Oh, Good Grief! C'mon Nancy, that's just plain Sexist!

Late yesterday, after spending my morning trying to wrap my brain around a new database design, I popped over to Real Clear Politics for a rest. I hadn't had my daily fix of prose and polls and, when the page opened, I just about fell off my chair.

On their home page was a link to a Los Angeles Times piece by Nancy Cohen: 'Why Women Should Vote For Women'.

On the face of it, that title is pure sexist - just as sexist as if someone named 'Norman' Cohen had written 'Why Men Should Vote for Men'.

C'mon, now, be honest. Do you think there wouldn't be screams from the scalded female contingent if that was a headline in a prominent newspaper? I can hear 'em now.

Attempting to do my due diligence, I followed the link to the L.A. Times's website where it's posted. Uh oh. My 'free trial' has expired. Oh well. I don't care enough about this article or the L.A. Times to pay for their site, so I left. I spent a few minutes trying to track it down somewhere else, but no luck.

No matter because I think this is another case where I can guess what the underlying message in that 'article' is, no matter that it's all wrapped up in fluff.

I don't care about the inner message, though. The title is irritating enough. If you have ovaries and a uterus, then you should vote for someone else with a uterus and ovaries. That is the only criteria. Don't spend time or effort to consider their other qualifications. Don't worry about their character, integrity or honesty. And whatever you do, if you're a woman don't look at a man because he doesn't have those physical features. Never mind that he might actually be better qualified for the job.

There is just one woman running in this presidential race - and she is not qualified - she is resoundingly unqualified. She openly disparaged women abused by her husband - referring to them as 'bimbo eruptions' whenever new allegations surfaced. According to Kathleen Willey, one of the women Billy-Jeff groped, Hilliary was integral to the cover-ups and intimidation of the women assaulted by her husband. The Daily Caller has a short, eye-opening article on this enabling behavior:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/clinton-sexual-assault-accuser-admires-trump/

Along the same timeline, there was Filegate from Wikipedia (italics added for emphasis):

The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,^[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy

So she hires someone who is underqualified for a position inside the White House. Then this underqualified individual obtains records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation - records that should never have been handed over - and she reads them. Allegedly to obtain potentially problematic information so it can be used against those individuals. This smacks to me of a police state. By what right did she - the First Lady, not a security official - look at those records? Whatever happened to privacy rights?

And she was up to her neck in that scandal according to Freedom Watch USA (italics added for emphasis):

The case, first filed in 1996 when it was discovered that the Clinton White House illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries, and used them to smear them, continues to this day. Strangely, although Mrs. Clinton is the principal defendant, and although there is sworn testimony, obtained during earlier discovery that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind of this illegal scheme, the Court has never granted Plaintiffs requests to depose her — perhaps fearing a political backlash in the scandal ridden and "politically correct" cesspool known as Washington, D.C. But now that Mrs. Clinton has moved to try to get out of the case — undoubtedly so it does not hang over her head during her years as Secretary of State — it is mandatory that she be deposed before the Court can even consider her motion to be let out of the case. Indeed, even her husband, Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, had to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, ranks lower than a U.S. president and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Jones case that even a president is subject to deposition for his illegal acts.

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/hillary-clinton-tries-to-escape-from-on-going-filegate-case

Breitbart has an even better article that talks about Filegate, Email-Gate1 and Email-Gate2 (Benghazi):

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/04/hillary-clintons-long-history-of-hiding-documents/

Nancy Cohen's mindset is more than annoying. It's dangerous. Worse still, undermining this woman's credibility entirely, is that the premise of that article is just plain stupid.

Put on your hiring hat. If you are looking for a candidate for a job, would you hire someone just because she's a woman? Well, I can think of a few cases - swimsuit model, bra model, haute couture evening gown model - but Hilliary Clinton or any of the women candidates running for office aren't applying for any of those. They are applying for jobs that will give them some control over our lives.

She's already proved, through the aiding, abetting and enabling of her husband's proclivity to disrespect women by sexually assaulting them that she doesn't give a rip about women or their issues. Through Filegate, she has shown that she is perfectly happy to sit down with records the federal government keeps on citizens. Those were FBI records, but what if it happened to be your IRS filing records? Or what about your Obamacare records? They're all right there, at the government's fingertips.

That is why I want someone I can trust to do the right thing in that office.

Now I don't know about Nancy Cohen, but I don't store my brain inside my nether regions. I also have the capacity to analyze and think independently. If I thought Hilliary Clinton had one speck of anything worthwhile I'd consider her for this job. But she doesn't and I don't, so I won't.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

I'm Sorry, But It's My Opinion

I know. I'm entitled to have an opinion so I shouldn't apologize, but I know this is going to be unpopular, so I offer the apology before I get started.

It is sincere, by the way, since I really don't want to cause heartburn for anyone.

With that said, I sometimes wonder why men ever gave women standing in anything. Honest. I really do think that sometimes.

We can be so bloody pretentious, so petty and flagrantly childish it makes me want to bring out the paddle and set to. Kind of like the nun in the Blues Brothers. Whack... Whack... Whack-whack... Whack-whack-whack... Whack-whack-whack-whack-whackwhackwhackwhackwhackwhackwhack...

What got me going on this today is that on one of the the sites to which I belong there is a huge knicker-knotting going on.

It's all because one member - a man - started a thread that is set in the 1870's.

It's a role playing game where those who choose to participate are supposed to "dress up" and get in character. Anyone can post. There are no restrictions on who can post or on what is posted - it's supposed to be fun and creative and humorous.

Unfortunately, some of the women (children) took exception to the fact that this 1870's setting calls out 'men's only' in the opening post.

In this day and age, it is offensive, I agree. But, back then, it was the norm - it was accepted by the majority of society and no one noticed.

Now - if this was a role playing game set in present day and that OP was there, I wouldn't like it. It would bother me, but I would shrug and go my own way. I don't get excited about stuff like that because with everything else going on in my life and the world at large, it isn't worth getting upset about things like this. It is one thread in one forum on one small internet website.

It is not starving children in Africa, or people dying of thirst for want of clean water, or the Syrian refugee crisis or the approval of the Iran nuke deal or...

It is a miniscule issue - a bacteria on a pimple on a gnat's ass - yet they seem to be determined to bring it down.

When I pointed that out to one of the militants - politely and in a private message - she said we would just have to agree to disagree. Fine. I disagree with the idea that she has the right to impose her will and her principals on the rest of us, whether we agree or not.

If this was a case where the OP was anything but tongue-in-cheek, I would be offended and I would stand right by her side and agitate to have it removed, too. If, for instance, it declared that women are not allowed to post, or people of any particular race or sexual preference can't post. It would be dead wrong and she and the other few women who are up in arms over this (out of a site of 96 members) would be right. However, it's not. And that's where this bothers me.

We all get riled up about things. Some are big, some are not, some important, some petty, but there comes a time when a thinking adult will step back and objectively ask, 'how important is this, really?'

If it's not important, if it isn't going to cause gross unfairness or societal disruption, is it really worth spoiling the pleasure for others? It's not as if this particular OP states that women aren't allowed to post. It just encourages (strongly) that people post in the role of an 1870's Victorian male.

After thinking about it, I posted in the guise of a man (Colonel Mustapha Muchleigh) arriving on the doorstep of this particular Gentlemen's Club after having it recommended to me by 'ol' Baldy'. Right after that, one of the militant dames posted a picture of a suffragette's march. Now that I don't like. Didn't then, don't now because it's disrespectful and rude - in my opinion.

So, given the umbrage taken over a silly thread in a single forum on a single website, I guess all of us are going to end up with multi-stall restrooms where men, women and children all do their 'thing' without regard to privacy. Because that's how it should be according to a few.

Now, let's all lighten up, shall we? Have a lovely, confrontation-free day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories