my dates are when he was in POWER

that is, not under someone else.

if we dont use that, then we can renegotiate the term of FDR from when he entered state employ, which was quite a bit before he was in power.

though date wise your 100% correct, and one can argue a bit that his games started when he was not in power but in the employ of the state under another.

but then, we can expand obamas work to his childhood.

messy no matter which way you want to look at it.

and this is why its hopeless…
and they will win

you cant seem to understand that you dont need feminists to make the same chloices.

in fact, the feminists make you make DIFFERENT CHOICES than whats good for you (but its great for them)

and you prove my point.

each fringe group paid off by this proccess refuses to get rid of the systm that they grew up and became a part of.

they will NOT walk on their own…

as long as they exist, they will manipyulate your goodness, to do their badness.

period.

the WHOLE Movemetn was CREATED by the soviets.

i gave you a FEMINIST HISTORIAN that details it all…

to make it clearer to you… since your a woman, and i am talking about the womans movemetn that targeted you and you defend.

lets put it this way.

do you think that the black national socialists and the panthers will allow peace between the race they SAY they represent and the white race they SAY oppresses them?

not at all.. when they couldnt find enough racism to prove it, they then created the invisable one that is permuted through everything and cant be seen except if your taught to see it.

and so, they foment more race hate to grow and exist. the day the two get along and realize that its the third that causes their ills MORE than their own problems (by exacerbating them with bad advice), will be ejected.

same with feminism wich foloows the SAME EXACT DIALECTIC.. as does gslen…

it would be very difficult for you to stand up and realize that women NEVER needed the feminists and that like capitaism, the statism isnt helping.

you hate the war..

but you dont want to get rid of the generals and planners and colluders that aer making the gender war so that they can facilitate more power.

the logic you use is the same reletivistic argument that is nonsesne.

they do soe good, so we forgive their bad.

thats an inversion of they do bad, so their good dont count.

or rather..
john gotti murders people
but in july 4th he gives great barbecues to the poor

so cant we stop the fight and leave joh gotti alone, after all, look at the good he is doing.

that cracked up.

and we will never agree on that point.

you never even wanted to try to read the chapter weigand wrote as to feminism in soviet countries!!!!

they dont allow it!!!

that would be like drinking the flagon with the poison in it that you gave to someone else.

NONE of the socialist countries (that are not still free) allow that…

its a nto a movement for women
its a movemetn to destroyu the current condition and facilitate a move to a new totalitarian place.

when radicals are in control and in office the view is inverted, and the radicals become normal and you and your more thoughful freinds become the radicals who the state must remove

or as Orwell said (paraphrased):

when lies are the norm, telling the truth is a radical thing

one cant survive a cancer if one decides to keep it cause they like some of it.

the WHOLE movement was NEVER what it seemed to be.

you wonder why they like terrorists..
but you dont get that the leadership and movemetn started in terrorism, as all anarchic comminist things did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Zora

Rote Zora started in 1974, when they bombed the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in Karlsruhe to protest against the abortion law.[1]

so fancy that

your argument is exactly the same obfuscating argument of islam as a religion of love!!!

the majority in islam do not ACT
but we think that means that they dont agree
just like you
but silence and acceptance is agreement in the real world, regardless of what you or i belive

until you start comparing the 4 or 5 of these and start not making false separations… you will see that they are applying the same DIALECTIC to the different problems

and by buying women off with it, they insure that the very people that thsi is to harm, protect it till the job is done.

[this is why the feminists dont fight islam. SAME diaelectic of control with just a fake covering to make it appear different]

read weigand..
Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation By Kate Weigand

Journal of Women’s History
Kate Weigand and Daniel Horowitz – Dorothy Kenyon: Feminist Organizing, 1919-1963 – Journal of Women’s History 14:2 Journal of Women’s History 14.2 (2002) 126-131 Dorothy Kenyon Feminist Organizing 1919-1963 Kate Weigand and Daniel Horowitz Dorothy Kenyon (1888-1972) is not well known among feminists or historians but, as a major player in the women’s rights, civil rights, and labor movements from the 1920s to the 1970s, she should be. Born and bred in New York City, Kenyon received all the advantages conferred by her family’s wealth, including a Smith College education and the freedom, in her words, to “misspend” five years as a “social butterfly” after her graduation from Smith. Sensitized to the problems of poverty and injustice during a year she spent in Mexico with her father, Kenyon decided to enter New York University Law School in 1914 so she could pursue social justice through the legal system. The New York Bar admitted Kenyon in 1917 and, after an eight-year stint working for the U.S. government, she opened her own law firm in 1925. Kenyon began her career in public service in 1936 as the first Deputy Commissioner of Licenses in New York City, where she later served as a Justice on the Municipal Court. In these positions, in her capacity as the U.S. representative to the League of Nations Commission to Study the Legal Status of Women from 1938-1940, and as the first U.S. delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women from…

i have read all of this stuff… long ago

this stuff si read by the fellow travelers
not the women you refer to who are being used.
they never even know about these books

bet you dont even know who Pizzey is!!!!!

that is, the history you know abotu them has been STALINIZED just as much as socviet history has been cleansed to make it acceptable to.

go here to a communist/marxist site writing about their glorius hsitory… do you read them? i do.

and almost everyone that i talk to that is not a feminist fellow traveler (like the feminist down the block from me that loves to argue with me, because she can argue 1:1 and not have to cover the game!!!!)

Weigand wrote, “These women, along with many others who are less well-known, worked for women’s liberation within their own political circles and in the United States at large during the hostile years of 1945-56. The group consisted primarily of women who had cut their political teeth in the Left and labor struggles of the 1930s.”

and carefully note this:

weigand is very frustrated that the average woman does not know the history of the movement!!!

she is confused at how such a glorious and successful communist movemetn is completely unknown to the contemporary woman!!!!!!!!!!
[ie. you and your friends]

Weigand concludes, “Why, then, has their story been overlooked? How have feminists and the general public come to believe that the critique of male chauvinism in personal and family relations emerged for the first time in the mid-1960s? The powerful legacy of anti-communism in the United States is largely responsible for their obscurity.”

just like you were a neo liberal before… but then started learning about things they seem to never let you figure out..

take some time to read about erin pizzey

How feminists tried to destroy the family
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430702/How-feminists-tried-destroy-family.html

take a second here to compare what pizzey says and compare with weigand.

even pizzey didnt know that the movemetn was not new, and was communist.

but since pizzey created the first shelters for battered women AND men… she was on the wrong side of the ideological argument

During 1970, I was a young housewife with a husband, two children, two dogs and a cat. We lived in Hammersmith, West London, and I didn’t see much of my husband because he worked for TV’s Nationwide. I was lonely and isolated, and longed for something other than the usual cooking, cleaning and housework to enter my life.
By the early Seventies, a new movement for women – demanding equality and rights – began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. Among the jargon, I read the words “solidarity” and “support”. I passionately believed that women would no longer find themselves isolated from each other, and in the future could unite to change our society for the better.

Within a few days I had the address of a local group in Chiswick, and I was on my way to join the Women’s Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay £3 and ten shillings as a joining fee, told to call other women “sisters” and that our meetings were to be called “collectives”.
My fascination with this new movement lasted only a few months. At the huge “collectives”, I heard shrill women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent tendencies. I stood on the same platforms trying to reason with the leading lights of this new organisation.
I ended up being thrown out by the movement. My crime was to warn some of the women working in the Women’s Liberation Movement office off Shaftesbury Avenue that if it persisted in cooperating with a plan to bomb Biba, a fashionable clothes shop in Kensington, I would call the police.
Biba was bombed because the women’s movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise devoted to sexualising women’s bodies.

i will bet $10 dollars to you that you dont know this history (be honest).

I was determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different threat.
I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.
In 1974, the women living in my refuge organised a meeting in our local church hall to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.
We were astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country.
After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers – and what I had most feared happened.
In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.
Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. “All women are innocent victims of men’s violence,” they declared.
They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees.
Women with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over 12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation.
Our group in Chiswick worked with as many refuges as we could. Good, caring women still work in refuges across the country, but many women working in the feminist refuges, about 350, admit they are failing women who most need them.
With the first donation we received in 1972, we employed a male playgroup leader because we felt our children needed the experience of good, gentle men. We devised a treatment programme for women who recognised that they, too, were violent and dysfunctional. And we concentrated on children hurt by violence and sexual abuse.
Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.

i have a nursing trainning manual used in the graduate school and it says ALL family violence is from men… NONE is from women.

even you should see that this is propaganda of the worst kind…

did you know about this?

When, in the mid-Eighties, I published Prone To Violence, about my work with violence-prone women and their children, I was picketed by hundreds of women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: “All men are bastards” and “All men are rapists”.
Because of violent threats, I had to have a police escort around the country.
It was bad enough that this relatively small group of women was influencing social workers and police. But I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men.
In 1990, Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became an adviser to Labour’s Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she’s in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy paper called The Family Way.
It said: “It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.”
It was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.

where are those masses of reasonable women?

nowhere… but in their own freinds circles.

these otehrs dont work, they are funded, so they spend all day working on this. they are elected officials, judges, administrators, and so on.

but you use the “most islamics are nice people” defense of feminism.

a mask is a mask is a mask.
and a mask can be a nice face over a dark one
not jsut dark ones over nice ones.

For nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children.

yeah.. you know… we are all rapists.. we are all pedophiles. and the only good rape is a rape by a leftist (that director), and a rape by a lesbian to a minor (the coochi snorcher).

I believe that the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And all that was yoked – unforgivably – to the debate about domestic violence.
To my mind, it has never been a gender issue – those exposed to violence in early childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of whether they are girls or boys.
I look back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places where people – men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual abuse – could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second chance to learn to live peacefully.
I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the refuge movement.

anotehr good one

Rethinking Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Labor Union Radicalism and Feminism in Cold War America Horowitz, Daniel

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v048/48.1horowitz.html

Daniel Horowitz – Rethinking Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Labor Union Radicalism and Cold War America – American Quarterly 48:1 American Quarterly 48.1 (1996) 1-42 Rethinking Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Labor Union Radicalism and Feminism in Cold War America Daniel Horowitz In a certain sense it was almost accidental — coincidental — that I wrote The Feminine Mystique, and in another sense my whole life had prepared me to write that book; all the pieces of my own life came together for the first time in the writing of it. –Betty Friedan, “It Changed My Life,” 1976 In 1951, a labor journalist with a decade’s experience in protest movements described a trade union meeting where rank-and-file women talked and men listened. Out of these conversations, she reported, emerged the realization that the women were “fighters — that they refuse any longer to be paid or treated as some inferior species by their bosses, or by any male workers who have swallowed the bosses’ thinking.” The union was the UE, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, the most radical American union in the postwar period and in the 1940s what historian Ronald Schatz, appreciative of the UE’s place in history, has called “the largest communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1952 that same journalist wrote a pamphlet, UE Fights for Women Workers, that the historian Lisa Kannenberg, unaware of the identity of its author,…