I am fascinated at the attempt to derail Jerry Brown over the "w" word that was used by one or two of his staff members. People are now digging up old Jerry Brownisms and trying to club him over the head with it.
I find the attempt to derail Brown laughable. As I begin to read the old Brown comments that are supposed to shame Brown, the one thing that stands out is Jerry Brown ALWAYS references something when he makes his controverisal comment. It's one thing to quote Jerry Brown saying "Abortion is the taking of the life" to stir up the pro choice crowd, but Brown references it with "When I spent time with Mother Theresa..."
lol, what male can make the claim that they spent time with Mother Theresa...yet somehow this is supposed to be controversial and prove that Brown is a bad man who hates woman??? How can we possibly get from visiting with Mother Theresa to being a bad male for being influenced by her? "But, but, he flip flopped on the issue of abortion to serve his own agenda". WHO DOESN'T!
The issue of abortion by its very nature should never have 100% of the people believing the same way. Anybody who believes there will ever be a kumbaya moment on the issue of abortion where everybody agrees is being obtuse, and if that moment of 100% agreement on the issue did ever happen, all I can say is we probably have become Eloi in a world run by Morlocks.
The first rule of a non issue comment that is being attempted to be used to slam someone is that it needs to be said without any external context as a reference point. Brown uses external references when he makes most of his more "controversial" statements.
You can call Brown a thinker who talks too much, would that make some happy?
As for the "w" comment, once again it was said within the context of a situation that was at hand, and apparently a female staffer used the phrase as well.
The real issue is not what it appears.
The real issue is that women are defined as being an "s" or a "w" in certain situations, but what is the same derogatory word for men who behave in a similar manner? That is what feminists should be up in arms over, that labels exist to describe women who behave in irresponsible ways, but those same derogatory words do not really exist, or stick, for men who behave just as badly.
9 comments:
Actually, there are two "real issues" here for me. One is that Brown has NEVER been pro-woman:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/10/10/breaking-jerry-browns-astonishing-remarks/
And the other is that the good ol' boy network in the Dem party needs to be shaken down and shaken up. Their frat house mentality pervades and it is killing their chances of receiving votes from Feminists like myself.
Whitman is a pro-choice Republican who is a strong role model for young women in business. Brown will do *anything* to take her down. And my former party, plus the organizations I have historically supported (ie. NOW) think it's all just peachy.
It's kind of like you didn't read this article. A guy who hangs around with Mother Theresa is anti woman?
Both parties have issues. The dems have Feinstein and Boxer in the senate, now the republicans counter with Fiorina, and Whitman for governor.
All have skeletons in their closet of pandering for financial gain. Feinstein's husband builds military shelters, you don't think they made a ton of money on all the wars?
Fiorina and Whitman laid off tens of thousands of workers while raiding the company coffers for a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS when they left their companies!
I know nothing about Boxer even though she has been a senator for 28 years, I don't know how she does it, how she goes along without really making waves, kind of amazing actually.
Is Boxer part of the good old boys network in the democrat party, is Feinstein?
Neither party is for woman's rights in the way you may want them to be, but both parties welcome female politicians who win.
Sorry, hanging around with Mother Theresa does not make you a good guy any more than going to a garage makes you a car.
Brown, at one time, wanted to be a priest, but did not go to full 9 yards to become one. Being raised a Catholic, I can assure you that priests are anything but "pro woman". Women are there to take care of the men and stay in the background. Women, like Whitman, must really upset that mentality.
Yes, both parties have betrayed women and have shown that they have been stringing us along from the start.
What amazes me is that CA NOW is endorsing Brown. With women's groups like this, it's apparent that women should no longer look to them to stand by women and we should call them out, while we are calling Brown on his obvious distain for women.
As for both parties welcoming female politicans who win...well, both Hillary and Sarah were winners, and I did not see any evidence of their being welcome by either party during the 2008 election cycle.
Hanging around with Mother Theresa is not something to be lightly dismissed, unless one is an athiest.
Palin was discriminated against not just because she was a woman, but because she was also from Alaska.
While I respect anybody who would live in Alaska, people like Keith Olbermann mock people who govern in Alaska. However, if Palin had been a male politician from Alaska, people like Olbermann might have actually respected that.
I view Palin as being as experienced as Barack Obama. Both needed more political seasoning before having a shot at being president. To gain cross over media respect, Palin would have needed to do something in one of the lower 48 states.
I don't understand how Palin can be taking care of five children while traveling all over the country supporting other candidates. If Palin was at least was governing from one spot, then having a political life and raising a family would be plausible.
That's why I wish Palin would had moved to California and run for governor of California in 2010 and then based on how that went, consider running for president in 2016. Plus her kids would all be older by then for the rigors of traveling the country when necessary.
Hillary Clinton was defeated by the banksters, George Soros, and television programming decisions that are based on television advertisers and the banksters.
The Banksters purpose for living is to financially indenture our youngest voters with vapid, stupid reality tv programming because it creates the longest stream of residual income via interest payments on perpetual credit card debt that is caused by glorifying stupid behavior for programming that is focused on the youth. (sorry for the run on sentence)
It is has been long rumored that Jerry Brown is a closet homosexual, so does that make him less able to connect with women or not relate to them? I have no idea.
I like that Brown tries to reference his thoughts as being based on things he has read or observed in the past. I think that is a good quality to have.
The elitists of the world don't bother referencing why they believe the way they believe because they just don't think you or I are worth it, and I do not put Jerry Brown in that category.
To briefly continue, because television programming is catered to the youth, all of the political talk on the air tends to cater to the youth.
The Saturday night live spoofs, Jon Stewart, Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, all of them cater their comments to their core audience, the youth, and that basically made then ridicule Hillary and stay relatively mum on Barack Obama.
It's the banksters that hate the middle class, not just women.
Have you not kept up with the Caucus fraud, which usurped the will of the people who voted in the majority for Hillary over Obama. The nomination was stolen, she was not defeated. The banksters and the corrupt election process placed obama into the WH.
As for Mother Theresa...Browns hanging around with her is not indicative of character. Case and point, many of the catholic bishops who hung around the pope, came back to America and blatantly turned a blind eye to the pedaphilia priests and instead of taking them out of the priesthood and getting them professional help, they simply moved them to another parish, where they were free to abuse more children.
Jerry Brown does not like women and has proven to be an ineffective governor back in the 70's. How quickly California forgets who this guy really is. This latest glimpse into his continued distain for women reinforces the many reason why this man should not be govenor of California again.
Meg Whitman knows how to create jobs and meet a payroll. She's a true success story and any man with her creditionals would be talked about as "presidential material" and would definitely be respected by the party leaders, the press and the public. California is bankrupt. The state cannot afford Jerry Brown as their governor. They need someone who actually has a plan that will save the state.
Just who was the last "effective" governor of California?
As for Caucus Fraud, yeah, I think I'm aware of it since I created several blogs that dealt with the issue.
Caucus Cheating
Fair-Reflection
Hillary-Wins
Caucus Cheating
Florida-Michigan
Caucus Confession
good for you, Alessandro! Your statement that Hillary was "defeated" was misleading and since you wrote so many blogs about the caucus cheating, I would have thought you would have included that with your post.
As for the last effective California governor, NONE. But to give the job back to one who has a record of being ineffective to the point of bankrupting the state and the state is already bankrupt, so, why would you trust him again? This kind of thinking is along the lines of "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"...which is the definition of insanity.
Meg Whitman is clearly the better choice and were she a man, the race would not even be close.
Obviously, accomplished women are still having trouble being taken seriously, even when running against a loser like Brown.
What actually hurt the state of California more than any governor was being forced to give back any surplus to the people.
However, this might have been the wise course otherwise the unions would have just demanded bigger raises if they saw a budget surplus.
In 1999, Gray Davis signed an agreement with the various unions in exchange for their support that has created a huge pension obligation for the next decade or two or longer.
There are ads running in California that speak of the plus 100 million dollars that both Fiorina and Whitman took when they left their jobs, and the ads also point out the tens of thousands of people they laid off as well.
And Whitman went a very long time, something like 15 or 20 years, without ever voting, not even once.
A San Francisco paper selected "none of the above" when it came to governor of California.
As for Hillary Clinton, I don't know what to call what happened in 2008. Perhaps call what happened to Hillary Clinton defeated by fraud and graft?
Post a Comment