Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Saturday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Sunday »

Cheney In A Pant Suit

Oh my. Andrew Sullivan describes Hillary as Cheney in a pant suit. Wesley Clark defends Burkas while Martina describes the pic as Laura and her sister wives.




Quicktime Video 11.9 MB | Duration: 08'26
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Real Time w/Bill Maher
More Bill Maher video here


 

Comments

I agree with Clark that we need diplomacy with Iran. Hell... we need diplomacy with everybody. But I don't see how labeling the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists is going to facilitate diplomacy. After all... America does not negotiate with terrorists. We are in "global war against terror." We're dedicated to fighting them... not seeking diplomatic solutions.

Hillary Clinton consistently pisses me off. I would love to see a woman or a member of a minority group as president. Unfortunately, what we're currently offered does not pass muster. If we want a bit of sanity, a bit of restraint, and someone who isn't going to expand the powers of the presidency even more... I can see no one other than Edwards.

What was with that interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison?

She really seemed confused and not even remotely credible. I was hoping that Maher would rip into her tortured and troubled talking points, but he just kind of shook his head and said, "Ok..."

It scares me that this woman was elected to public office.

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan is insane. His hatred and fear of Hillary is frightening. I guess that's just the typical Republican state-of-mind, gay or strait.

Yes, mr. Clark. Labelling groups, armies and their state or non- state "affiliates" as "terrorists" - is just namecalling. It has no implications of any kind, and is just a wise&reasonable diplomatic approach.

Next - George W. Bush happens to start another war based on the absolute best of intentions and so shall not be criticised, unless it is to help him further the global WOT!

Maher hit it on the head with his last point.

Clark is a misogynist shithead.

Did women invent the burka? Not likely. It was muslim male pigs.

"Maher hit it on the head with his last point." ~ Marco

I second this assertion!

the term 'terrorist' has become too emotionally charged for usage.

americans hear 'terrorist' and they are easily duped into supporting any violent action against the labeled group.

just as calling massacres of tribes 'genocide' obligates us to intervene, labeling a group of people as terrorists, in this bush-age makes it all the easier for us to destroy the human bodies we vilify.

By Wesley Clark's definition of terrorist (which includes anyone who supports other terrorists), the US has earned that label several times over since WWII. A definion that is more selective would suit our purposes better (one that focuses on paramilitary organizations), if for no other reason than to make the US itself ineligible.

I'll third the assertion on burqas -- it was an easy point to make, but it was critical that it was made.

Iran may have been more secular under the Shah, but they were definitely still more secular before the Iraq War and Ahmandinejad's rise to power than they are now.

Overall, it was a good performance by Andrew Sullivan, and one in tune with reality.

"Clark is a misogynist shithead. Did women invent the burka? Not likely. It was muslim male pigs."

They've worn it for centuries, for generations upon generations, and in the majority of places it is actually 100% optional.

The simple fact is that many of these muslim women do like the burka.

To them it is a sign of love and respect for their husbands. It's like they save themselves for his eyes only.

To a lot of people that sounds disgusting and degrading, but when you look at it from a different point of view it really isn't. It is just a different way of thinking, people living a different kind of life.

Wether or not we agree with it is quite irrelevant.

It's hillarious to see so many western women get their knickers in a twist about it when they really have no idea what they're talking about.

the term 'terrorist' has become too emotionally charged for usage. americans hear 'terrorist' and they are easily duped into supporting any violent action against the labeled group. just as calling massacres of tribes 'genocide' obligates us to intervene, labeling a group of people as terrorists, in this bush-age makes it all the easier for us to destroy the human bodies we vilify.

I agree with the firs bit, but are you saying that we shouldn't intervene to stop genocide? I'm confused.

The simple fact is that many of these muslim women do like the burka.
--Valkesh

Oh, fuck you.

That's like saying that the simple fact is that many boys enjoy cowering in a fetal position in the corner of the room (because daddy likes to beat the living shit out of his sons).

Fuck you. You're a goddamned idiot.

user-pic

I agree with Wes Clark, or at least with what I think he was trying to say, which was that for the most part the United States (specifically, and necessarily, given the depth and scope of their current foreign policy, but also the West generally) is guilty, in the course of their cultural hegemony, of imposing their political values on the rest of the world. Individualism and its corollaries - most especially reason - comprise the prototypical paradigm in the contemporary Western intellectual tradition, and that's fine; in the abstract individualism doesn't necessarily create any bad results. The only problem is that with self-justifying systems like rationality no room is left for other social modalities - like communalism - that can't be justified on its terms. Valkesh pointed out that wearing Burkha's is optional in some countries, i'm not sure whether that's true or not, but its sort of beside the point. What the individual in the Burkha wants could be seen as irrelevant, because that society has established different prerogatives in terms of social freedoms and decision making oriented around something other than the individual. From a Western perspective this is repressive and abhorrent. But this begs the question; why should the Western perspective, or more pointedly, its dictatorial individualist intellectual framework, be the ultimate arbiter of foreign social values?

As an aside Women don't wear Burkha's as a sign of respect to Men, but rather to God. Muslim Men are also supposed to remain covered, or at least dressed modestly for the same reason.

I agree with Wes Clark, or at least with what I think he was trying to say, which was that for the most part the United States (specifically, and necessarily, given the depth and scope of their current foreign policy, but also the West generally) is guilty, in the course of their cultural hegemony, of imposing their political values on the rest of the world. Individualism and its corollaries - most especially reason - comprise the prototypical paradigm in the contemporary Western intellectual tradition, and that's fine; in the abstract individualism doesn't necessarily create any bad results. The problem is that with self-justifying systems like rationality, no room is left for other social modalities - like communalism - that can't be justified on its terms.

Valkesh points out that wearing Burkha's is optional in some countries, i'm not sure whether that's true or not, but its sort of beside the point. What the individual in the Burkha wants could be seen as irrelevant, because that society has established different prerogatives in terms of social freedoms and decision making oriented around something other than the individual. From a Western perspective this is repressive and abhorrent.

But this begs the question; why should the Western perspective, or more pointedly, its dictatorial individualist intellectual framework, be the ultimate arbiter of foreign social values? Our praise for religious tolerance and flexibility in making Burkhas voluntary, whilst intuitive, is nevertheless arrogant and condesending

As an aside Women don't wear Burkha's as a sign of respect to Men, but rather to God. Muslim Men are also supposed to remain covered, or at least dressed modestly for the same reason.

As another aside, to the first poster; Clark made it clear that this kind of action (claddifying the Revolutionary Guards as terrorists) was necessary, in order to create the leverage that makes diplomacy work, which makes sense to me.

Muslim men, the true believers that is, have serious sexual hangups. If their god(invented by males)is so great, why do they question its creations?

Their god apparently made all body parts, so why are they ashamed of some of them? Do they think their god made a mistake? But since it is perfect, it must have known what it was doing.

It is supposed to be insulting and degrading to them to be seen naked. Well, that is their problem. For many, it is just as bad for a woman to be seen at all. Unfortunately, that is the woman's problem, but entirely created by these male perverts.

Xianity and Judaism used to be the same, and for some still is. Here is Laura Bush seeing the Pope.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/images/20040604-3_p41259-29-515h.jpg

Sometimes men also wear silly costumes. Here is our glorious leader George wingnut Bush.

http://www.bangitout.com/uploads/92bushwesternwall.jpg

I haven't seen wingnuttery complaining about these pictures.

I disagree with insinuations being made about the body veils and women's oppression in the UAE. I've been working in Abu Dhabi & the UAE for a number of years now. Yes there are conservative circles among the local families, but if you think the women are oppressed there are oppressed then think again. The women play a major role in the household and society there in general. I believe the veil has become more of a cultural than religious attire. The reason these two were fully covered up (for the cameras at least) is that they probably were the wives of some very big names there. My girlfriend has been to their parties among these big families. And trust me that theses body veils also come in all sorts of fashions from tight fits to loose. Finally, sorry but Navatalova comment about Dubai is just stupid. Come here on day & see how it really is.

I don't approve the Burka too but don't impose your view to other people even if you can prove you point of view is right. The same goes with religion and I learnt after having a trillion of discussions with religious friends. The act of covering themselves (in different degrees) is not a obligation, is a cultural obligation, it is part of their culture just like beisball is part of yours. If you'd like to see these societies change let them have their hippy generation, their punk generation, their bikini generation... but don't push them or insult them by diminishing their point of view.

I found it! YOU GOTTA READ THIS. It's a comic book where an Iranian girl tells the history of iran from the Sha to the revolution from her point of view. It is a great work of art and it may put some light in this discussion. http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/graphicnovels/persepolis.html

As another aside, to the first poster; Clark made it clear that this kind of action (claddifying the Revolutionary Guards as terrorists) was necessary, in order to create the leverage that makes diplomacy work, which makes sense to me.

But is it true? Or is it just a way to make use of assets connected to the global war on terror more freely, without further congressional approval?

Or is a credible threat to go to war for any and all reasons the White House thinks of - a prerequisite for "diplomacy", perhaps?

Really, why don't you just say you're fascists right off the bat? That you worship "strength" and steadfast ideological leadership and military might, regardless of the purpose it's supposed to be used for, or the circumstances it's used in.

At least that would be honest.

user-pic

Andrew Sullivan is so all over the place politically. Remember when he called for liberals who opposed the war to apologize a few weeks after the invasion and the whole "mission accomplished" era? Why do we listen to these idiot who are worng on almost everything?

It's really not the burqa or the veil itself that's pertinent. Certainly these items stand out because they are relatively incongruous with our modern culture (although hardly worlds apart from the Western 19th century Victorian ideal), so they make for a convenient target of emphasis. However, whether it's veils, burqas, pledging allegiance (and "under God"), observing religious traditions, or any sort of expression, the only moral stance to have towards them is have them be optional for the individual, especially in public spheres.

States/institions that make all expressions optional should be respected, and those that mandate or prohibit deserve a proportional level of scorn for their violation of human rights. The US is hardly perfect, and the best thing we can do is to be a better exemplar of these ideals we preach to others. By dedicating ourselves towards that end, we will limit such crime committed in our own country, and we will have a leg to stand on as we re-open dialog with other nations.

The reason these two were fully covered up (for the cameras at least) is that they probably were the wives of some very big names there.
-- simech
Why the HELL would you consider that a good reason for them to be covered up like that? Laura Bush is married to a "very big name." Should she cover herself up? Should she walk around like a fucking pup-tent? Jeeeebus... Now, the U. S. of A. is not the be all, end all of gender equality. Don't get me wrong. But you can generally tell something about a society's tendency towards that sort of thing, by their dress code. Vis-à-vis genders, specifically. In the US, women can generally not walk around topless (men can). In some parts of northern Europe, women may do so. Equality. This isn't an issue that can simply be written off to cultural relativitism -- there are a few absolutes. You can't have a society in which it is okay for a husband to give his wife a black eye, and another where for some cultural reason, it is not okay. It is either okay, or not okay. And I think -- as far as we've gotten -- we've figured out that this kinda shit is not okay. There is only one thing worse than forcing women to cover up -- and that is to so completely browbeat women until they start saying they WANT to cover up... You can force a woman to cover up, by beating her. But it takes a lot of beatings to make a woman claim that she likes it. If I was Andrew Dice Clay, I'd be proud of it all.
I don't approve the Burka too but don't impose your view to other people even if you can prove you point of view is right ... it is part of their culture just like beisball is part of yours.
-- Daniel R

What the fuck is this shit, we're being invaded by retards now?

I'm not trying to impose any goddamned thing. I'm actually just suggesting that it might be a good idea to not impose things. Like, I'm not trying to impose my will and desire for women to walk around nude, topless, or generally look enticing -- I'm just saying, if it strikes them, that's okay.

Simech offers:

"Finally, sorry but Navatalova comment about Dubai is just stupid. Come here on day & see how it really is."

Well, that's a great offer. Perhaps you could help me with an ongoing problem that I run into when trying to go and see such garden spots for myself.

Being Jewish, I can't seem to get a visa, maybe you could sponsor me?

Any help you could provide would be appreciated, as long as you don't get yourself in any trouble with the locals.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

I don't understand Bill near the end, where he says 'how does he know about [the legitimacy of the Russian elections?' I mean, I think thats why they have non-Russian independent observers, so that people have an idea of how legitimate the elections are?

And yea, Iran supplying aid to Hamas which is the elected government of the Palestinian people (in an election the EU's men said was transparent and fair), and thats grounds to label them a terrorist organisation? Kudos to Maher for not going after Clark for that mis-step in logic, and instead being nostalgic about the time Kasparov outwitted him.

RE: Burkas

See also: ethnocentrism

  1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.

  2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

The argument has been made that women in the UAE can't choose one way or another; they have been "brainwashed" to accept a male-dominated society, and are forced to wear Burkas.

But this does not explain why several women in my little community, right here in Podunk USA, still wear them.

Having asked them myself, as Clark suggests, many have told me that it is a comfort issue, and it makes the hot Florida sun more bearable. I find this hard to believe, but then again, Florida heat doesn't even compare to the Middle East. I would expect that after +6,000 years, these people have mastered beating the heat. Who knows?

I'm all for women's rights. The Middle East has a long way to go. That said, a woman has the right to dress however she pleases, be it a thong, or a burka, or both.

As an aside Women don't wear Burkha's as a sign of respect to Men, but rather to God. Muslim Men are also supposed to remain covered, or at least dressed modestly for the same reason.

Everything I've read indicates that covering up is to honor the husband and/or family, but I've never heard that bit about muslim men before. Do you have any sources on that?

Oh, fuck you. [...drivel...] Fuck you. You're a goddamned idiot.

Great argument, you sure sound like a master debater. I've been commenting on this blog for years, and I don't think I have ever witnessed such an amazing display.

Bravo.

Just to be sure...from what you've said up above it sounds like you believe that anyone who wears the burka does so because they've been beaten? Am I right about that, or did I misunderstand you?

I must say, if that's how you feel then you've made quite a leap.

Being a Canadian, I have met a lot of muslim women in my day.

A few have worn the burka, some wear the head scarves, and some don't wear any sort of cover at all.

Some countries have mandated that women must be covered at all times while in public (like Saudi Arabia), some only insist that women be covered while going to the mosque, and others leave it up to the individual completly.

I myself just got back from two weeks in Egypt, and everyone I spoke to insisted that it is 100% optional to be covered in their country, but I guess you know a lot more about it than myself and the people who live there, right?

In most civilized countries the decision to cover, or not cover, is based on how the individual interprets the Koran.

I wont say that women in Islam are never beaten and forced into covering up, because it would be foolish to make such a broad, all encompasing, statement.

However, I also wouldn't say that all women who cover up have been beaten into doing so, because to me that seems an equally broad (and foolish) statement.

Everything I've read indicates that covering up is to honor the husband and/or family, but I've never heard that bit about muslim men before. Do you have any sources on that?

A source on veils in Islam would be the Hadith, since the Qu'ran mentions nothing of the sort, which talks about Hijab or "to veil" and is the Islamic protocol on modesty for both males and females. Males are encouraged to cover from navel on downward though there has been some flexibility of standards since Muhmmad apparently uncovered his thigh when he rode camels. Women are required to cover up their body when in the presence of someone of the opposite sex (the hair is at the very least to be covered if not the rest of the head). Traditionally, however, veiling is for societal modesy and not mandated by Allah in the Qu'ran. Anyone who claims this is so, I challenge them to post a verse from the holy text indicating specifically the veiling of women.

Both men and women have the same directive in their holy book, and that is to be modest. Each CULTURE dictates how that is expressed.

I just got married in Malaysia, an Islamic country. There, women wear veils but have exposed faces. Many Arab women on vacation there wear burqas and sun on the beach with their husbands and children like westerners, though covered head to toe in black. They take pictures with small digital cameras and laugh.

It is absolutely inappropriate to ASSUME anything about people with different cultures until you get to know them.

If you want to get on a high horse about our Free Women, then tell me what would happen if France told us to have more topless beaches because we are stifling our women?

What about western missionaries that put shirts on half naked natives?

When people criticize another culture's CLOTHING or traditions, I call them bigots.

Incidentally, that famous Afghan Girl from National Geographic. The one with the amazing fierce eyes? She was so angry because the photographer took her picture without her veil or permission and still wears a burqa with pride.

Think of it as a woman who wears a silver cross around her neck. Or a star of David.

We fear what we do not understand.

If you wish to criticize, look for spousal abuse. Look for limitation of education. Look for murder (if a woman is not dressed) and that sort of thing.

(btw: I am non-religious but fight hard to protect their right to believe, so long as they do not take that belief into the public arena (laws) or harm others.)

Koran sura 33: Confederates 59 O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to wrap their veils [jalābīb] close round them. It is better that way, they can be recognized but not annoyed. God is forgiving and merciful.

Koran sura 24: Light 31 And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts, and display not their ornaments, except those which are outside; and let them pull their kerchiefs over their bosoms and not display their ornaments save to their husbands and fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or their male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not note women’s nakedness; and that they beat not with their feet that their hidden ornaments may be known. But all turn repentant to God, O believers! May you prosper.

  • OK, you can quibble and pretend that those are not strict commands, but the message is clear.

  • Of course the scarf and the veil preceded islam, but it is muslim male pigs, particularly the dumbest and most ignorant, i.e. imams, who enforce it today. Sometimes aided by state authorities.

"AN eminent 92-year-old Turkish archaeologist is to go on trial for inciting religious hatred because she angered Islamist circles with a scientific paper saying that the use of headscarves by women dated back to pre-Islamic sexual rites.

Muazzez Ilmiye Cig, who devoted her career to studying the Sumerians, the first known urban civilisation dating from the 4th millennium BC, is to appear in court on November 1 in Istanbul, her editor Ismet Ogutucu said.

In a book published last year, Cig said the headscarf - a controversial issue in Turkey - was first worn by Sumerian priestesses initiating young people into sex, but without prostituting themselves.

A lawyer from the western city of Izmir took offence and filed a complaint against Cig, resulting in a prosecutor charging both her and her publisher with “inciting hatred based on religious differences”."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20607475-23109,00.html

(Cont)If you want to see how "modern experts" interpret islamic texts, go to the sources.

"Practical Laws of Islam", where you learn all about water, among other things.

http://www.khamenei.de/fatwas/practical00.htm

For more stupidity, "Ask the Moron" er, imam.

"On the one hand, inferiority is no shame, and on the other hand, it is the prerogative of Allah Ta'ala to grant intellect to whom so ever He wishes to. If in His Wisdom He granted men more intelligence than women, it is His Right. No one can question Him, nor can we, with our feeble intelligence claim, Allah forbid, that it is illogical for Allah Ta'ala to have done so. It is neither implied that Allah Ta'ala has degraded women, nor made them valueless.

Allah Ta'ala has created man and woman for separate roles. He also granted each one of the two qualities which are more befitting for their respective roles, e.g. women are generally more emotional than men in keeping with their role of motherhood. In the same light he has granted men more intelligence than women, in accordance of their role of guardians and overseers over women.

You have misinterpreted this to imply that women are un-intelligent and stupid. This is the result of the corrupt basis from which you are viewing the issue. You have presumed inferiority to mean degradation."

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=9511

There are hundreds more questions that the mufti "answers". He so generously takes the questions,

"Mufti Ebrahim Desai FATWA DEPT.

We have taken note of your e-mail. By the grace of Allah we are not offended by the least. We understand your frame of mind quite well, and are well aware of the type of mindset you have. We sincerely make du'a that Allah Ta'ala grants you increase in Islamic knowledge and an understanding of the Deen."

  • Oh, and some say we are supposed to respect this garbage. Well, mufti, take your koran and other religious books and put them where the sun don't shine.
In most civilized countries the decision to cover, or not cover, is based on how the individual interprets the Koran.

Could you be a little more specific about that, please -- which individual's interpretation?

We're talking about the misogynistic, sexually repressed, & obsessed man's individual's interpretation here, yeah? Not the individual woman's interpretation, no?

This is NOT a cultural issue. It is NOT a religious issue. It's a matter of misogyny.

And yeah, if you think anything else, you're not expressing an idiotic opinion -- you really are being an idiot. There are some things to which you seriously cannot stoop to.

Dzwonka, I know I could have elaborated, but what I mean to say is as they [pictured women] might have been from important families (those respected/revered among the locals) they have to uphold a sense of carrying traditional values. For instance, you will rarely see a local male walking in a suit to work in the UAE but you can be sure he would be wearing one while he's abroad for work or that his wife and daughters are shopping in London unburqaed. He didn't just decide to suppress his oppressive urges when on vacation. I'm not just speaking in hypotheticals too. This is the general trend. And yes absolutes, its the kind where Bush' rhetoric has helped the hardliners come to power in Iran and marginalize the reformers. More specifically, like Iran, there is a young population here in the UAE, they are exposed, well traveled, connected to the rest of the world and have been very accommodating and adaptive to other people visiting their 30 odd year old country. These people are not the Taliban. They are not inherently ignorant and I assure you will continue to see changes in their society, women's rights and elsewhere but not always necessarily where you might consider the correct way or enough.

Jerry,I've had many Jewish colleagues working here with me in the UAE. Frankly, Ive never asked them how they got in given their faith. They could have well lied about their faith or customs either asked and didn't care or never asked to begin with. I've never been asked that at any time entering the country and I really don't think its an issue unless you've visited Israel. I do get cheesed when I have to enter my faith down when signing up for a gym membership but again that rarely happens and I have never heard explicitly of faith being an issue UAE. Well, I take that back. Don't eat in public during Ramadan and if you hit&kill someone in an accident you have to pay a fee to his/her family. The most expensive fee being Muslim/Local victim. That kind of thing. Which if you're lucky you won't ever have to face.

Female genetal mutilation with sharp rocks is agreed to by the women, who do it because God says so. Yeah, totally understandable then. We need to stand up for the rights of these women to be completely destroyed sexually! Their religion says so, after all. Why are people questioning these womens' rights to be cut with sharp rocks? And if it becomes infected and they die, great! Instant path to heaven! Boy, it sure is exciting standing up for misogonystic, ancient religious beliefs.

Just wondering, Norm. Is there a reason why you chide other people for ad hominem attacks, but when Dzwonka offers -- "Oh, fuck you. ... Fuck you. You're a goddamned idiot." ... "And yeah, if you think anything else, you're not expressing an idiotic opinion -- you really are being an idiot." -- we're supposed to just take that in stride?

Just wondering, Norm. Is there a reason why you chide other people for ad hominem attacks

I have limited time to spend dealing with children and so the comments you see directed at those who engage in ad hominem attacks are uneven. I might add that you don't have the whole picture since I often contact commenters by email.

I regularly see women wearing the Burqa and I live in Ireland. You can see far more doing so in England. Both are western liberal democracies. They consistently express a preference for Muslim attire because "it frees me from vanity" and other similar reasons. However weird it may appear to me, they seem happy enough, at least the women I've talked to about it.

Dont bother about Dzwonka. He had a go at me and my "edumacation" a while back cos I said Northern Ireland was in the U.K. He just wants to be the toughest kid on the internets.

No one noticed the pink ribbon for the fight against breast cancer? That should be the most important fashion statement in the picture.

Thanks Daniel R for the link! I've got this book in a foreign language and I'm pretty crap at that language...

I've thought about buying it in English and now I get to have a preview. cool.

persepolis

I think burkas and full veils should be illegal* - you can't tell who's hiding under there, that could be Cheech and Chong for all we know... or Obama bin Saddam.

*(and those big bug-eye glasses that are so popular nowadays)

One question about the photo...

Why do Jenna and Barbara have to wear those burkas if Laura doesn't?

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

What the fuck is this shit, we're being invaded by retards now?

well if we are, they should feel right at home.

dzwonka seems to think there's something wrong with "beatings". a beating, like anything else, can only be understood in context. a beating on the battlefield is not the same as a beating in a schoolyard, or in an alley. a beating delivered over money is not to be compared to a beating over revenge. a beating by a junkie is not the same as a beating by a pcp head. but if there's a such thing as a beating over the internet, i've been enjoying watching dzwonka deal them out for over a year now, and he does it better than anyone else. just remember, dude, a "beating" is not an argument, and while it may be effective, it isn't convincing. you can talk out your ass and still "win". if you asked a thoughtful feminist if he/she wanted you on his/her side, he/she would probably say "maybe...sometimes".

why DO you hate misogynists so much? remember, it's not the same thing as loving women... or people in general.

the fact is, women often dress, whether in hijab and burka, or fishnets and heels, because men like it, for whatever reasons. the "problem" isn't women, or men, but humans. i hope that beatings, of whatever type, are not involved, but in any case i personally am pretty unimpressed with EVERYBODY'S behaviour in this matter of clothing. one thing i know for sure- being a blustery hater of misogyny is, like dressing this way or that, just another way to attract the opposite sex. hope it's working for you.

It all has to do with climate, skin complexion, average amount of time, intensity of sunshine, and other physico-anthropological considerations that are out of fashion these days [Franz Boas and his sycophantresses (Mead, Baruch, et al., commie acolytes, whoever, keeping the politically correct flame alive) are totally full of caca, in my view, "cultural" anthropolgy today makes ANY variety of economics look like hard science. It is as if Lamarckian Lysenkoists, nay, full-blown Creationists, had, with impunity, set up shop in our elitest Universities. If your hair is Neanderthal red, if you freckle, you have a genetic "defect" in this part of the world, sorry to say. Not even special hats will change that.].

.

Also Sprach Stan (Gooch).

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives