05 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFYou've mastered the art of missing the point. Or does it come naturally for you? Is it an art a skill or a gift?
Not sure what world you live in. There is nothing "wanna-be" about the women's movement. Its agenda is in the mainstream. Its achievements are manifest and welcome. The "engineering" it has done has been successful and is ongoing. Nothing "wanna-be" about it at all.
05 Jun 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyThe only reason I know you have a wife is because you've already dragged her into this discussion. Nevertheless, point taken. Only politically enlightened cave men may drag their wifes around in and out of things... and the rest of us are supposed to live by your rules.
Why are you dragging my wife into this discussion?
Do you ask for your wife's approval before you disgorge your antiquated views?
Originally posted by lemon limeThere is only one reason for this.
I wasn't talking about Lewinsky, because as you said it was consensual. But if you know anything about her you would know that the only reason she approached him in the first place is because she was aware of his reputation with the ladies... to put it mildly.
And I suppose you could call what he did to all the women before her consensual ...[text shortened]... tories about feminist activities, so the movement sort of quietly moved underground for a while.
I'll give you that Bill was a result of part of the "Good Ol' Boy" network that has dominated southern politics for generations. This network was basically a bunch of old, white, rich men who got their way by dominating their political landscape with their little "He-Man Women Haters' Club"-type devotion to each other meant to keep all the power focused in their tight little group which naturally left out the young, the racial minorities (Blacks, Latinos, Asians), and especially women. These other groups were resources to be used, to be sure, but not equals, never equals. They just weren't part of "the club".
Bill emerged out of this political landscape and into the national spotlight because the time was right. The White House had been dominated for 12 years by the "Old Guard" of Reagan-Bush. The last liberal was Jimmy Carter and Reagan engineered and massaged the Iran hostage crisis to ensure that Carter left office in disgrace. Reagan took office as what would become the "selfish-80s" was dawning. Suddenly, it was cool to be "upwardly-mobile". To be a seeker of the brass ring, a "yuppie". "Conspicuous consumption" was the keyword of the era. Liberalism was sent packing and was actually on the run in many parts of the country, suddenly if you were a "real" American, you were a "conservative". Forget "women's rights" - the ERA died stillborn. The racial divide was wide, and getting wider. But even so, occasional race riots, like what happened earlier in Watts, were suppressed in the news. It became the greatest era in America, IF you were white and male and rich.
Then suddenly, here comes a man from Hope, Arkansas into the national spotlight. He became the Great Liberal Hope. Finally, maybe Reagan-Bush could be forgotten and the oppressed could move forward. Liberalism had been dead for so long, this was the chance they had been waiting for to come back, to have their voices heard. 12 years spent crying in the wilderness made them hungry.
Hungry enough that women could overlook Bill's meandering ways. This is why the women's movement turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton's "extracurricular activities". Getting Liberalism's base back was more important for the moment. Once the nation was firmly back in saner hands, then the women's movement could get more serious about their objectives. As it was, it would be another eight years after Bill (16 after he took office) before women could begin to eye the White House.
Of, course, this is only my opinion, and the way I see it.
05 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeDo you ask for your wife's approval before spewing your sexist tripe?
The only reason I know you have a wife is because you've already dragged her into this discussion. Nevertheless, point taken. Only politically enlightened cave men may drag their wifes around in and out of things... and the rest of us are supposed to live by your rules.
Or did she decide to dump you and find somebody smarter?
05 Jun 14
Originally posted by SuzianneYou got it right as to why they (the feminists) turned a blind eye, but you're watering down his behavior by making it look like he was just one of the guys. There were multiple lawsuits from women about his *ahem* behavior, and other lawsuits regarding illegal business dealings when he was governer of Arkansas. Those lawsuits never stuck because let's face it, he was able to use the power of his office for protection (first as governor and then as president).
There is only one reason for this.
I'll give you that Bill was a result of part of the "Good Ol' Boy" network that has dominated southern politics for generations. This network was basically a bunch of old, white, rich men who got their way by dominating their political landscape with their little "He-Man Women Haters' Club"-type devotion to each other ...[text shortened]... ould begin to eye the White House.
Of, course, this is only my opinion, and the way I see it.
I'm convinced that if he had not won the presidency then some of those lawsuits might have stuck. He managed to stay one step ahead of the game by gaining more power for himself.
05 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneHi Suzianne, very interesting insight. I like it a lot.
There is only one reason for this.
I'll give you that Bill was a result of part of the "Good Ol' Boy" network that has dominated southern politics for generations. This network was basically a bunch of old, white, rich men who got their way by dominating their political landscape with their little "He-Man Women Haters' Club"-type devotion to each other ...[text shortened]... ould begin to eye the White House.
Of, course, this is only my opinion, and the way I see it.
You bring me memories of the happy marriage between Ronald and Maggie, and some of us can proudly say that we lived through the birth of their beloved baby called neo-liberalism in the 80s, the birth date of the world we know today, that was proteined and vitamined by the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the very symbol of capitalist victory.
And that is how we came to live in a market village in this wide wild world. 🙂
Edit: I think that wild wide world suits better. 😛
05 Jun 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI've heard these talking points before. The only way to defend the Feminist leadership's defense of Clinton is to make it seem as though what he had done (going back for over 20 years) was really no big deal. When have you ever seen a feminist defending a misogynist?
There is only one reason for this.
I'll give you that Bill was a result of part of the "Good Ol' Boy" network that has dominated southern politics for generations. This network was basically a bunch of old, white, rich men who got their way by dominating their political landscape with their little "He-Man Women Haters' Club"-type devotion to each other ...[text shortened]... ould begin to eye the White House.
Of, course, this is only my opinion, and the way I see it.
He wasn't simply a wham bam thank you mam type of guy. And even if that's all he was, why would any feminist try to poo poo that and gloss it over? I can tell you why, it's because he pushed for legislation they wanted to see passed into law... it was purely self interest.
05 Jun 14
This all started when some people here got upset because I was less than sympathetic with a young woman who put herself into an unsafe situation. But now I'm hearing it's okay for individual women (through no fault of their own) to be harassed, stalked and abused if it means the rights of all women are somehow enhanced.
05 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeExactly so. But he was far better than the alternative. Women's legislation (for lack of a better term) could not be advanced at all in a hostile conservative environment. We can really only begin to move forward when the tide is with us.
I've heard these talking points before. The only way to defend the Feminist leadership's defense of Clinton is to make it seem as though what he had done (going back for over 20 years) was really no big deal. When have you ever seen a feminist defending a misogynist?
He wasn't simply a wham bam thank you mam type of guy. And even if that's all he was, ...[text shortened]... use he pushed for legislation they wanted to see passed into law... it was purely self interest.
05 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one."
This all started when some people here got upset because I was less than sympathetic with a young woman who put herself into an unsafe situation. But now I'm hearing it's okay for individual women (through no fault of their own) to be harassed, stalked and abused if it means the rights of all women are somehow enhanced.
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeOK, I will play along. So you say your comment is not about me. I accept that. So, who are you directing this "tough guy wanna-be schlub" stuff at then? Handy Andy? Someone you once saw on TV?
A social engineer wanna-be is something else... he's just some internet tough guy wanna-be schlub pretending to have the sort of influence a real social engineer would like to have. And a narcissist is someone who thinks everything said to him is about him.
06 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo, I didn't say it was not about you. And I didn't say it was about you.
OK, I will play along. So you say your comment is not about me. I accept that. So, who are you directing this "tough guy wanna-be schlub" stuff at then? Handy Andy? Someone you once saw on TV?
06 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWhy are you being so furtive? When you try to deliver an insult openly it doesn't amount to much ~ it just comes across as deflection. But when you're furtive it simply doesn't work on any level. If you think a male supporter of women's rights is a "wanna-be social engineer" then just say so. Enough of your fumbling and timidity. 🙂
No, I didn't say it was not about you. And I didn't say it was about you.