Feminist Blogger Now In Fear – Men May Have Discovered That We Are On To Them

A “radical feminist” blogger wrote a post a while back on how all “Penis in Vagina” or PIV intercourse is rape.  Of course myself and others who read this dribble rebutted and or made fun of the post.  Well, that caused more traffic at her blog.  Most bloggers are happy to get additional traffic.  Isn’t the entire point of writing these posts is getting others to read them?  Not in her case.

When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. They write nasty and threatening comments, that in order to trash, I have to read at least a few words of. Even though it doesn’t hurt my feelings, they are still harmful and inevitably affect my thoughts.

How exactly does she know the gender of the those making the hits?  I need to update my analytics, I don’t these type of break-downs immediately.  Anyhoo, at least some are men.  Those men are hateful beasts that only want to destroy.

85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life. Probably a bit less if you discount the women. If that happened, how on earth could I hide from tens of thousands of men?

There is no denying there is a whole lot of crazy out there, but hey isn’t this type of talk adding to it?  I mean does she really believe that men are worried about her getting the word out that having intercourse is rape that they want to silence her?  We. Must. Not. Let. This. Out.  She must be stopped at all costs.  She is letting out their little secret.  They only want intercourse to subjugate us.  We are nothing without them and they must be allowed to continue to rule the world.  Oh my.

All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.

It’s interesting that Cathy Brennan’s response to the whole thing led a commenter, Tracy, to comment about what it meant on reformism: I hadn’t framed it in that way (see discussion here, here and here). I’ve been thinking about it for a while but haven’t had the time to comment on it properly so I’ll continue my thoughts in this post. Tracy defined CB’s post as reformist to the extent that CB doesn’t name the agent, that is why men isolating us from one another is so dangerous, why it’s so important to huddle together in this circumstance [because men are waiting in line to rape and kill us]. CB asks us to take safety measures against a threat -men- that she won’t name, and at the same time treats men as an audience to appease, as if they would take note and change their behaviour accordingly. Tracy named that gaslighting because it’s acting as if two opposites (truth vs. omission/lie; threat vs. safety) were the same. Of course it’s not CB’s fault because she herself is victim of it.

Men are waiting in line to rape and kill us?  Really?  I have never seen nor heard of such a line.  May I make a suggestion, if such a line exists outside of your home, move.  My neighborhood is quite safe.  No men actively trying to rape you on a daily basis around.

I get that most women that call themselves a “feminist” call this thinking silly.  The problem is that this is the logical conclusion to that thinking.  Men are bad.  Women are victims.  Women are treated so unfairly that the government must step in to  protect them.  If the entire belief system is based on that women are tough enough and smart enough to be like just like men why in the world would you need the government to step in?

Life will never be fair nor will women and men ever be totally equal.  There are differences between men and women that just are.  Most men are stronger.  Our upper body strength isn’t what there is.  Of course there are women who are stronger than men, but generally speaking that isn’t the case.  There was just a scientific study released that our brains are hardwired differently.  It shows up in the scans. We are built this way.  It is biological.

What really gets my goat about feminism is the fact that the majority of the work for women and “fairness” is done in the industrialized west.  If they spend the majority of their time talking about how in some cultures the physical abuse of women is not only commonplace, but perfectly acceptable it would be different.  In some countries, such as Afghanistan, women were beaten in public for having one strand of hair showing.  The same still happens in Iran.  Some women are not allowed to work.  To heck with the fact that their husband or main provider has been killed or is missing for any reason, she still is not allowed to get a job to support herself.  At least not without the threat of jail, physical abuse, up to and including the threat of death.  I don’t hear these topics being discussed much in the world of feminism.

Feminism also makes great assumptions about men that I take issue with.  Why do these women think that men don’t feel bad about working long hours and being away from their children?  Do they think that they don’t care that they miss the school plays?  Do they honestly believe that men don’t get wanky when the house needs work?  It is assumed that they don’t feel overwhelmed by a weekend of yard work, soccer games, shopping, and whatever else their particular chores end up being.  I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.

I know plenty of men who feel just as overwhelmed as women do when it comes to using their time most efficiently to get everything they want done accomplished.  I also know men who are stay at home dads, so it is their job to clean, to cook, to do laundry, and whatever else needs to be done around the house all the while taking care of the kids.  It is simply a silly assertion that men don’t feel the same type of things that women do.  We all feel a certain amount of guilt in our lives.  We all question our choices from time to time.  I don’t think I have ever met a parent, male or female, that doesn’t wonder if they could have done certain things differently.  That don’t dwell, even temporarily, on the mistakes that we all make when raising children.  They don’t come with a handbook, it is trial by fire.  That is especially true with the first one.

 Just because we make different choices in many instances it doesn’t mean that men don’t have the same type of emotions that women do.  One of the main differences is that men tend to keep these things to themselves.  They don’t dwell on them in the same way that some women tend to do.   Many men look at this as part of life and complaining about it makes them “less manly”.   Men deal with them differently, that doesn’t mean that they don’t feel it.  That is what feminism today says.  That somehow men are emotionless and guilt free.  They live lives that they actively believe makes them superior to women.  A very silly and uncaring assertion.

 

Advertisement

Is Outreach Really a Waste of Time?

While campaigning for Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell’s campaign as well as his surrogates spent a great deal of time reaching out to all voters.  His Woman for McDonnell coalition spread out all over the state to make sure they were accessible to women voters.  While many on the right (Ahem Phil) call this pandering, it is smart politics.  It is pandering if you are promising people things specifically based on gender, race, or any other group, but actually talking to these groups is simply spreading your message and helping them understand how your policies will help their lives.  Governor McDonnell also has continued to do that throughout his term in office.

It has paid off:

Quinnipiac’s poll, conducted Nov. 8-12, found that among women respondents, 48 percent approved of McDonnell to 26 percent who disapproved. Fifty-nine percent of men had a positive view of McDonnell to 27 percent who did not. Overall, the governor’s approval rating stood at 53 percent.

McDonnell fared well among young voters 18 years old to 34, too. Forty-eight percent approved, and 24 percent disapproved.

Among black voters, who broke overwhelmingly for Obama last week, 41 percent approved of McDonnell, and 34 percent did not.

McDonnell’s results are uncommon among Republicans, said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.

“He is the only Republican officeholder in seven states surveyed by Quinnipiac University who get positive ratings from women — almost 2-to-1 in this case — and a plus score from black voters. A 2-to-1 approval rating among young voters doesn’t hurt,” Brown said.

This is a state that two days before this polling voted to re-elect President Obama.  Women went to Obama over Romney.  So it isn’t that women are pre-disposed to vote only for a democrat.  They will vote for the person who they believe best suits their needs and the needs of their families.

Now has Governor McDonnell been everything I hoped for?  No, but they never are.  Virginia has survived the economic downfall in this country fairly well.  We have a rainy day fund (I don’t love these, but I do understand why they are necessary) that has just been increased, our unemployment is low, our taxes have not really increased since his administration took over, and he has kept the majority of his promises.  All and all I think he has done a decent job.

My point being that he did the work and it has paid off.  This is a lesson that many others in the republican party should take notice of.

Women and the Sexual Revolution

The sexual revolution is not all that it is cracked up to be.  I tweeted earlier today

40 years ago feminists burned bras saying they deserved to be treated as equals. In 2012 “Julia” depends on gov’t for life.

But it is more than that, the “feminist” culture has led to breakdown of the family, abortion on demand, and higher levels of dependency on government for women.  It has the opposite effect that the likes of Gloria Steinem was fighting for.  Women have become more dependant on government, instead of relying on themselves.  It also takes away personal responsibility.  Abortion is so easy that women don’t think of the long-term effects anymore.  As Nike says, Just Do It.    The consequences of it will just be dealt with later.

Yeah, Rush Went There

Because he didn’t sexually harass anybody because she said stop, and he stopped; she said take me home, and he took her home.
I did notice that when we were listening to Bialek she said that she told him, “What are you doing, Mr. Cain, I don’t want you to,” and he stopped. She said no and that was it. No means no. . . . When Herman Cain drove the babe home she actually got there and is alive to talk about it. 

Now, I am not a listener of talk radio very often.  While I do sometimes get useful information, I personally feel it more entertainment than substance.  But, shortly after the press conference I was in a car with a friend who was working on a local campaign to re-elect a state delegate doing a get out the vote effort for yesterday’s elections.  He happened to have it on.  I thought then that Rush went too far, but I didn’t really get to hear the entire thing.  

Jill over at Pundit and Pundette didn’t take to the Rush dialog on this any better than I have:

Well yes, it’s true, no one’s accusing him of abduction or murder. But that’s what I’d call a pretty low bar. Would Rush have the same casual response if someone treated his wife like that?

 She asks the question:

What she is accusing Cain of is worse than that. I’ve been out of the dating scene for a while and I know things have changed, but have we really sunk so low that a guy sticking his hand up a woman’s skirt and pushing her head down to his crotch is just making a romantic overture?

There are many things about Ms. Bialek’s story that I find troubling.  There are things that just don’t make sense to me.  One being that what she was describing is not harassment, but assault.  That was a criminal offense and she should have contacted the police.  Digging to see if she has financial gain to making these allegations, is she prodded along to make them, and if so, by whom?  Those are legitimate questions to ask. Her credibility then becomes questionable.  But, for people to talk about her sexual history is downright low and disgusting.  Bill Kurtis has basically publicly called her a whore:

And lot of people [at CBS] know her and she has a history. . . . There’s a lot more to the story that is just developing.

One of the constant themes you hear from the right in regards to the media coverage of the accusations against Bill Clinton once he started running for president was that the media attacked the women instead of dealing with the allegations against President Clinton.  That is exactly what Rush just did.  He now no longer has the credibility to go after the press for not doing their jobs in regards to Clinton.  

I believe that the first women’s motivations for making the accusation need to be examined.  Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has pointed out an article done the by the AP on one of accusers who seems to have a history of making harassment claims.  She went on to make another complaint at her next job, in fact.  In that complaint she was looking for a raise and a promotion.  Apparently, the claim was eventually dropped, but one can detect a pattern of behavior with her that makes her complaint against Cain much less credible.  

As a woman, I find it just more than a more disturbing that the first line of defense is to call the woman a whore and to dig into her sexual history.  In this day and age most women have a sexual history.  Some may be more sorted than others, but few women were pure as the driven snow on their wedding nights.  The right or wrong of that is up to your own particular morals.  But if only a virgin or a woman who was on her wedding night can be a victim of sexual harassment or assault, most women better start not leaving their homes without a guard, because it will open season on many of us.  

I have to hang my head in shame to see where Rush took this conversation.  His sexual innuendo with her last name and saying that since she is still alive to talk about it is way over the line of decency.  I am with Jill in asking if someone stuck his hand up his wife’s skirt would he just be grateful that she isn’t dead, and to heck with the gesture?  

As a person who honestly believes that the media went too far in going after the women who accused President Clinton in a personal, demeaning, and disgusting fashion, I am no more pleased the some on the right are doing exactly the same thing.  Investigate the claims and look into seeing if they are being driven by money or a sick attempt at 15 minutes of fame.  But leave the woman’s sexual history out of it.  It is none of our business.  

Can abortion make you suicidal?

Feminists played on the sympathies of earlier generations by raising the specter of the back-alley abortion with a hanger. Since then we’ve seen millions murdered in the womb, and the horror of the Philly clinic for mothers and babies alike.

But what of the social pathology associated with the act? Even Norma McCorvey/Jane Roe herself regretted her abortion, though it took years. Now women can see the baby develop in the womb early on. Preemies are born at younger ages than those aborted. How can this all be denied by a thinking person?

Now British researchers have concluded a major study, upending prevalent American ones:

An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion.  “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide.  This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions.  A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.

This review, which is larger than any study to date, contradicts the recent and biased and less systematic review by the American Psychological Association, which fails to find a relationship between mental health problems and abortion.  The new meta-analysis also contradicts the stance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which has been silent on the mental health impact of abortion in its official publications despite overwhelming evidence over the last two decades of abortion’s adverse effects.

Ignore the evidence at the risk of even women’s health, the gaping loophole of the abortion at all costs crowd.

P.S. And while giving the Black Panthers a pass at the polling place–where they were actually blocking access and brandishing billy clubs, the Obama Justice Dept. is aggressively going after pro-life protesters at abortion clinics.

Another ObamaCare Ruling from on High at HHS

There’s a form of opt out for religious entities, but it’s not enough. Insurers must cover birth control with no copays:

Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

Not even having to pay for it will presumably enable even more forgetfulness. And more systemic abuse.

This is not really healthcare either, it’s a lifestyle choice, though widely prevalent, but it’s not limited to what we most commonly think of as birth control:

The requirement applies to all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

Coverage with no copays for the morning-after pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The FDA classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

And what this ruling does as well is increase costs–eventually leading to rationing health care to less politically correct people and real diseases.

More. Catholic Vote: This Tryst Paid For By Taxpayers Like You

More threats from the feminist left

Joan Walsh: “A Lot Is Not Known” About Bachmann’s Foster Children It’s predictable, but still shocking and sick when you see it.

So was Michelle Bachmann somehow a slut for caring for children not her own?

Top comment:

My God!  This filthy extreme left Obamamaniac is really going to go after the foster children of Rep Bachman? I had to listen to this clip 3x to believe she actually said that. Obama’s children are off limits, but the extreme left is already planning to go after Rep Bachman’s children, and openly saying it publicly? I have never seen or heard anything as filthy or sleazy, and I’ve heard and seen a lot. Ms Walsh has hit a new low for the extreme left. I don’t know how you get dirtier than this. Obama should publicly reprimand her and tell the extreme left that people’s children are off limits, that is unless this started out of the White House?

  Bachmann’s closing on Romney even in New Hampshire, so she’s getting the Palin treatment. Good luck with that. Obama poll numbers lately. And those other inconvenient numbers.

Michelle O meets with Nompumelelo Ntuli-Zuma, one of President Jacob Zuma’s three wives

…at his official residence. Zuma was scheduled to be out of the country. That’s South Africa. Three wives. According to Wiki he’s been married quite a lot, including a “fiancee” by another name he was supposedly to marry last December.

Charges of 3 rapes

A sex scandal:

South Africa has an unemployment rate upwards of 30 percent. In some communities the percentage is even higher. The idea that a president would spend more time dealing with sex scandals instead of fixing the country’s economic woes does not sit well with many people, says Spio-Garbrah.

“Zuma has always presented himself as the common man. The problem for many South Africans is ‘if half of us are unemployed and the rest are barely surviving, how come you can afford to have 19 children, three wives and one girlfriend?'” he says. “For someone who doesn’t have job, who can’t even afford to feed his family, for Zuma to be going around and fathering children left, right and center would irk such a person.”

Former member of the communist party. Living large.

Then there are the corruption charges, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary in most countries, not to mention Chicago.

No wonder he’s out of the country, the State Dept. probably insisted on it.

But why go there in the first place and give recognition in any way to this disgusting president? Before they had apartheid, now polygamy is honored in their leading family. (I guess cuz it’s “anti-colonial” it’s OK) The official line:

“She’s coming on this trip to talk about women’s development and youth development, and South Africa’s a leader in that, not only on the continent but globally,” said Elizabeth Trudeau, spokesman for the US embassy in Pretoria.

Quite the role model.

  –crossposted at BackyardConservative

Our no more thin mints culture war

This has come up on Potluck before. The battle intensifies, given the ObamaCare forced funding of abortion, and the more we know about Planned Parenthood. They are part of the PC in-crowd. Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO, on Girl Scouts going rogue from their leftist-run organization:

Sydney tells me: “Many Girl Scouts are good, wholesome girls. The problem lies within the national organization’s leadership and its lack of adherence to its promise of neutrality.” She adds that girls often need and “should get help, but Planned Parenthood and abortion — what GSUSA is directing them to — are not help. Abortion has serious risks for women, including breast cancer, infertility, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Does this sound like help?”

“If we had a say,” Sydney continues, “we would make it so they were truly neutral about a girl’s health and sexuality, abortion and birth control, and political affiliations, as they promise to be. We would put the focus where it should be, on character-building and leadership activities.”

Character building for girls. What a concept.

Thankfully, there’s an alternative now. The American Heritage Girls. Faith Service Fun

Quote of the day

Professor Jacobson on Sarah Palin’s “Fight like a girl” speech in Wisconsin yesterday:

In one sentence, Palin did more to advance the cause of women in politics than all the Women’s Studies Ph.D’s in all the universities in this country combined.

Which is why Sarah Palin scares liberal women to death.

Those Multiple Dads

Actual MSNBC header: 1 in 5 US moms have kids with multiple dads, study says

Comment via Lucianne: I am not aware of any kid that has a multiple dad

April foolery aside, this kind of news keeps getting worse and worse.

Growing up in a big, Catholic family I remember my mom commenting on some sneering in a Beatrix Potter book about large and improvident families. Ah yes, we were the irresponsible ones, breeding like bunnies.

So in these days of popping birth control pills and hopping in and out of bed who is having the large “families”? Who is really being irresponsible? Isn’t the government aiding and abetting child abuse?

And will the left ever admit this? Some glimmer of understanding:

An important message that doesn’t appear to be getting through is just how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent.

Well, duh, you know maybe Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown. Maybe if the Left hadn’t spent the last generation or two glorifying single motherhood and bashing family values we wouldn’t be seeing destructive stats like these.

Shorting Stay at Home Moms on Credit

The Credit Card Act was supposed to rein in eeeevil financial institutions. Now that the Federal Reserve is proposing rules based on the legislation mandating consideration of independent income rather than household income as has been the norm, stay at home moms may have to have their spouses co-sign their card applications. TWS on the WSJ article. They go on:

This comes on the heels of another proposal by the Fed (subsequently tweaked), under which “retailers would have had to require customers to provide pay stubs and tax documents when applying for a credit card at the cash register.” Moreover, it’s par for the course. The Obama administration’s and Democratic congressional leaders’ preferred mode of legislating is to vest incredible amounts of quasi-legislative power in the hands of unelected officials (see Obamacare), who then proceed to issue legally binding “rules” that declare what Americans can or cannot do, nationwide.

Pretty archaic and demeaning. This stuff is making me mad.

Another unintended consequence of the Dems and Obama administration legislation–or was it intentional?

We know NOW and their ilk consider at home moms second class citizens. Now their allies are trying to implement it.

Rule-making without representation, another form of tyranny.

P.S. First Lady O receives no salary, perhaps she can take up this issue–if she can tear herself away from her latest vacation. Will she have to travel with her spouse next time?

Women at War

(I’m without adequate words this morning, so I’ll let this photo speak for itself. Because I am so tired and heartsick of these jihadis. But this is a hopeful post.)Hearts and minds. Tribune.

Related posts here, here, here. …and here.

And this: Condoleezza Rice Smacks Down Katie Couric’s Insulting, Ignorant Depiction of Iraq War

The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush. For the record.

…not women in direct combat, though, which I tend to think is the right policy.

–crossposted at BackyardConservative

So while stoning a woman for illegal sex, for instance (rajam), is not done everywhere, the penalty is ‘on the books’

It’s not in Oklahoma yet, but the BBC story on Sharia in Indonesia ignores the broader issue. Via Jihad Watch. Comment featured above.

I see the Tribune has another op-ed pooh-poohing concerns. Have you seen these kind of columns in your local media?

Do liberals really want to defend this?

I’ve wondered for years when feminists, and gays, would join us in recognizing this theocratic, terrorist intolerance threat.

…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.

In June of 2009, Asia Bibi, mother of fi…

In June of 2009, Asia Bibi, mother of five, was working in the fields on the farm of Muslim landowner Muhammad Idrees, near the village of Ittanwali, when her boss told her to fetch some water for the rest of the crew.

After Asia brought the water, some of the women–all Muslims–refused to drink it because it had been brought by a Christian, making it “unclean.” The women called Asia an “infidel” and called Christianity a “religion of infidels.”

Asia reportedly responded by telling the Muslim women that Christ died on the cross for our sins. She told them Jesus is alive. “Our Christ is the true prophet of God,” she reportedly told them.

Upon hearing this response, the Muslim women became angry and began to beat Asia.

When Muslim men in nearby fields gathered to attack Asia, she fled to her home, but angry Muslims followed her, took her out of her home, severely beat her, and tortured her children.

They announced from mosque loudspeakers that she would be punished by having her face blackened and being paraded through the village on a donkey.

When local Christians informed the police, the police saved Asia’s life by taking her into custody, holding her in Nankana city “for her own safety.” Under pressure from local Muslim leaders, the police registered a blasphemy case against her.

Two courts in Nankana found Asia guilty of the “crime” of blasphemy and, on November 8, 2010, Asia was fined US$1,190 and sentenced to death by hanging.

Ashiq Masih, her husband, doesn’t have the heart to break the news to their two youngest daughters.

“They asked me many times about their mother but I can’t get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed.”

Asia’s case is now under appeal, but she has been being held in isolation since June of 2009, essentially for the crime of sharing her Christian beliefs with her Muslim neighbors. Her family is one of only three Christian families in a village of more than 1,500 families. Asia’s family has lived in the village of Ittanwali for many generations.

Between 1986 and August 2009, at least 974 people have been charged with blasphemy against Islam.

This week, an anti-blasphemy resolution, “On Combating Defamation of Religion,” is coming to a vote at the U.N.

Pakistan has been actively pushing for passage of this resolution since 1999.

One thing you can count on, passage of this resolution will not offer protection for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or any other non-Muslims.

More Shariah law, anyone?
__________
Cross-posted at Bread upon the Waters.

Dakota Dreaming Big

Another (part of the) country heard from, The Middle Coast.

A taste of what’s to come. Happy trails:)

In case you missed it, the ABC interview on horseback.

A celebrity in our midst

Anne Leary, our Backyard Conservative, is listed among the 30 Political Mom Bloggers Who Will Change Your Vote:

Anne Leary is done biting her tongue. Moderate in everything but politics, she’s got her name on the Blogs for Palin list, and she puts it to good use.
Read Her: Backyard Conservative
Follow Her: @backyardconserv

Congratulations to Anne!

Are women more conservative?:)

Depends on your definition:) A look at the gender gap and what’s driving it. TWS.

Apropos, the Independent Women’s Forum column in The Daily Caller: Stiletto Nation: a new agenda for women

Meanwhile, the president teams up with his radical nannies to go after the “women vote”:

President Obama focuses on women in the economy during his visit today to Seattle. It’s part of a four-day campaign swing through five states in which Obama is urging voters to help Democrats maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate.

The trip comes at a time when Democrats are struggling with the womens’ vote, a key part of their constituency.

As our colleague Mimi Hall writes in USA TODAY:

Female voters, once a reliable force for Democrats, are roughly split this fall between the Democrats and Republicans running for Congress and governor. Recent Gallup polling, assuming a traditional turnout for a midterm election, finds that Republicans are favored by female likely voters, 49% to 46%.

And Michelle harvests sweet potatoes. But is it enough?

Or are men more tolerant than women?:)

Geraghty in Morning Jolt:

The conservative blogosphere takes up an issue near and dear to my heart, political mixed-marriages. It began from a New York Times article profiling some couples, including NR’s Richard Brookheiser and his wife Jeanne Safer.

Neo-neo-con observes, “Note that, in the marriages described in the article, it’s the woman who’s the liberal and the man who’s the conservative. This ties in with statistics showing that, ever since a transition time somewhere during the 70s or early 80s, women consistently have been more likely to vote Democrat and men Republican. . .. I’ve personally known a number of marriages of the mixed political variety. Almost all of them have conformed to this Democrat-woman Republican-man pattern. Almost all of them seem to be working out pretty well. In the olden days, the couples I knew used to laugh that they shouldn’t bother to vote because their votes always canceled each other out. Now, however, there’s a lot less laughter.”

I don’t know. I’m laughing.

“Luckily many wives view their husbands as barely functional Neanderthals so it’s often not a huge stretch for guys,” quips Maetenloch at Ace of Spades.

Mrs. CampaignSpot hates appearing in my columns, but there’s no way to address this issue without drawing from personal experience. I read the incredulous responses and am surprised at how much other people are surprised. At the end of the day, there is a lot more to life than politics. If the paramount priority of a relationship was to be with someone who was similar to you, we would all be homosexual. If you find somebody who you love, who loves you, who can put up with your quirks and foibles, and whose quirks and foibles only drive you up the wall in the good ways, grab them. You have the rest of your lives to plant seeds of doubt about their usual political notions.

What do we think about this? Are men more tolerant than women?:) As the discussion goes, you usually don’t see a conservative woman married to a liberal guy. Carville and Matalin the exception. (But then, is James Carville your usual leftist?)

As for me, I grew up as a Dem (where Dems were anti-commie and pro-life) and when I met my spouse wondered how a (Goldwater) Republican could be so nice. Now I’m more conservative than he is. And less nice:)

And probably the stultifying political correctness had something to do with my recognition I didn’t belong as a Dem–major intolerance there.

P.S. And interestingly, as we’ve seen this election year, women, a lot of whom are independents, may have their biggest impact through the TEA party. They’re looking at the burden on the next generation and getting involved as never before.

It may be even some single women don’t see Big Government as a reliable provider.

Michelle an “Enormous Asset”

My latest snark on FLOTUS. Of like mind, Pink Cinderellas, All in a Row , via Pundit & Pundette. Latest snark on POTUS/TOTUS. Plus the suburban vote is in play, but WaPo gets only part of the story, as usual. Is Michelle coming to your neighborhood?

P.S. When she comes to campaign in Illinois, will she be asked about (nice view from the press gate) Jesse’s Girl?