from political debate/maneuvering and go home whenever that political debate/maneuvering is done regarding a woman? Don't you debate topics regarding men? If you do, and you believe that men should just shut up about what women in politics do, then shouldn't women just shut up about what men do in politics? Someone tell me, please, how a grown woman in 2008 can believe it's her right - her duty, even - to tell men when they should rein in their debate and go home.
Well, dear Connie, you better sit down for this one. You see it's that pesky First Amendment that allows men to call for a political pundit to step down. I know that "free speech" and "political debating" are radical notions (God knows they've been around for at least a century now) but I would think that you of all people would understand why men have the right to call for her to step down. Maybe it's because that right is given to us by that little paper called the C O N S T I T U T I O N. I'm sure you're no stranger to desiring male candidates to drop out either. However, desiring men to just "shut up" whenever a female candidate runs smacks of hubris. If Mrs. Clinton can't take the heat, or if you can't take men asking her to step down not as part of some vast sexist conspiracy but rather as a political stratagem, then perhaps the political arena isn't for either of you.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Fortis:
Your premise is wrong. It is silly to take what a female says at face value and then argue with her over it. In fact, if you do that, a female will tangle you all up in knots for nothing more than the enjoyment of sport. She will make a fool out of you for being, well, foolish.
You're right, females aren't that sharp, but they are sharp enough to know that any man who accepts what a female says at face value is somewhat lacking in gray matter.
There is no sense in discussing serious things seriously with females - whether out of "fairness," "equality," or what ever. Men should never do that.
We need to take what is left of our civilization back from females, as soon as possible, and without any discussion with them about it. We need to just do it, and do it before it's too late.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Any guy that dates a woman like this is a damn fool.
"Ben Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm "
Correct actions always speak louder than words.