No you can't

GenderGappers 2008 – 008

NO YOU CAN’T

No! You damn well can’t just run rough shod over women with your obamabots. Even Repugs admit that women are not under their control. As Bill Kristol wryly conceded, “White women are a problem – that’s, you know – we all live with that.”

It’s sad that he had to qualify it with race because there are plenty of Blacks and Hispanic women that present a problem to the man and will continue to do so.

We women won big in several ways, even though Hillary was tripled and quadrupled teamed by the media that still continues to sing the praises of BO and ignore his campaign gaffes even in light of her considerable wins.

Just a few days before Super T, Michele O was asked if she would support Clinton if she won. Her answer was, “I’ll have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone”. She went on to say that everyone would support the Dem ticket, but the mean-stream media ignored her ungracious answer; a media that would have castigated Bill Clinton had he said it.

And what a smack down Hillary delivered, by taking Massachusetts and California, to false friend, Teddy and the Oprah, and the ghost of Jack K. and Camelot, and his daughter and Kerry and Cal-e-4-nia’s first lady, and a plethora of lesser or greater lights by taking Massachusetts and California. Women deserve this little schadenfreude since they are usually the victims of it, especially during this campaign.

Certainly there must have been some one in that bunch to vote for – but wait! They weren’t running. Why did BO have to hide behind their gloss and glitter? Could it be that he is an inexperienced, hollow man who needs the aura of other’s greatness to mask his many faults?

We know it’s not about race, although BO gets 80+% of the Black vote, because the media says it isn’t. We know it’s not about celebrity or even about who has the most million$.

IT IS ABOUT GENDER and anyone who does not see the huge pile-on and gang-up against Hillary by nearly every informational outlet is comatose. Don’t ever be ashamed of voting for a qualified woman. As Robin wrote: “As for the "woman thing"? Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman, but because I am.

We still have to fear the coming caucus results where Iowa showed us how the obomamobs forced at least some older voters into his corner of the caucus halls against their will. We just have to get our friends, relatives and Everywoman’s future involved.

Please send every woman you know have not yet voted an e-mail or write or call them. Urge them to pass it on. Please copy this great article by Robin [below], paste it and send it out to women you know to stir their ancient memories, awaken their inner self and strengthen their trust and faith in themselves.

Goodbye To All That (#2)by Robin MorganThe Women's Media Center- USA -•Goodbye to the double standard . . .

- Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who's emotional, andso much a politician as to be unfit for politics. - She's "ambitious" but heshows "fire in the belly." (Ever had labor pains?) - When a sexist idiotscreamed "Iron my shirt!" at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racistidiot shouted "Shine my shoes!" at BO, it would've inspired hours of airtimeand pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor. - Young politicalKennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted,age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort"See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-lookinggeneration backs him." (Personally, I'm unimpressed with Caroline's longingfor the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans haveshort memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe's suicide, and a dead girlnamed Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary's "thick ankles." Nixon-trickster RogerStone's new Hillary-hating 527 group, "Citizens United Not Timid". JohnMcCain answering "How do we beat the bitch?" with "Excellent question!"Would he have dared reply similarly to "How do we beat the black bastard?"For shame.Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. Ifit was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—andthey would not be selling it in airports. Shame.Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history,including one with the murderous slogan "If Only Hillary had married O.J.Instead!" Shame.Goodbye to Comedy Central's "Southpark" featuring a storyline in whichterrorists secrete a bomb in HRC's vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain downinto the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not "Clintonhating," not "Hillary hating." This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it wereabout Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; ifabout race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitousspew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens,voters, Americans?Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .The women's movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC's ChrisMatthews for relentless misogynistic comments. But what about NBC's TimRussert's continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panelspontificating on race and gender? Or CNN's Tony Harris chuckling at "thechromosome thing" while interviewing a woman from The White House Project?And that's not even mentioning Fox News.Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women arewhite . . .Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities,abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American andEuropean American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and PacificIslanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn'texist if we hadn't given birth to it. A few non-racist countries mayexist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks freefrom other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a worldstill so patriarchal that it's the "norm."So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and thecenturies, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as blackAmericans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especiallywealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and womendemanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he werefemale we wouldn't be having such problems, and I for one would be inheaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance—even if sheshared Condi Rice's Bush-defending politics.I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African Americanwomen deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until anumber of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they're being called"race traitors."So goodbye to conversations about this nation's deepest scar—slavery—whichfail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S.and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery,invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of thepoor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDSafflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religiousfundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati,purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attemptedgynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and beingextra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.We know that at this historical moment women experience the worlddifferently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can governdifferently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen JohnsonSirleaf.We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this highoffice and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised toolittle cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to somefeminists so famished for a female president they were even willing toabandon women's rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)Goodbye, goodbye to . . .- blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including hiswomanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on).Let's get real. If he hadn't campaigned strongly for her everyone wouldcluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking theiralpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.- an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that acomparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen asattractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so thatit's "cooler" to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vastglobal complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.- the notion that it's fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels hecan learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction broughtby his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts "entitled" when she's workedintensely at everything she's done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone,first-rate senator from my state.Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce herto a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures,fantasies.Goodbye to the phrase "polarizing figure" to describe someone who embodiesthe transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to makein this one. It was the women's movement that quipped, "We are becoming themen we wanted to marry." She heard us, and she has.Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands,because Hillary isn't as "likeable" as they've been warned they must be, orbecause she didn't leave him, couldn't "control" him, kept her familytogether and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelseahad ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbyeto some women pouting because she didn't bake cookies or she did, snipingbecause she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up.She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement.She's running to be president of the United States.Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries'history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war,positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female headsof government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters,daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino,Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, andmore. Even in our "land of opportunity," it's mostly the first pathway "in"permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and SalaBurton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous "Obama Girl" flaunting her bikini-cladass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn't her idea after all, some guysgot her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said "made me feel likea dork."Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they'renot feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo),who can't identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid ofeeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny ifthey say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feelingunworthy, sulking "what if she's not electable?" or "maybe it'spost-feminism and whoooosh we're already free." Let a statement by themagnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed tosave hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroadduring the Civil War, she replied bitterly, "I could have saved thousands—ifonly I'd been able to convince them they were slaves."I'd rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who doidentify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities andany age—who get that it's in their self-interest, too. She's betterqualified. (D'uh.) She's a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp offoreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorbstaggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, evenhumor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let's hear it for herconnections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama wasawfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to getto the Senate in the first place.)I'd rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eightyears, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—andhe'll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knightwhen actually he's an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who've workedwith the Kennedys' own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it's onlyabout ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn't it about gettingthe policies we want enacted?And goodbye to the ageism . . .How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history,papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise ofa feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, orthink that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it's useful to triage the singlelargest demographic in this country's history: the boomer generation—themajority of which is female?Old woman are the one group that doesn't grow more conservative with age—andwe are the generation of radicals who said "Well-behaved women seldom makehistory." Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes forus. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. Andthough we never went away, brace yourselves: we're back!We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay,affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women whoestablished rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape anddate-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who foughtfor prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; whoinsisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men tobecome more nurturing parents; who created women's studies and Title IX sowe all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women whoreclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on thenational agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, languageitself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proudsuccessors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There's not a womanalive who, if she's honest, doesn't recognize what she means. Then HRC gotdrowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media's obsession with everythingBill.So listen to her voice:"For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Eventoday, there are those who are trying to silence our words."It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned,or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into theslavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women aredoused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriagedowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights whenindividual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands ofwomen are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violationof human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is aviolation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their ownfamilies, and that includes being forced to have abortions or beingsterilized against their will."Women's rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speakfreely—and the right to be heard."That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and theChinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing.And this voice, age 22, in "Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham,President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.""We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . .searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. .. . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to oneanother in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated lifeexisting in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one withdesperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear isalways with us, but we just don't have time for it."She ended with the commitment "to practice, with all the skill of our being:the art of making possible."And for decades, she's been learning how.So goodbye to Hillary's second-guessing herself. The real question is deeperthan her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this forourselves?"Our President, Ourselves!"Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furiousenergy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate,as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we didand do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. Weneed to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalentcaveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, sendemails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she's the best qualified of allcandidates running in both parties. I support her because she's refreshinglythoughtful, and I'm bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" withejaculatory politics. I needn't agree with her on every point. I agree withthe 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama's—and the fewwhere hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like healthcare). I support her because she's already smashed the first-lady stereotypeand made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue tomake history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but as a great U.S.president.As for the "woman thing"?Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman—but because I am.http://thewip.net/portal/2008/02/goodbye_to_all_that_2.html"Goodbye To All That" was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from apolitics of accommodation especially affecting women.During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women'smovements, I've avoided writing another specific "Goodbye . . .." But notsince the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers ofthis country—been so set in competition, as the contest between HillaryRodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

AN ET TU BRUTE? MOMENT

GenderGappers 2008 - 007

AN ET TU, BRUTE? MOMENT

The very definition of class, “grace under pressure”, was exhibited by candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, at the State of the Union speech. At the same time, her main opponent, Barack Obama, exhibited the opposite, and then denied it despite the pictorial proof that showed him ducking away from the handshake of a fellow senator.

This action follows his history in the Illinois senate of avoiding taking a stand by voting “present”; claiming he made a mistake when he voted so he could vote again thus voting on both sides, and the way he has formerly ducked questions at the debates. Barack’s behavior was similar to the way Bush treats people he fears or does not like by avoiding, ignoring and bad mouthing them.

In this pictorial tableau, we saw the character of these two candidates writ large. And a media that would have crucified Hillary for such an action just treated it like a joke – but many of the voting public did not.

With a sincere smile Hillary leaned in to shake the hand of Teddy Kennedy who had, hours before stabbed her in the back. But Obama, unable to face her, turned away, possibly ashamed of his cowardice. He was standing right beside Kennedy who had to extend his arm in front of Barack to shake Clinton’s hand.

The reaction of many voters to that childish action of Obama caused his campaign to call a halt to his nastier attacks on Clinton in his speeches. It eagerly agreed to Clinton’s proposal that they stop being puppets jerked around by the media circus. This resulted in a great debate, giving Barack a chance to rehabilitate himself from his former snub and we all got a better idea of what they stand for.

But at the end of the day, Barack is not a person we can trust to make correct decision, or perhaps even make decisions, under pressure, under fire. Avoidance is historically his method of action when challenged.

The elderly Teddy Kennedy, a long time DC insider, admitted that he was angry and wanted to get back at Bill Clinton so he endorsed a man that had slandered him in the past.

The real outside-Washington Kennedys endorsed Hillary Clinton. For anyone who did not see this endorsement for Hillary by three children of Robert Kennedy int the LA Times, we have copied the first part and an URL where you may go to read the rest of it. Naturally, the mean-stream media ignored it as they only focus on things that are detrimental to Hillary. Our media promotes Barack constantly and is a dependable fund raiser for him.

Kennedys for Clinton – LATimes
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy January 29, 2008

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes. Democrats believe that America should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights. We should not be an imperial power. We need healthcare for all and a clean, safe environment. The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues. We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most democratic warrior.[More of this endorsement may be found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

THANK YOU, CRAIG CRAWFORD

GenderGappers 2008 – 006

THANK YOU, CRAIG CRAWFORD

Your meanstream media is telling you loudly that when white people vote for white candidates it is racist but when black people vote for black candidates it is not racist. Go figure! Happily for the truth, there are a few sane voices in the media and we salute them.

Congressional Quarterly columnist, Craig Crawford is a sane voice amid the cacophony of the orgasmic misogynists who represent themselves as pundits.

CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger. http://mediamatters.org/items/200801260001?lid=36351&rid=2416570

Joan Walsh of Salon.com. “The Clintons are unfairly charged with bringing up the race card.” However, representing the majority of pundits, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign:
"They are at war against African-Americans and now they are at war against the Democratic Party." As evidence, Scarborough and Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson falsely claimed that the Clinton campaign "sued the Democratic Party" about caucus sites in Nevada. In fact, the Clinton campaign was not a party to the lawsuit. – http://mediamatters.org/items/200801270004?lid=36482&rid=2447370

Misogyny was the true winner in South Carolina last Saturday evening. The pundits of the mean-stream media did not report or comment; they jumped up and down on an uppity female on every cable outlet except C-Span, deifying their chosen one; misrepresenting and lying about Senator Clinton.

All this delights the Republicans who know they can beat Obama and fear facing Hillary in the general election.

Craig Crawford’s description about how free speech is in peril because of the media also applies to people who support Clinton. The media may characterize Obama’s supporters as energized, but for the elderly, women and anyone who posts pro-Clinton comments on blogs, they are threatening.

Clinton supporters must be careful. Lawn signs are trashed or disappear; threats both overt and covert are delivered. This has silenced some of Hillary’s supporters but hopefully it won’t keep them from voting. If anyone is afraid of being harassed on the way to the polls, they should apply for an absentee ballot.

The audience chanted, "Race doesn't matter" as it awaited Obama to make his appearance. But race did matter. Over 50% of SC voters are Black and more than 80% of their vote went to the media candidate, Obama, while 75% of white voters went for Hillary and Edwards.

Who made race the issue? Oprah and Obama did. Obama opened the door by bringing her to South Carolina to invoke MLK and Black pride. Then later it was reinforced when he jokingly announced that Oprah would be his VP. The daily tracking polls show that Obama’s Black support in South Carolina started to increase right after her campaign appearances there.

Here’s the thing, people. The media has made Barack into a candidate that cannot be criticized by the Clintons; and his supporters make it difficult or scary to point out his faults too. If you need proof as to how the media is selectively trying to crush Clinton, just note how Edwards has attacked Obama on his Chicago senate record among other things and escaped the media wrath.

Once again the media is pimping their choice just as it did when George Bush was elected. The same media that sat by and let him invade Iraq, destroy the Constitution, break our laws right and left and allow torture is picking the Democratic candidate for all of us who will let it shut off our brains.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.orghttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH

GenderGappers 2008 – 005

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH

There have been many “MOVEMENTS” that have changed history and people’s minds. They are characterized usually as being led by a charismatic person with the ability to convince and energize.

But the prime requirement is that, for the leader, the cause is the reason for his dedication and purpose. In other words, he does not seek to elevate himself through convincing others to support his cause. He seeks to elevate the cause.

This is why the mean-stream media is wrong in lionizing Barack, calling his campaign a movement and putting him forth as the next messiah. Barack Obama’s cause is Barack Obama. He seeks to elevate himself, he is campaigning to become president.

For clarity, consider the Movement of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. whose birthday we celebrated a few days ago. In this short space we cannot even begin to tell of all he did for his race and for this country. He was not looking for any rewards for himself. He sacrificed his time, and finally his life to serve the people he led. His efforts made this country and its people better.

He wrote many books and delivered passionate speeches that electrified and incited us to join him in this struggle. He was not a divisive leader and cautioned his followers against violence; he revered Gandhi.

Another example of a movement leader that draws the comparison between movement and campaign even finer was activist, Ralph Nader, in the early 70’s when he powerfully incited the enthusiasm of young people, to go after corporations that could and did kill and maim for profit. ["Nader's Raiders" under Nader, investigated government corruption, publishing dozens of books with their results.]

He worked tirelessly to fight the corporations and put programs, called PIRGS [Public Interest Research Groups] into colleges and universities. He lived frugally and never married. He dedicated his entire being to this cause until the 90’s when he began to seek political office. At that point he ceased being an activist, leading a Movement, and became a politician seeking public office for himself.

These two activist leaders united and encouraged their followers to actively and peacefully work for a cause that affected everyone. They were both superb speakers who could sway and influence crowds of people into the movement.

In stark contrast, the Obama campaign divides and sets age groups against each other by denigrating age and wisdom in his stump speeches. He encourages youth to laugh at seniors by making thinly veiled Viagra jokes aimed at his opponents.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_obamas_erectile_dysfunct.html
[Lynn Sweet is Long-time Chicago columnist and Washington Bureau Chief]


It is a pattern for him as he was doing this in the Illinois senate when he called Senator Kennedy old, tired and spineless in 2003.

Many of the followers of Obama are threatening, overly vocal and prone to violence. They feel he has given them the right to force their beliefs on others. He encourages his mostly youthful followers to throw off parental constraints and does not demand anything of them in the way of helping themselves and others. Rather, all he asks is that they vote for him and he will do everything himself, but he is not specific as to how or exactly what.

He speaks to the baser child-self in all of us that wants our controlling, old parents out of the way. This frees us to play at a campaign that excuses us from any real effort since a new young parent [Barack] will do all the work for us while we bask in the light that he shines on himself.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

Pet Therapy: Healing, Recovery and Love ~ Pawprints and Purrs

Pet Therapy: Healing, Recovery and Love ~ Pawprints and Purrs: "That animals feel our pain, our joy, and our stress should come as no surprise for anyone who has a pet. Whether we recognize it or not, the emotional as well as the physical environment we humans create has a direct impact on the way our pets behave. Dr. Schoen explains that '...we emit energetic signals related to our deepest feelings that are picked up by those around us - especially our pets.' The emotional benefits from animals are difficult to measure, meaning that pets help humans without anyone knowing exactly why. What experts know, however, is that animals allow humans to focus, even for a short period of time, on something other than themselves.

Animals, especially small ones, have shown promise for many conditions, both social and physical:


Pets help Alzheimer's patients by bringing them back to the present. Specially trained pups can also help alert others that an Alzheimer's patient has wandered into harm's way. 'Pets can provide a measure of safety to people with the disease,' says Thomas Kirk, a vice president of a chapter of the Alzheimer's Association."

MUST WE WAIT 50 MORE YEARS?

GenderGappers 2008 - 004

MUST WE WAIT 50 MORE YEARS?

“IRON MY SHIRT!”
Hillary’s standing ovation-inducing retort to the “iron my shirt” hecklers: “Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well.” [“Take that, chauvinist shock jock pigs!” -Huffpost]

“YOU’RE LIKEABLE ENOUGH, HILLARY.”
When Obama condescendingly said this in the NH debate, the audience groaned in displeasure.

The comments above are only two of many that have come out of the Obama campaign and were seen and heard on live TV. There are others like them all over the blogs and talk shows that have not been refuted by his campaign.

Stack them up against those comments by the Clinton campaign that Blacks are calling racist. Most of the media won't because it is promoting Obama. It won't even put Bill or Hillary’s whole quotation they complain about in the article because that would negate their charges of racism. The media is fomenting racism to turn Blacks against Hillary.

Why aren't women raging about the direct sexism demonstrated by the candidate himself and those who speak on his behalf? This country allowed Black MEN to vote 50 YEARS BEFORE IT ALLOWED WOMEN, BLACK OR WHITE, TO VOTE.

Women gained the vote in 1920, after 72 years of the largest civil rights movement in the world. Now is the time to do something with it by supporting and voting for a highly qualified person of our own gender.

They say the country is looking for change. The only presidents we have ever had in this country have been men; there is no change in electing another one. The real change is a woman as president for the first time ever. While we can sympathize and understand the feelings a word such as ‘lynching’ induces in Blacks, rape and battering are no walk in the park either. And rape and battering are still a constant horror for both black and white women as they have been throughout history.

Let’s hear a little angst about those crimes. Now is our time to rage; rage against the total unfairness of a propaganda mill that churns out so much sexism and hatred for a woman who dares to be confident and courageous! Women must stand up for Hillary or else shut up and continue to be devalued, underpaid and scorned with words like bitch, whore and worse.

Exceedingly brave women won for us the right to vote only 78 years ago. They lit a candle of freedom that has warmed and lighted us all toward equality. It was not just white women – it was all women of all races that got to vote. “Don’t let the light go out. Let it shine through our love and our tears.”

Light One Candle by Peter Yarrow http://www.tevacenter.org/students_songs.asp#light_one_candle

Light one candle for the strength that we need
To never became our own foe.
And light one candle for those who are suffering
Pain we learned so long ago.Light one candle
for all we believe in.Let anger not tear us a-part.
And light one candle to bind us to-gether
With peace as the song in our hearts.
“Don’t let the light go out. Let it shine through our love and our tears.”


# To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

CHERCHEZ LA FEMME

GenderGappers 2008 – 003

CHERCHEZ LA FEMME

The literal translation from the French is "look for the woman". It is used when a man behaves unusually or gets into a quarrel or other difficulty and the reason for it is sought. 'Look for the woman' express the idea that behind a problem in question there is a woman.

So naturally, the pundits and pollsters, who got New Hampshire wrong, blamed women. First they claimed that women had lied to the pollsters. Then it was because Hillary was misty eyed during a questioning period with voters. Sequentially, they built this incident up out of all proportion and presented it to their audiences as sobbing or collapsing in tears or having a breakdown.

We’ve heard this so often before. “It wasn’t our fault. Women are to blame.” Well, women and men in NH did vote for Hillary after seeing the whole incident, both question and Hillary’s answer, on their local TV. They saw Hillary and contrasted what they saw with what the mean-stream media has been misrepresenting for months. They voted for a leader not an orator.

Women of NH like all the rest of us know how terribly women are treated. There are no forbidden words to use about women. We have seen how this Primary campaign is just not fair when the woman is beaten up and “it’s just politics”, and the men skate with little or no deep, thorough vetting.

Responding to an online commenter who said that a lot of women are "getting incredibly angry about the progressively dismissive way" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "gets treated by the [New York Times columnist Maureen] Dowds and [MSNBC host Chris] Matthews of the world," The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut asserted, "I think there is something to that" and "certainly Chris Matthews has taken her on quite aggressively over the last few weeks."

Now the Obama campaign has begun to intensify a method to keep him immunized from any criticism at all by putting forth the race card. It is striking back when there is nothing there to strike at. They are falsely creating an illusion of racism because there are so many words that are forbidden to whites when speaking of a black person that most of us do not know them.

This has been true in the blogs for some time. Nearly any criticism of Barack is met with a flurry of angry posts calling the writer a racist because of a word or a phrase.

Just recently a woman golf announcer, a friend of Tiger Woods, commented in a conversation concerning how Tiger could be stopped in his winning ways by his opponents lynching him. Tiger had no problem with the comment but the woman was suspended for using ONE forbidden word - not racially but carelessly.

Where anything concerning African Americans is mentioned, apparently there are words that we non-Black America are not allowed to use. Do you know them all? Barack campaigner, Jesse Jackson, Jr. is angrily insisting that Hillary did not cry for Katria, therefore her tears were a sign of racism.

Candidate Mitt Romney has already publicly had at least three tearful moments, yet little or nothing has been made of them. But watch out now if you are a woman and you have NOT previously cried for Katrina. You are branded as a racist because despite your fatigue or an emotional situation, you will be called to account for not controlling you tear-glands.
AG Andrew Cuomo on Talk 1300, minutes after the governor came on. Cuomo, to be fair, has been on the radio show a few times, if memory serves me, but his take on Hillary’s win in NH is that that small-state primary with its retail politics is a good thing. ”It’s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it,” Cuomo said. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” --Timesunion.com blog
Cuomo was not talking about Barack or any specific candidate. But he was shelled. Those are not words white people can use. Only Blacks are allowed to say certain words, especially the N-word. When whites use them they are racists.

For all his speeches, Barack uses a telepromter; Hillary does not. You have seen how hesitant and different he is in debates where he does not have everything written out. So the cry-wolf [racist] ploy that his campaign has set up will restrict free, spontaneous speech and cause people to hesitate in choosing words. That will affect their delivery and they will sound uncertain; and won’t that just mean they will come off badly?

Or is the Barack campaign just trying to lay off any of its defeats or gaffs onto their chief rival – a woman. Cherchez la femme!
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

O JOY! O RAPTURE!

GenderGappers 2008 - 003

O JOY! O RAPTURE!HILLARY CLINTON brought shock and awe to the mean-stream media with her great victory in NH.

Yes, we are pumped. It was great to see the voters in NH ignore what they had been ordered to do by the mean-stream media and their polls. And the thrill was intensified by seeing all the egg on the faces of the many male and female pundits and their polls.Oh yes, they are spinning away now. Giving all sorts of reasons for their gross mistakes by doing just what they have been doing, denigrating every word, every act of Hillary Clinton.

Like, she couldn't have won because of her character, her experience or her ability to bring needed changes - oh no. It had to be because she "teared up", or any number of other things that a male would never be lumbered with.

But few or none will even consider that it was their negative reporting, their sexist nitpicking and their smug chauvinism. Few will admit that they never vetted their chosen male candidate to the point of it being criminal.

They cannot admit that it was the blogs that investigated and brought the many glaring faults of Barack to the attention of the electorate; or that Oprah does not rule the world or the heads of women.

Yes, the look on Matthews' face and his sudden inability to put words together was delightful to watch. The times when he slipped into his usual derogatory words such as saying Hillary had a breakdown, he was corrected by his fellow panelist, Keith Olbermann.

Kudos to the many men who stood by and supported Hillary. The real winners in this election were the women who reconfirmed their faith in themselves; who listened to their heads despite being seduced by emotions raised by the media. Women don't stop at just voicing we can, they affirm that "we shall do".

#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

ALOhA IOWA

One down, 49 to go. The winners were the media and invasive chauvinism that joined forces to anoint and parade their candidate through many hours of uncritical publicity.

The losers were women, especially the women in Iowa who chose to be swayed by the rhetoric and excitement of a daddy prince charming rather than validate the great abilities of their own gender. It was mainly the older women who remembered the past horrors of sexism and discrimination who voted their heads.

Both Parties gave the majority of votes to the two candidates who would continue, in the tradition of George Bush, to bring politics under the rule of religion. "We must believe in ourselves or leave our dreams behind." Hopefully women in the rest of the electorate will be adult enough to resist the call of the Pied Piper, backed by the media and vote with a clear vision of who is the best person to be president. Women who shudder at the thought that the presidential bully pulpit will continue to blather religious invective must get active to prevent this.

The reporters and pundits of cable were in heaven as they continued their deification of their chosen male while mostly ignoring the other male and excoriating the female. Even when their stories were proven to be false, they kept repeating the most mundane of charges.

Dodd and Richardson never asked their supporters to make someone else their second choice and came on TV over and over again to say this but still the lie was repeated.

Chelsea Clinton was accused of stiffing the ambitions of a young girl who wanted an interview, portraying the "rejected" child as heartbroken. This despite the fact that the girl was interviewed and said Chelsea was very nice to her, she was thrilled to meet her and that she was not at all upset by anything she did.

Remember watching a woman taking down the Clinton sign in her yard and putting up the Obama sign over and over the past weeks along with her reasons for changing? When that same woman later on took down the Obama sign and put up an Edwards sign, most media ignored it and all neglected to include her comments as to her change of heart.

And of course as many have noticed, the media's male choice was shown most often and in the best light while his opponents were often pictured as harried or angry or tired.With the exception of Brit Hume and his panel's contribution, FOX News unexpectedly was the best channel to watch during the coverage of the Iowa caucus. Amazingly true to its slogan of being fair and balanced, it was fair and balanced. The reporters took no shots at Clinton or Edwards and did not continually feature Obama. Refreshing!

When the caucus began, FOX kept a running tab at the bottom of the screen showing the percent of votes cast for each candidate of both Parties as well as their score. One thing was especially unique and interesting. In the hours before the caucus started, thumbnail sketches of each candidate's life was shown.

Now it's off to NH as a smirking media already is projecting that Clinton will fight dirty and already it has coronated Obama, wrapping him lovingly in the purple robes of royalty.

Whatever happened to all that crap they fed us about going after the leader as the reason they went after Clinton so fiercely? We wonder if Obama will still continue to get a free ride and voters continue to be given a pig in a poke instead of knowing more about him than he has written himself.

Will the media finally dig in and repeat the derogatory facts over and over concerning his record? For example, why he is called Noshobama for the time he spent in his state's senate? For the fact that he has continued the same irresponsible habits in DC?

#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htmGenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http://http://www.gendergappers.org/http://www.thelizlibrary.org/gappers/

PLASTIQUE PROMISES

GenderGappers 2007 – 053

PLASTIQUE PROMISES

Here we are, standing on the cliff of ’07 poised to hurtle down into ‘o8. Just like any other year except for some upcoming events that the majority of Americans have just begun to think about.

Not that it matters, since they have long allowed the corporate media to do their thinking and deciding for them; a media that has set our entire Primary campaign up as a war to the death. Reporters no longer report, they incite and “control the message”.

Although there are serious, hard working participants, many young people are attracted to political campaigns like flies are attracted to horse manure. Those who avow support for the compromise candidate are the loudest and most opposed to compromise. They love the thrill of the campaign and are moved by rhetoric.

It’s fun, it gets them college credits, out of humdrum jobs and next to “important people”. Sex 101 is nearly mandatory and always traditional on these campaigns. We still hear the stories told by the Howard Dean “Take Back America” crews. They could fuel another “West Wing” TV drama.

Many of the young campaign workers are seldom seen or heard for four years but emerge like Mayflies for Primaries. The media loves them because those campaign workers feed its insatiable appetite from everything from the mundane to spicy photoshopped slanders.

But the really true love of the media always was and still is the polls. They are so in love that many of the networks and cable sponsor their own polls. Media uses polls to persuade, incite and confuse because by their very nature, polls are unreliable and are easily manipulated.

No matter what the batting average of a certain poll over the years, there is nothing sure in their prognostications. When they appear to be successful it is mostly because media misrepresentation influences the vote. Media depends on the old adage, “everyone wants to vote for the winner”, and so it tells you who the winner will be.

It is the media’s manipulation of the polls that largely determines how areas of the country will vote. Fascism has already come in with the cross wrapped in the flag, but the real downfall of democracy will come because the press has completely abrogated its responsibilities.

Until then, there are a few struggling reporters that investigate and report but most just hands us plastique promises and laugh when they blow up in our faces.

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format," as it allows us to "control the message" -- Cheney media aide Cathie Martin, under oath at the Libby trial, making clear how well Russert fulfills his function.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

MEN DO GET WEARY

GenderGappers 2007 – 052

MEN DO GET WEARY

Just like women do, but it is acceptable, even laudable if a man looks tired. But if a woman does not always look attractive and perky, she is maligned whether she is famous, infamous or little known like the rest of us.

We see a tired woman with a schedule that would exhaust any one of us but we know she will keep it up, not only on the campaign but as president. Let her opponents slide easily along on their past and their gender; we know how it feels to be tired.

You’ll see nary a comment or even a picture of a tired male candidate. They are supposed to look the way they look. But the paparazzi have long dogged Hillary to get pictures they can sell to her opponents; as well as photoshopers for nasty things to run on You Tube.

There’s lots of joy in Media-Mudslinging-ville now that it has anointed Barack as the leader. The giggles and guffaws of males and fembots in the hallways and around the water coolers is because they think they “got the bitch”.

Got a picture showing her looking tired; sure that it would be all over the internet; sure that Drudge would feature it and the media would pick it up and Maureen Dowd would present it, and Limbaugh’s words in the NYTimes.

We know hardly anything about Barack’s past aside from what he has written about it, or how he plans to do the lofty things he promises but to the media he fits the primo qualifications.

He is always attractively pictured and not only has been coddled by the media which just laughs at his sexual and ageists slurs against his opponent but also is protected from the searching examinations given the other candidates. The discrimination isn’t just gender driven, it’s cultural and anatomical.

Competent journalists like Mark Halperin and Howard Kurtz report that Clinton is under a harsher microscope by the media.

Paul Krugman recently wrote: “According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama’s coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.”

“Hillary is a woman. Get over it. You may like her views, her experience, her campaign tactics, or you may not. That's legitimate. That's political discourse. But to put up an unflattering photo of her on a well-read site like Drudge for the purpose of showing that she's looking tired -- what's the point? The point is an attack on women for not looking perfect.” – Matt Littman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/hillary-and-jennifer-love_b_77158.html

No nasty comments were made on Giuliani’s hour long laughter during a recent interview with Russert. Some might call it a nervous laugh. But those in the media who noted it at all called it, “A good natured laugh”.

In contrast, media led by Petrified Ball’s Matthews, constantly characterized Hillary’s laugh as a cackle. This is only one thing he does in his intense support of any MAN who might attack her and make her give up the race.

He constantly urged Barack to go negative on Hillary and cheered when he did. But when Hillary returned the favor in kind, Matthews became apoplectic with rage screaming that Hillary was trying to kill Barack in the cradle. He even called it “sudden infant death.”

Chris hates strong women so fiercely that when AARadio’s Rachel Maddow came on his program and didn’t present the prerequisite idiotic smile and say what he wanted her to say, he was furious and blurted out, “How can you say that! I’d like to waterboard you!”

Barack even got to see his personal attacks against Hillary made a part of a Repug anti-Hillary video – nice going for a guy who is sweet talking to screaming teenagers, hates the elderly and promises to bring all people together.

Yet media mavens and bloggers lament the fact that some prejudiced voters will not vote for a Black man as president and how unfair it is that even a few racial questions are reported about him. A favorite phrase they use is, “aren’t we a better country than that?”

They completely ignore the prevalent and constant prejudice against women and gladly amplify and glorify sexism in all its forms as a God-given right.

In the spirit of the season, is this the message you want to leave to your daughters - A story of three wise men, an all powerful King, his son and a baby-incubator? “Aren’t we a better country than that?”
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

FROM COMMANDER GUY TO LIFTER GUY?

GenderGappers 2007 – 051

FROM COMMANDER GUY TO LIFTER GUY?

As expected from the huge advanced hype, many in the media were carried away into hyperbole-land with Queen Oprah and her crown- prince-to- be, especially those pundits who share her cable channel. So they played parts of it over and over to make sure everyone got all the nasty political stingers that were poorly disguised in Oprah’s well scripted presentation.

Nasty bits because Oprah went to some lengths to say she wasn’t in it to be political – blah, blah, blah – she was just concerned for the plight of the country. Of course she was not telling anyone what to think as she proceeded to tell them what to think and why they should think it.

But there was a refreshing exception to this media swoon. “What happens when they find out Oprah isn’t running for president?” Trust Keith Olbermann to nail it.

That was mainstream cable and broadcast, but many AARadio hosts like Eddy Shultz lost themselves in adoration with pious rants. Along with several pundits and columnist, they bowed low before the throne that did not preside over the circus, but rather was the circus.

Inspiring, some wrote, just like an old-time gospel revival; where the talented pair spoke in the manner of the place they were in, getting much blacker for Carolina than Iowa. Can you say pandering?

All that was expected, but many of the blog comments showed something much different. Bloggers picked up on Oprah’s fervent avowal that she was speaking up because she was so concerned for the country and called her on it.

The recurring theme found on several blogs went similar to this one: “Where was Oprah for the last 7 years of atrocities by this administration? Where was she when the people needed to be informed of the truth, where were the riots in the streets at the outrage at the most corrupt administration in the history of the nation, where was she during all this?”

There were cooler, more thoughtful heads in the mainstream too who remarked that all those crowds came to see Oprah and that all Dems were not idiotic enough to transfer their admiration of her to Barack. Many still want to see how he can do what he claims.

Just how, they ask, does he propose to do all this “lifting up”. Will he employ the Phantastic 4 and other comic book super people who can lift anything they need to? Will he define where up is? Is it heaven or lower down? Hard to tell as he consistently claims that he will do the lifting-up and never speaks of using the Democratic process involving Congress.

To Oprah and Barack, polarization is a dirty word and he is going to lift us above it and unite the country. While agreeing that at times Barack may be eloquent and inspirational, Columnist Ellen Goodman writes in The Boston Globe:

“The Democratic nominee won’t have the luxury of a do-good campaign. Even a post-polarization candidate would face a polarized politics. There’s still a difference between being an icon of change and an agent of change. And there is a difference as well between being a fine philosopher king and a strong presidential challenger.”

It’s going to take a fighter, one with experience whose head is not in the clouds of Never-Never-Land to defeat the Republans. It is no time to send an inexperienced boy to do an incredibly competent woman’s work.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

PLAYING TO THE PREJUDICE

GenderGappers 2007 – 50

PLAYING TO THE PREJUDICE

Norman Vincent Peale didn’t invent the concept; the origin of that is biblical and beyond. But he did write a book that reached millions of people all around the world, called “The Power of Positive Thinking”.

Dale Carnegie [“How to Win Friends and Influence People”] took it to the forum level, making millions by offering interactive seminars that eager businessmen flocked to. He was followed by many others as television opened the doors to the great unwashed and untapped millions looking for a power fix.

In short, bookshelves, television and radio are rife with advice about how you can succeed in anything as long as you positively believe that you will.
You are encouraged to set goals and believe absolutely that you will accomplish them. Now a word of warning – WOMEN are not allowed by our prejudiced society to announce this surety of one’s self to the world of people out there.

Robin Gerber, Senior faculty with the Gallup Organization writes in Newsday.com, “Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics - as long as you're a man. When Clinton displays this ‘masculine’ style, she loses the public trust.”

Gerber discusses the reasons why Hillary Clinton is being portrayed by Edwards and Obama as untrustworthy – it plays to societies prejudice against strong women:

“A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the stark dilemma that competent women face. In "The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership," women were criticized for being "too aggressive and self-promoting," but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.” http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opger045486775dec04,0,7259476.story

Those of us who discovered self-empowerment on our own will confirm the truth of how our society punishes women for exhibiting the same leadership styles men are expected to show.

Our society allows women to follow traditional paths to limited power. Some may gravitate to self-help advisors like Oprah who is celeb-driven. Some say she buys her audiences with new cars, but she also attracts by preaching success through religion and directed action. The “free” tickets to her appearances with Obama require one to pledge to vote for Obama. A vote buying scam that the media has not felt necessary to divulge.

Oprah and her disciples teach one to depend on someone to tell them what to do and think – directed by a God, doctor or some rock star. This use of crutches defeats the whole purpose of becoming empowered – making women take their traditional role of followers rather than leaders.

Self empowerment formula/advice cannot just be read, it must be internalized. There lies the rub. How does one teach how to internalize the information? We can only say that total understanding just suddenly comes like the turning on of the proverbial light bulb. We take responsibility for our actions and are empowered by this. As women, our conversion frightens those who dare not leave their long held gender prejudices. So they punish us by insisting that we are untrustworthy.

You may have noted that Bush and his Band of Botherbots continually say “Democrat Party”. They leave “ic” out when they should say Democratic. They have been told that the word Democratic gives too much power i.e. it brings all of the positive features and energy of a democracy together to label their opposition.

We can’t stop them from doing this but we can draw attention to it. Start calling and writing REPUBLAN/REPUBLANS – leave the IC out of their Party name. Use the power of these two little letters, say them out loud – IC – and soon you will - clearly.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

TO WHOM IT SHOULD CONCERN

GenderGappers 2007 – 049

TO WHOM IT SHOULD CONCERN

Remember how, just a few years ago, Democrats/Liberals were united and determined to take our country back? Then something that was really great changed us to a nasty, back-biting mob – we gained the majority in Congress.

At first it was dancing in the streets, but soon the naysayers and critics took over. Without even a thought to learning how government is run, many Liberals began to criticize their Congressional majority for not stopping the Iraq war instantly and for not doing all the things these critics wanted them to.

While the Repugs in Congress stood together solidly, the Dems splintered, so even with a majority it was difficult to get anything done.
Remember, just because you have the majority does not mean you rule uncontested if you abide by the Constitution. True, Bush has adroitly circumvented laws and the Constitution but he has had the unwavering support of his Party’s supporters.

You get loyalty by being loyal. The Repugs have learned this and it’s time for the rank and file Dems to grow up and smell the votes. Activists that are doing most of the screaming must understand that Senator Lieberman, elected as a Dem but caucusing with Dems, is blackmailing the Senate. Its hands are tied else it loses its majority.

This is the lesson that Dems need to learn and be concerned about:
Why should their elected representative go out on a limb for them when just as soon as they fail or something else comes up from the baser of the base, they know they will be not only deserted but vilified?

So-called Liberal Talk Radio does little to educate the voters about how things work in a democratic government. Many of the hosts are adamantly against some of the Dem candidates while openly pimping for their favorite Liberal. In fact, Liberal Radio is doing exactly what it has consistently criticizes mainstream media for doing.

The mainstream media seldom mentions Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, Dodd or Edwards, concentrating on Hillary and Barack. Liberal talk show hosts and their callers are mostly using the Repug talking points to criticize Clinton. They ignore anything negative about Obama.

What many Liberals fail to realize is that the media is still run by the Republicans who are terrified of Hillary and know they can easily beat Barack who will be slaughtered in the debates by any Repug. Their fear of Hillary is so great that Karl Rove has surfaced to feed lines to her Democratic opponents and Liberal Talk Radio.

While ignoring most of the Dem candidates, mainstream media mavens scrutinize and criticize everything about Clinton, yet allow Obama to skate on his errors and inexperience. But in fairness, there are things about him that should not be ignored. For example:

The Democratic Underground and NY Times are two sources that have noted how Obama considers himself a modern day Joshua and infers that God “walks” with his campaign. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of Democrats, it should. Church and State are separate and should remain that way. Do we really want another president like Bush who claims God directs him?

And just try to find any coverage of how the Obama campaign pays off supporters in Primary States illegally. This is nearly totally ignored by the media and even most of the bloggers.

Now he is being played up mightily on both Liberal and Mainstream media because Oprah is coming to campaign for him. Will 0+0 = 0 or a halo? Will Oprah lift this self-appointed Joshua up to sainthood with the prayers of her vast audience? Whose side is God on in this contest? It is certainly not the voters who want separation of church and state.

Chris Matthews as we’ve mentioned before is dying for Giuliani to win and knows the G. can easily beat the O., so Chris is pulling out all stops to bring down Clinton while indulging in his latest man-crush, Obama.

The Many Man-Crushes of Chris Matthews
Eric Alterman
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070409/alterman
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

WAR OF THE WORDS

Remember how Primary debates used to be handled? There were candidates on the stage who answered questions posed by a moderator. Never did a moderator join the debate. Her/his function was to keep order and ask questions.

It is so different this year as the Cable fat heads, swollen with ego, have entered the debate as de facto advisors, prompters and debaters. Before the debates, moderators of the next debate discuss the campaigns of the candidates with guest analyzers.

Then when the debate is in progress, the moderator may insert himself into the debate with stunning nastiness using his own opinions and script he wrote for his cable program. The idea is to incite a fight, entertain and provide lots of clips to run on the cable programs to hurt one candidate and build up another.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was first to enter into the debate he was supposed to be moderating but pulled back when the crowd voiced its disapproval. However he continued to script on his program what Obama and Edwards should do to hurt Clinton at the next debate. That one was moderated by Russert who asked questions of Clinton, many of which were based on lies or slanted to misinform.

Viewers from all walks of life were appalled by Russert’s actions as moderator, especially in the debate which took place in Philly with a Matthew’s-packed crowd that was clamoring for Clinton’s blood.

Chris was really pissed off at the criticism and “protested too much” and too often. He claimed that Russert acted the way a moderator should act. Then he further manipulated the debate in subsequent Hardball programs. Typically he played clips only of parts of Hillary’s responses without showing that the questions asked were different.

Following the Nevada debate, Matthews was livid. We’ve seen this side of him before whenever Hillary won. He declared that the moderator, Wolff Blitzer, had been co-opted with threats [even after Wolff denied it] and gave Hillary soft ball questions.

Matthews raged on, declaring that the crowd was fixed, the boos were programmed and the questions were all managed by the Clinton campaign. He showed himself to be the leader of the “Stop Hillary movement”.

In his head, a programmed anti-Hillary audience in Philly was OK but Hillary backers in the audience in Nevada was not. Likewise he often criticizes and complains about Hillary clapping her hands with never a word about the fact that nearly every shot of Barack show him clapping his hands.

He desperately needs Obama to win because O is sure to lose the general election. Chris’s candidate has always been Giuliani and he is terrified that Senator Clinton will win and he knows she can beat him.

He has constantly demonstrated his hatred of everything Clinton. He should be worried. A huge poll taken this week reported that 64% of Democrats believe that Hillary is the only candidate that can win against a Republican. Most realize that Rudy or any of the other Repug candidates would make mincemeat out of Obama in the presidential debates.

The media is becoming even more strident in managing this Primary by telling us lies and half truths. It focuses on anything it can blow up to make the candidates fight. Who will you believe? Them or your own evaluation made following perusal of the facts?

Now the media mavens are breathlessly telling us that Barack has the highest likeability of any of the Dem candidates. Seems that was one of the principal reasons why people voted for George Bush – we ask them: “How did that work out for you?”
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

GenderGappers 2007 – 047

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

This strike by the writers will surely deprive many of their TV entertainment as sitcoms and other shows like “24” fall by the wayside. No problem as most will just turn to movies or other shows on CDs.

But we must not forget those who will really suffer – the young, the unthinking or the stoned that depend on The Daily Show/Leno et al for their political information – they will be collateral damaged.

Of course some of the affected can satisfy their thirst for political humor just as other groupies do by following their candidate around wearing uniforms, yelling “Fire it up!”, “Let’s kick her ass!” and buying cute nutcrackers.

But for the comedy deprived masses, there is hope and we offer some of it here. If humor is your bag, just check out cable news. While at first glance you may not see anything very funny, the trick is to switch channels every two minutes and compare the similarities and discrepancies.

With a little practice you will find yourself making up Daily Show segments all by yourself. Then soon after you’ll be doing stand up routines for your friends that would be the envy of the late-night-talk.

This does take a bit of effort but it is well worth it. To get the hang of it start out with FOX and then click to CNN or NSNBC. You’ll be a pro before you know it and ROTFLYAO.

It’s really funny watching Tucker exhibit his abysmal ignorance or Wolff trying to show he isn’t biased or the multitude of monstrously bosomed FOX Twinkies solemnly reading opinions so obviously beyond their comprehension.

You may prefer reading the blogs, especially those that have illustrative pictures, but to really get the full flavor and fun, try a newspaper. This will be a real challenge if you have forgotten how words look that you learned in school since you got immersed in txt mes. Keep at it because it will come back to you and also most newspapers have a page of comics for mental relief and illustrated help for the harder words.

If you need more comedy fix, here’s a couple of screamers from Media Matters. They are sure to crack you up.

Matthews claimed "Clinton people ... trying to intimidate" Blitzer -- after Blitzer had denied itMSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews began his November 13 show by asserting that "the Clinton people" are "trying to intimidate" CNN host Wolf Blitzer, who is scheduled to moderate a November 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. But less than an hour earlier, Blitzer had said on CNN's The Situation Room, "No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me. ... No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that. ... I have not felt any pressure whatsoever." Later during the same edition of Hardball, Matthews referred to Blitzer's denial but misrepresented it. Read more

Wash. Post's Kurtz pointed out "liberal bloggers[']" criticism of Russert debate performance, but not Russert's faulty questionsWashington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote that NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert "was ripped by liberal bloggers" after "he repeatedly pressed Hillary Clinton during a presidential debate." But Kurtz did not note that at least two of the questions Russert posed to Clinton included falsehoods. Read more

#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!

GenderGappers 2007 – 046

GIVE ‘EM HELL, HILLARY!

Never thought it would be true, but Hardball was a thrill to watch following the Philly debate. It was because Craig Crawford stood up to, and beat down Chris Matthews who claimed that “Hillary played the gender card” and he “had the sound-bite that proved it”.

Crawford insisted, even as Matthews typically tried to yell him down, that she did not play the gender card in that sound-bite. This forced Matthews to play it again and it was obvious that all Hillary said was that her college trained her to compete with the boys in the presidential race.

The people who called the debate a pile-on and gender driven were ALL OF US out here in the electorate who called, e-mailed or wrote to the Clinton campaign and NBC protesting Russert’s actions. It was the media that instigated a pile-on and misrepresented what happened afterwards by blaming their own press reports on the Clinton campaign.

Anyone who forms their opinion on anything reported by a media, that intentionally intends to run the race to make as much nasty news as possible, is brain dead.

The post debate game show put on by Obama himself is noteworthy only because the media amplified it without any of the critical comment it reserves for other Democratic candidates. Edward’s disingenuous ad showed Clinton giving somewhat different answers but did not include the questions that elicited those answers; the media ignored that.

Obama came out with a back slapping; “look what I did to Hillary” attitude that belied the fact that he had to be coached by one of the moderators. To paraphrase, he was carried to third base on the misleading attack questions by Russert, Edwards and Dodd and now he claims he hit a triple.

All he really demonstrated in that debate was how easily he is led from his declared path, showing that he is a follower, not a leader who can think and operate by himself.

When Barack declared that he had been piled-on because he was different in a former debate and did not protest, he and the ass kissing media failed to report that whereas he endured for around 15 minutes with NO black code words used against him; Hillary endured for 2 hours with plenty of gender code words used.

And following the debate, facing a barrage of gender code words that every woman recognizes having heard them so often; code words such as “you’re overreacting” and “taking this personally” from the media and fellow candidates.

In addition, Barack was not attacked by one of the moderators. Wonder what trick or misleading questions the media will dig up for the next debate and if the moderator will join in to coach Obama like Russert did.

Russert was characterized by the New York Times on October 31 as "arguably" Clinton's "third toughest opponent on the stage" during the October 30 debate

If the media disregards the facts brought forth by the archivist of President Bill Clinton’s papers and continues to claim Senator Clinton is hiding them, voters should get angry and insist that the truth of this situation be reported.

So much is made of Hillary’s votes yet Barack is not censored for missing three times as many votes as Hillary. Is avoiding voting Barack’s way of avoiding leadership or showing no courage of his convictions?

Governor Bill Richardson got it right in that debate when he described what the Times called “a withering attack”. He scolded the others. “You know what I’m hearing here, I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. It’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”
The problem is it was just what the media ordered and orchestrated.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

TESTOSTERONE RISING

GenderGappers 2007 – 045

TESTOSTERONE RISING

Just like most countries America has a macho culture despite the efforts to put perfume on the pig. This is clear right now in the run-up to each Party’s primaries, our history and the direction most of the media takes.

It’s all about winning and not about facts. We fight wars and equal rights with similar determination. Polls may show a large majority against the war but ask the question in terms of winning or losing and they hedge their bets – that is, they nuance.

Nuance has become the word du jour, serving all candidates by letting them say a lot without taking a firm stand. While at first blush this seems reprehensive in fact it is necessary. American media excels in “dammed if you do; dammed if you don’t politics”.

When a candidate actually makes a point of addressing the concerns of a particular voter, that reply is locked in, scanned for inconsistencies, related to former positions and mangled to the point that all clarity is lost.

Early on in this campaign, Maureen Dowd set the stage as a conflict between warrior and peacenik - Hillzilla vs Obambi. What? A male Bambi; a female Godzilla! This presents a classical conflict situation diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom – a puzzling dichotomy for many to get their heads around. Why?

We are so caught up in our deeply embedded stereotypes that we do not seek the cause of our gender prejudices. Consider why it is that a woman is elevated in rank and stature by marriage to a man above her in rank while a man is diminished in rank and stature when he marries “beneath him”. Or why a woman who marries a King becomes a Queen while a man who marries a Queen becomes a Prince.

The Dem’s testosterone rising fueled by hate and prejudice is clearly seen in the way the Netroots blasted their former hero blog, The DailyKos, because Kos recently wrote positively about Hillary Clinton.

The viciousness of their attack was clear. You either agree with us or we will destroy you. Does this remind you of anything? Anything like Bush claiming that any opposition to him or his way or his plans is treason and punishable? It’s bad enough that Bush and Republicans use scare tactics but must Dems emulate them?

The Democratic Philly debate this week produced another testosterone storm. For weeks Hardball Matthews has been calling for Barack and John to use Hillary as a punching bag. He actually gave them a script claiming that the only way they could stop her was to “bloody” her.

They were not very effective until one of the moderators, Tim Russert, acting as if he was one of the candidates, entered the debate. He initiated personal attacks against her and then called on Barack and John to follow his lead. Huffpost blog even put his picture in with the pummeling candidates of the debate – very effective.

These attacks coming at her all at once from several sides did unnerve her momentarily so that Matthews got what he was hoping for – lots of footage and soundbites.

Breitbart wrote, “And if those attacks were to bear fruit, it may be Democrats as a whole, desperate to reclaim the White House, who pay the price for Tuesday's debate next year.”

Repugs are estatic. They know the only Dem that can beat them is Hillary so they have insisted that she can’t be elected knowing that naive and gullible Dems like Obama and Edwards will echo their suggestion.

Overall, the media reaction ranged from claims that Hillary was rightfully challenged to opinions that the battering was negative and would not go down well in Iowa. In any event, the pig was de-perfumed; our misogynist underbelly culture emerged raw, unfurled and unmasked – Godbama’s manhood demanded that he kill Bambihill. In his primitive rage he forgot that he had pledged not to go negative.

We send kudos to Governor Richardson and Senator Biden for trying to stop the verbal assault when Russert instigated personal attacks and Edwards, Obama and Dodd followed his direction.

Both of these Senators strongly announced that the enemy was the Republicans and condemned their fellow candidate’s negative attacks. Where it is acceptable to challenge the leading candidate, personal smears and Swiftboating is not.
#

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

"WOMEN HOLD UP HALF THE SKY"

“WOMEN HOLD UP HALF THE SKY”

That proverb could be amended today to state – more than half. Metaphors aside, right now Peggy Whitson is in command of the International Space Station. Pamela Melroy commands the shuttle Discovery.

Melroy’s co-pilot, George Samka, who has never served with or for a woman said, “I understand it’s a wonderful thing for a young woman to see Pam flying but in terms of her, I look at her as an individual with some tremendous skills.”

As the evidence of women’s ability increases exponentially, it follows that the foaming at the mouth misogynists among us are actually helping Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign by the sheer nastiness of their remarks.

Several times a week, Tucker Carlson goes ballistic over what he says he cannot understand ie why would women vote for a candidate just because she is a woman? “Gee,” he whines, “I never vote for a candidate just because, like me, he has a penis!” See? He thinks he is only his genitals. Earth to Tucker: “Be all that you can be.”

Mostly, he has males on as guests who are willing to pummel both Hillary and the women who admire her and would vote for her. Claiming that Barack never tries to get votes because he is an African-American, guest Cliff May asserted that Hillary is a Vaginal-American and seeks votes from women based on gender.

The all male panel laughed uproariously at that and protest mail came into MSNBC in truckloads, many comparing Carlson to Don Imus at his worst. But Carlson is only one of many sophomoric, sophmoronic, towel snappers who never mentally progressed beyond the high school locker room.

The report of an Imus comeback has the boyz thrilled to death. They could always depend on Imus to pillory Hillary and women in general with film and quotes they could embellish and play over and over.

They tumble all over each other to insist that Imus really did nothing wrong and anyway he apologized and has been punished long enough. These were the same ones that tut-tutted his blatantly sexist and racist labeling of a woman’s’ basketball team – at the time.

“POLITICO” reeks of misogynists of both genders as do many other so-called news sources. The M.O. is the same. They take a sentence out of some quote about Hillary and portray it as fact to their audience. It’s the old, “if you ain’t got the facts, make them up” game.

Wolff Blitzer and CNN spent most of the time reporting on the Republican debate by showing what they said about Hillary. Then parley this with advice to Barack that this was the kind of nasty stuff he should be saying about Hillary.

It is customary to go after the front runner but the media failed to do this in 2000. Bush skated while Kerry got berated. It is a mistake for anyone to think that our media reports the news when it is so obvious that they are actively engaged on creating and misrepresenting it.

Holding up more than their share of the sky has made women stronger and smarter. So the boyz shenanigans are backfiring on them. What they don’t seem to realize is that women internalize those hurtful remarks against Hillary. They feel the misogyny as surely as if it were directed at them – because it is.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

FEAR! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

GenderGappers 2007 – 043

FEAR! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

Absolutely everything.

In the early years of life there was the boogey man, bicycle helmets and seatbelts. For the adult, there is the constant drumbeat of screening for this or that disease - adverts for pills and potions that will help one’s survival at least until next week.

Fear can be a good thing when it protects us; it can be irrational as in fear of the number 13 or black cats but it is catastrophic when we allow government propaganda to make us mindless.

What is hard to understand is the all consuming fear of much of the country concerning terrorists and the Towers in NYC that makes hardened Conservatives believe Giuliani is the second coming.

Most New Yorkers don’t see him this way. He did his job those days but just as important was his record and overall conduct as mayor. To them the real heroes were the fire, rescue and police officers.

The Midwest bible-belters, despite their formerly stanch stand for values [their values] in a president, apparently have dropped their insistence on values. Giuliani’s multiple marriages, unfaithfulness, cross dressing, connections with the mob, support for abortion and flip flopping pale in importance because they see a strong man who will protect them.

Yeah, the guy who put the disaster response team in the WTC even after it had already been attacked; the guy who failed to properly outfit the city’s fire and police. What are these Repugs thinking?

But many Dems are no different. They live in fear. Despite having a great group of smart, informed and competent presidential candidates, some, scared out of their wits, are clamoring for Al Gore to run.

Let him alone to continue to do the great environmental work he has started. Our candidate must be free to address the massive amount of crap left by the Bushies, not hampered by one all consuming interest.

To win the presidency, our candidate has to be stronger, meaner, smarter and tougher than Giuliani. S/he must not be saddled with a country full of crybabies who need a daddy-pacifier.

No matter who wins in the Repug Primary, most every Repug will hold their nose and vote for him. Many Dems, on the other hand, will only vote if their own person is nominated. That’s why they lose so many elections – self imposed fear fueled by their hatred.

One thing is sure, when the next election approaches, Bush and the Repugs will come up with some really scary propaganda hoping to drive the voters, which will include some scared Dems and Indys, for the third time - to a safe Republican, white, Christian Daddy.

And how scary is 8 more years of strong man “Bring them on” Giuliani-bush? Why can’t Democrats grow the hell up?
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

MISOGYNY PROGENY

JmpjsGenderGappers 2007 – 042

MISOGYNY PROGENY

It’s OK, we’re hep to your game; after all we have been hearing the words for eons. We may pretend to ignore them but you’ve not fooled us, not for a minute. We know you by your words, misogynists.

You know, the code words, the ones used most often as adjectives: what is called passionate in a male is called “emotional” in a female; forceful becomes “shrill”. We’ve heard these and more during this campaign season.

This week brought two more, endlessly repeated. Whereas the male candidates “engaged in a heated discussion” with someone in the crowd; the female in the same situation was, “snippy” and “fishwife-y”.

Another oldie but nasty one is how a “hearty laugh” describing what the male sounded like becoming a “cackle” when a female laughed. Yes, bring it on. We still don’t like it but we are building immunity to the hurt of being constantly compared to barnyard animals.

And this we know. Whenever most women hear those code words pronounced with the accompanying shit-eating grin, there is born another vote for Senator Clinton. So keep it up, pinheads. Your ignorance is our bliss.

Interestingly, when a male laughs it is usually ignored completely or he is called good humored. Yet when the female laughs, each laugh is dissected with a mixture of backroom politics of the 1900’s and psycobabble of the 21st century.

Feminism has been made a nasty word by the media so most women do not speak of it. Some even dis the whole idea preferring to be seen as getting where they are without help from federal laws.

But all women know the words that are used to demean them in the marketplace and in business, and there are many women out there in the electorate of both Parties who have not yet decided who they will vote for.

Who are these misogynists [woman haters] that use these sexist words? Men? Not so much – the Repugs mostly send in women to do the dirty work. But their strategy does not work because American women have already experienced the fembots and queen bees that the white male establishment hides behind.

So bring on the code-speak; women are thinking for themselves and they vote.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org

PUNDICRACKERS IN MY SOUP

GenderGappers 2007 – 041

PUNDICRACKERS IN OUR SOUP

Yangon, Myanmar – A growing number of Myanmar’s largest city are shutting off the government-run nightly newscast to send the message that they are tired of listening to their propaganda. –AP

America’s royalty has to be the so-called journalists/pundits that we support and cosset. They form a group that can harass us at will for our sins and foibles yet seldom if ever have to face the same exposure of their own lives, number of marriages, bad acts of children or private peccadilloes.

With too few exceptions they share their power and temporary loyalty only with the highest bidder and give little thought to their own paucity of patriotism. To them money is right and might in every sense of the words.

Currently most of them major in causing fights between the presidential candidates. To do this they misquote, take out of context and outright lie about one candidate hoping to force an angry response from the opposing candidate that they can embellish into a counterattack.

With apologies to the animal, fantasy and slug kingdoms, the current crop reminds us of other creatures. Here are a few that come to mind; everyone can add your own to the zoo.

Who does not see a huge grinning toad when Tim Russet holds forth, stabbing an interviewee with malice from his long, probing tongue; and benignly tossing softballs to a privileged few?

Far from looking or being wolfish, Wolf Blitzer is the Cheshire Cat, whiskers and all. VP Cheney turned him into a purring blob of jello.

David Gregory is the wicked queen in Snow White. “Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all”, as he dances with wolves.

Chris Matthews resembles a slug infested weather vane that swings to favor the one with power and money, then changes quickly in response to shifting of news events. One minute he wants to impeach Bush; the next marry him.

Howard Fineman resembles a know-it-all, supercilious, holier-than-thou French Poodle. Always injecting his opinions as if they came from God but never recanting when he is frequently proven wrong.

Tucker Carlson is hardly worth the effort to tune in to. He is that annoying buzzing fly, attracted to sweets and putrefied cadavers alike.

At Fox News, there is no standout as they all read from the same script. We have to borrow and revise from Dr. Doolittle – specifically the Push Me Pull Me - for a description. Picture one giant rectum, the mouth they all speak out of, in the forefront connected to the tiny heads of all the pundits and news readers.

All of the above and many others are paid plenty from the profits of what we buy from their advertisers. They exist as gods, never admitting or apologizing for their mistakes or learning from them. They moved this country into war and kept it there until the stink of their complicity woke people up.

They lull us into complacency and acceptance of the status quo; they affect our daily lives, influence our very thoughts and critique everyone in the country but are never made to undergo any scrutiny or lose their jobs for their mistakes. And we stupidly continue to support them because they claim to be our watchdog over the government.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change address or comment: gapperserve@peoplepc.com or in GenderGappers Blog - NEW! http://www.gendergappers.blogspot.com/Visit the GenderGappers link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. All issues are archived at the following site: http://www.gendergappers.org