It's a commonly held belief that men reason from logic and that women reason from emotion. Male stand-up comedians have it easy. Can't come up with new material? No problem. Just hit 'em with the shtick about how women's minds work; their crazy reasoning; their illogical way of approaching the world, especially men. Just look at what happened when Hillary cried. According to the media -- who assumed results in Iowa clearly meant her campaign should start making funeral arrangements -- New Hampshire was a sure bet for Obama. But since it and its polls couldn't be wrong, the media decided it was the crying thing that made women run out and vote for her in droves. So like emotional women to do that. In the meantime, nobody noticed that the very woman whose question elicited those nauseatingly-documented tears went on to vote for Obama. God forbid Hillary won New Hampshire because she was the most high-profile, nationally-recognized woman in the country and had been in public life for, as she often remind us, 35 years! No, had to be those darn, pesky emotions. But in light of recent, highly illogical thinking on the part of some very high-profile men, I propose we re-evaluate who is winning the illogical and hysterical gender war. Consider these bold statements made in the month of February alone.
That's logical:
Bill O'Reilly on Obama's "Give Hope a Chance" Theme, February 14, 2008: "But as with the John Lennon/Yoko Ono song 'Give Peace a Chance,' hearing it over and over is worse than being waterboarded."
And in the same breath: "Obama is like a Caribbean vacation in February. It's tough to say no to that."
If not hysterics, what do you call the following two opinions?
William Kristol, February 4, 2008: "American conservatism's ascendancy has benefited this country -- and much of the world -- over the last quarter-century."
George W. Bush, February 8, 2008: "Our policies are working. The American people support our points of view. They share our philosophy."
And not to be outdone on the logic front:
Rush Limbaugh, talking to a caller about his disdain for McCain (the newly minted moderate and centrist) while describing what sounds a lot like a guy named Obama, February 12, 2008: "I guarantee you if we had somebody running for office out there, Ted, who was able to articulate with passion and confidence his belief in the American people, their ability to triumph and overcome, and the fact that they're the ones that make the country work, it wouldn't even be close. But we don't have that. We have a roster of people who want to pander to the left."
Anyone want to start a movement?
For more on the Buddhist approach to balancing the masculine and feminine within us, see http://sealevel.ns.ca/isx/alice05.html
Yet when they rape, and even gang rape, they claim they couldn't help it -- the woman wore a short skirt, low-cut top, or an enticing burka.
When they kill, they claim they had testosterone poisoning, it was inevitable because someone took their toy, or some woman rejected them.
When they steal, they claim they just could not bear the pressure to succeed.
When they start wars, they claim they are protecting us all. When they commit mass murder in wars, they claim they are saving the world.
When they abuse, beat, brainwash, and enslave women and children, they claim God told them to do it.
Of all the so-called holy people and prophets of the world, those who start religions and gather followers and disciples, who claim God spoke to them personally and told them they need to be in charge -- ever notice it's only men who make these claims.
Want to make a man mad? Call him hysterical.
Want to make a woman laugh? Tell her men are the logical gender.
1) Walt Brown, Socialist Party, USA
2) Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party
3) Roger Calero and James Harris, Socialist Workers Party
4) John Parker, Workers World Party
Rush might want to revisit what he wishes for.
Hillary arouses too many negative feelings for too many thoughtful men AND women who would definitely support a woman candidate.
She HAS been throroughly vetted because she's been on the national stage since 1992 - in a variety of roles - and too many people find themselves UNCOMFORTABLE with her - either as an icon of enlightened feminism, or as a model of a leader.
During this primary she's dug that hole deeper, and both she and Bill have fallen into it.
You can delude yourself with paranoia, but that doesn't change the facts. It's not about men who hate women, or women who hate themselves. It's about lots and lots of human beings - reasonably educated, reasonably thoughtful, reacting to a PARTICULAR person who happens to be a woman.
And that fundamental discomfort with Hillary that so many are feeling is simply being hilighted because Obama is such a powerful contrast, IN THE WAY HE MAKES PEOPLE FEEL.
Now, you can argue that he's less substantive, or experienced, or whatever - but the reality is we don't choose our mates or our presidents soley by rational criteria.
That's just not how life works.
Ask a male to change a diaper - baby or adult.
Ask a male to clean up a projectile vomit.
Ask a male to experience birthing a baby.
Ask a male to experience that "monthly pleasure" of the Tampon kind.
As to the first two, as a father of two wonderful, smart, incredible teenage girls. Soon to be grown women in their own right, I have cleaned up many a projectile vomit mess in my day, and diapers I could do in my sleep. So that is a ridiculous thing to say.
Ask yourself if you'd have even hear of Hillary Rodham if it wasn't followed by Clinton. Wow, what a coup for feminists, Bill by proxy.
I have no problem with self-made women - ones that think they're something because of their husbands irritate me.
As we've learned from the last ten years, and as history can tell us since religions were created and man began subjugating woman: Just because daddy says it's true, don't make it true.