- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,826
- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And, yes, it's quite clear you don't like the woman. That comes through loud and clear.
Anita Hill had balls (so to speak) and what she did brought sexual harassment out of the shadows and on to the front pages. Regardless of whether she was believable or not, she did a great favor to women and helped alter the way women are treated in the workplace. Warren has a similar opportunity here, but chose not to take it. To Warren, her own victimhood status is more important I guess.Yeah, she should name names, after all..look how well Anita Hill was supported when she did so.
Probably not. If you start attacking those men.. bigger more powerful men in DC, you put yourself at risk as a politician. Those guys have sway and access to the media, and they have big ass, rich supporters and donors who want them to stay in office. The lobbyist would defend them. The right wing media would defend them. The spineless liberal media would debate the topic.
Really... you don't think Fox News would do their job in propping up any of those men in a sexual harassment scandal... ****ing please. Rush Limbaugh would go the hell off calling these women liars and sluts. He would demand to know what they were wearing, because they were probably begging for the guys to compliment and smack their asses. Megan Kelly and Misha Brzezinski would suspiciously criticize all the women making the allegations. The 24 hour news media spin would make it a debate issue, not congratulate these women for their bravery and courage.
She answered a direct question. Pretty ingenious political ploy to answer 'Yes' to a direct question! :roll:
And I'm not sure why anyone needs to respond to a headline and a flack's take on it, when what she actually said was just a couple dozen words.
My highly trained detective skills tell me you don't like Elizabeth Warren very much.
wow... and right wing women are attacking her for saying that. Amazing.
Then why are you posting in this thread?
And you'd be right about that. And apparently I'm not alone. MSNBC must not like her either. They said the same things about this issue as I did. Maybe MSNBC is turning far right.
This is a "left-right" issue? Interesting. Looks to everyone else like a male-female issue. Even Senators Warren & Gillibrand didn't make it a "left-right" issue.
That's sort of the point I've been making.Senators treated her differently....She answered a direct question, "Yes" and made no actual claim that needed defending or elaboration.
As I said, all the rest is projection. See ^^^^
So then she could have meant she was offended by someone holding the door open and we're left to assume she meant the real thing.
Hey, maybe that's what she wanted us to believe huh.
I don't see anything Warren said to be out of the norm for a left-feminist whose very thinking is based on victimhood as they view women as victims due to men. Never understood that concept of trying to empower women through victimhood.
What stood out to me in the OP was that this piece sympathizing feminist victimhood was posted on Yahoo. Yahoo's CEO is Marrissa Mayer. Ms. Mayer is a big bundler for the Democrat party. So in the piece it wasn't surprising to see the (D) left off of the deceased Hawaii Sen. Daniel K. Inouye in regard to his alleged remarks to Kirsten Gillibrand in regard to her weight. I believe she published her memoirs naming Sen. Daniel Inouye after he was no longer around to defend himself. Whether you agree with Inouye's politics, he was a war hero and a huge supporter of civil rights. Some of the same rights that pave the way for the Hilldibrands and the Warrens to pursue seats in the Senate. So to make accusations about someone when they are no longer around to defend them puts the B in itch in my opinion.
Looked to me that nothing she said appeared out of the norm for women who work in male dominated professions.... And her prescription, such as there was one in that interview, was to elect more strong women to the Senate. I'm not sure how that's empowering women through victimhood.
You're kidding, right? Did you see the picture they selected? And why would an article about what Warren said in an interview include a comprehensive rundown of the claims made by Gillibrand?
I also doubt that Mayer is a bundler for the Democrat Party, at least not in the U.S. Could be a Democrat party in some other country I suppose.
Mentioning Gillibrand's memoirs was to bring validity to Warren's claims.
As far as Ms Mayer goes, educate yourself.
Silicon Valley's Biggest Political Donors - Business Insider
Thats like saying Tawana Brawley did women a great service about lying about being assaulted because somewhere out there, women are being assaulted.Anita Hill had balls (so to speak) and what she did brought sexual harassment out of the shadows and on to the front pages. Regardless of whether she was believable or not, she did a great favor to women and helped alter the way women are treated in the workplace. Warren has a similar opportunity here, but chose not to take it. To Warren, her own victimhood status is more important I guess.
Which "claims" did Warren make. She answered a question - have you been treated differently? - Yes. Then changed the subject. The reporter wanted a scandal, didn't get it, but right wingers jumped on it anyway.
Oh, I see, you meant the Democratic Party. My mistake....
She laid it on about the male dominated senate as treating her "different". I almost feel sorry for the men. They are walking on eggshells to parch their words to be politically correct. The New York Times has written about Warren's friendship with Hillibrand. If I were a male senator I would go out of my way to avoid women who claim war on women when in fact they refuse to acknowledge that they have a war on men. But after reading your comments claiming that Tennessee treats women poorly which is a bunch of bloviating BS. Tennessee is just 2 1/2 hours from my state border by car. In this region of the country what you claim is just not true. There is always going to be the occasional instance but to make such a broad claim as you did is preposterous but it is certainly in line with what the Warren's and the Hillibrand's do. :lol:
She laid it on about the male dominated senate as treating her "different". I almost feel sorry for the men. They are walking on eggshells to parch their words to be politically correct. The New York Times has written about Warren's friendship with Hillibrand. If I were a male senator I would go out of my way to avoid women who claim war on women when in fact they refuse to acknowledge that they have a war on men.
Question: Have you had any similar experiences, of being treated differently because you're a woman by your colleagues in the Senate?
Warren: Yes.
Q: Can you elaborate?
W: Nope?
Q: I'm not asking you to name names...
W: I've said all I'm going to say.
Q: Surprising to you?
W: I wish it was, but it's hard to change these big, male dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is there are now enough women in the U.S. Senate to begin to change that place, and I just think that's powerfully important.
Q: But if a US Senator is treated differently than her colleagues?
W:...if you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu... So it's important that we have women in the United States Senate, strong women, and women who are there to help advance an agenda important to women...
But after reading your comments claiming that Tennessee treats women poorly which is a bunch of bloviating BS. Tennessee is just 2 1/2 hours from my state border by car. In this region of the country what you claim is just not true. There is always going to be the occasional instance but to make such a broad claim as you did is preposterous but it is certainly in line with what the Warren's and the Hillibrand's do. :lol:
It's almost as if she's trying to create a new card.... there's the race card and we know what that is. Now we have the "sex card", so criticisms levied at Warren will now be viewed as ..."Hmm... is that guy one of the 'good old boys' she was talking about? Another wedge issue to deflect criticisms of her and turn the tables because she's a woman. That's why I think she doesn't want to name names...
Question: Have you had any similar experiences, of being treated differently because you're a woman by your colleagues in the Senate?
Warren: Yes.
Q: Can you elaborate?
W: Nope?
Q: I'm not asking you to name names...
W: I've said all I'm going to say.
Q: Surprising to you?
W: I wish it was, but it's hard to change these big, male dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is there are now enough women in the U.S. Senate to begin to change that place, and I just think that's powerfully important.
Q: But if a US Senator is treated differently than her colleagues?
W:...if you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu... So it's important that we have women in the United States Senate, strong women, and women who are there to help advance an agenda important to women...
Can you tell me which words said by Warren indicate she's creating a 'new card?' Please be specific. Did she mention 'Good Old Boys?' I missed it. For your convenience, here's the exchange:
uestion: Have you had any similar experiences, of being treated differently because you're a woman by your colleagues in the Senate?
Warren: Yes.
Q: Can you elaborate?
W: Nope?
Q: I'm not asking you to name names...
W: I've said all I'm going to say.
See it? It's right there.. read what I quoted over and over and over. See it yet?
Warren is laying the groundwork for a generic "War on Women" presidential campaign while trying hard to not piss off her fellow senators.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?