"The first news report I heard on this, the media had him as a "white supremacist who hated Jew's". Aren't most Jews white? So that report was wrong."

Wow.

Just...WOW.

The level of ignorance in this sentence is really quite stunning.

Do some basic research before posting things like this. Have you really never heard of the white supremacist movement's hatred of Jews? You may want to start by looking under "Hitler, Adolf." Kind of an important Jew-hating white supremacist. You may have heard of him.

Also, not all Jews are Caucasian. You do realize that they originated in the Middle East, right? And that Jesus himself was almost certainly non-white?

As for this:

"The next report had him as a "Right wing extremist", as it turns out he has a real hate for GWB and he is a socialist to boot. So that report was wrong."

Like I said in a previous thread (which made some of the same points you did, only much more eloquently, making this entire post repetitive and pointless), you can be left-wing economically and right-wing socially, as this man clearly was.

I am sorry for being so impolite here, but my God. You should know these things. And if you don't, you could do even the tiniest amount of research (like, for instance, finding out that the shooter identified HIMSELF on his website as a Jew-hating white supremacist) before declaring your intellectual superiority over actual journalists. It's one thing to be uninformed, but arrogant AND uninformed is a combination I just cannot abide.

K, just to clarify, Toby wrote this as a comment to my earlier post so blame the editors of Post Scripts, rather than Toby, for the redundancy. If a comment catches the attention of an editor it will often end up on the front page.

Once again I have to take exception to your line of thinking. In fact I'd like to challenge you to think outside of what you believe to be true about right wing social values.

You choose as a model Adolf Hitler:

**Have you really never heard of the white supremacist movement's hatred of Jews? You may want to start by looking under "Hitler, Adolf." Kind of an important Jew-hating white supremacist. **

Hitler is known as a "white" supremicist (as are those who mimic him) because he was an ignorant authoritarian nut with a fantasy of a master “race” which had to do with a fixation of his...he admired the blonde, blue- eyed Nordic “aryan” types. An aryan as described by Websters:

1. a member of the Indo-European-speaking people one branch of which early occupied the Iranian plateau while another branch entered India and conquered and amalgamated with the earlier non-Indo-European inhabitants : INDO-IRANIAN
2 a : member of the people that spoke the language from which the Indo-European languages are derived b : an individual of any of those peoples who have spoken these languages since prehistoric times : INDO-EUROPEAN c : NORDIC d : GENTILE
3 : a member of the Indo-European-speaking modern peoples of India as opposed to the Dravidian-speaking ones

While all of the above may be considered “caucasian” obviously not all Aryans are blonde and blue eyed and certainly not all are “white”.

** You do realize that they originated in the Middle East, right? And that Jesus himself was almost certainly non-white? **

Jesus was a Jew and although he may not have been blonde and blue eyed he was likely "white" if you are referring to (Websters) "traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type *Caucasian race* *Mongoloid race*."

** you can be left-wing economically and right-wing socially, as this man clearly was.**

Since you provide no evidence that this man was "right-wing socially" I will assume the model is, once again, Hitler. Absolutely nothing about Hitler even remotely resembles conservative social values:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

** obsessive anti-Semitism with its brutal, violent sexual connotations and concern with the "purity of blood"...the young Hitler learned to discern in the "Eternal Jew" the symbol and cause of all chaos, corruption and destruction in culture, politics and the economy. The press, prostitution, syphilis, capitalism, Marxism, democracy and pacifism--all were so many means which "the Jew" exploited in his conspiracy to undermine the German nation and the purity of the creative Aryan race. *** Hitler focused his propaganda against the Versailles Treaty, the "November criminals," the Marxists and the visible, internal enemy No. 1, the "Jew," who was responsible for all Germany's domestic problems. In the twenty-five-point programme of the NSDAP announced on 24 February 1920, the exclusion of the Jews from the Volk community, the myth of Aryan race supremacy and extreme nationalism were combined with "socialistic" ideas of profit-sharing and nationalization inspired by ideologues like Gottfried Feder. *** …Mein Kampf (My Struggle)…the "bible" of the Nazi Party, (is a) crude, half-baked hotchpotch of primitive Social Darwinism, racial myth, anti-Semitism and lebensraum (dream of love) fantasy… *** Once in the saddle, Hitler moved with great speed to outmanoeuvre his rivals, virtually ousting the conservatives from any real participation in government by July 1933, abolishing the free trade unions, eliminating the communists, Social Democrats and Jews from any role in political life and sweeping opponents into concentration camps. The Reichstag fire of 27 February 1933 had provided him with the perfect pretext to begin consolidating the foundations of a totalitarian one-party State, and special "enabling laws" were ramrodded through the Reichstag to legalize the regime's intimidatory tactics. **

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03885.html

Concentration camps underwent a series of developments over time to respond to differing German policies and needs. From 1933 to 1936 they were used for incarcerating political adversaries and preventive protective custody. During this period of time Jews were not arrested as Jews but because of their political or cultural activities. Most of those interned were trade unionists, political dissidents, communists, and others. *** after the Reichstag fire (Feb. 27, 1933), there was a wave of mass arrests of the Communist opposition. After the Ermaechtigungsgesetz ("Enabling Act") of March 23, 1933, the non-Nazi political elite, composed of trade-union members, socialists, and civil party members, was arrested, together with writers, journalists, and lawyers, who were Jewish, but arrested because of their activities – alleged or actual. *** The reduction in concentration camps during the early years of the Nazi regime was no indication of any move to abolish them; among the new victims of the terror were those who listened to foreign radio stations, rumormongers, Jehovah's Witnesses (Bibelforscher, in 1935), and German male homosexuals. There was no incarceration of lesbians qua lesbians. Jehovah's Witnesses were the only "voluntary victims" of Nazism. They refused to register in the Wehrmacht or to swear allegiance to the state. *** World War II wrought changes in the concentration camp system. *** In Hitler's directive: Reich leader Philip Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy killing. *** What followed was the so-called euthanasia program, in which German men, women, and children who were physically disabled, mentally retarded, or emotionally disturbed were systematically killed. *** The first killings were by starvation. Then injections of lethal doses of sedatives were used. Children were easily "put to sleep." But gassing soon became the preferred method of killing. Fifteen to 20 people were killed in a chamber disguised as a shower. Chemists provided the lethal gas, and physicians supervised the process. Afterwards, black smoke billowed from the chimneys as the bodies were burned in adjacent crematoria. It was a technique that was later used to kill millions not hundreds or thousands. *** Pseudo-medical experiments were carried out in a number of camps. Prior to World War II governments routinely used vulnerable populations for experimentation, but German physicians operated without limits and with routine disregard for the humanity of those upon whom they experimented. Even before World War II interned Jews had been used for pseudo-biological "race research." Upon Himmler's initiative, unlimited supplies of live men and women were put at the disposal of the SS medical organization for the purpose of "medical" experiments in the camps and outside. Under the program of the biological destruction of the "inferior races", Viktor Brack, who had also been one of the heads of the Euthanasia Program, was charged in 1941 with developing a quick system of sterilizing between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 Jews who were fit for work. The logic was simple: if Jews could be sterilized, then the imposition of the "Final Solution" would take but a generation as there would be no danger of their reproducing and perpetuating the Jewish people. In the interim, the German people could enjoy the benefits of their labor. *** August Hirt worked on shrinking skulls for his collection at the anatomical institute at Strasbourg, for the purposes of "racial research." The "specimens" were put to death at Natzweiler. Upon orders received from the air force, experiments subjecting humans to conditions of high pressure and freezing were held at Dachau, to investigate the possibilities of the survival of pilots. In the name of "medical research", humans were infected with contagious diseases and epidemics, in order to try out new drugs and poisons. The SS doctors also amputated bones and cut muscles for transplantation purposes; they removed internal organs and introduced cancer into human bodies. Those victims who did not die immediately were left to perish from neglect and agony. Some of them survived, crippled or maimed for life. *** Mengele wanted to "prove" the superiority of the Nordic race. His first experiments were performed on gypsy children supplied to him from the so-called kindergarten. Before long he expanded his interest to twins, dwarfs, and persons with abnormalities. *** Mengele subjected his experimental group to all possible medical analyses that could be performed while the victims were alive. The tests he performed were painful, exhausting, and traumatic for the frightened and hungry children who made up the bulk his subjects. *** The twins and the crippled persons designated as subjects of experiments were photographed, their jaws and teeth cast in plaster molds, fingerprints were taken from hands and legs. On Mengele's instructions, an inmate painter made comparative drawings of the shapes of heads, auricles, noses, mouths, hands, and legs of the twins. *** When the research was completed some subjects were killed by phenol injections and their organs were autopsied and analyzed. Scientifically interesting anatomical specimens were preserved and shipped out to the Institute in Berlin-Dahlem for further research. **

Perhaps I have missed something in your analysis that this authoritarian nut has values that resemble those of conservatives/Republicans. I'd be happy to consider anything you can share that would make clear what you mean.

** before declaring your intellectual superiority over actual journalists.**

"Actual journalists" and politicians had no problem linking Bush, conservatives and Christians with Hitler. Amazingly they also have had no trouble making veiled anti-semitic remarks about "neocons" (Jews like Bill Kristol that left liberalism behind and became more conservative) controlling the Bush administration.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/05/20030905-015404-2356r/

'Bush equals Hitler' adds up to holocaust denial

Vanity Fair magazine asks if Richard Perle and Joseph Goebbels were "separated at birth." Whole Web sites are dedicated to the most astoundingly stupid and superficial comparisons between George Bush and Hitler (they both liked dogs, for example). *** At every event protesting war, Bush, America, this, that and the other thing, one can find pictures of various administration officials in SS garb or bearing Hitler mustaches. On the Web, leftwing forums like Democraticunderground.com overflow with insubstantial people bolstering their self-esteem by pretending to "speak truth to power" to the unfolding Nazification of America. *** Putatively intellectual magazines, like the leftwing Nation and the New York Review of Books, feature articles that are more measured in tone and more nuanced in style than the hysteria one hears from C-Span callers or rabble-rousers at Howard Dean events, but the upshot is still the same. **

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/26/194236.shtml

HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher compared first lady Laura Bush to "Hitler's dog" during his Friday night cablecast, after flashing a parody photo of Mrs. Bush with a black eye, as if she'd been a victim of domestic abuse. *** After the photo display, Maher was challenged by guest panelist Christopher Hitchens, who told him: "It must be to [George Bush's] credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman." *** To that, Maher replied: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason ..." *** "I think tomorrow you might be sorry you said that. Laura Bush is very gentle and talented," Hitchens warned. *** With that Maher retreated a bit, insisting: "That's not what I'm saying, of course she is. But the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous."

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200401080917.asp

"It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933," writes Dave Lindorff in "Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear," which appeared in February on the far-left site Counterpunch.org. "Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line." *** Lindorff is not an obscure, solitary blogger. The author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, he has contributed to The Nation and Salon, and has appeared on National Public Radio. And Counterpunch is not an obscure website. It is edited by the leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, features writing by Edward Said and Philip Agee, and claims to attract 60,000 visitors each day. Nor was Lindorff's Bush/Hitler reference an aberration at Counterpunch. The day before Lindorff's article appeared, another author, Wayne Madsen, wrote that Bush is "borrowing liberally from Hitler's play book." The FŸhrer, Lindorff said, "would be proud that an American president is emulating him in so many ways. *** Such material will undoubtedly seem crazy to most readers. But it received a kind of scholarly seal of approval with the recent publication of a study of political conservatism — written by professors at Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Maryland — that likened Hitler and Mussolini to Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. All were "right-wing conservatives," the authors wrote in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, and as such shared traits like "mental rigidity and closed-mindedness," "increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity," and "fear, anger, and aggression." "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives," the professors concluded, "because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form." If the nation's leading scholars can lump together Hitler and Reagan, why not Hitler and George W. Bush, as well? *** [Author's note — As if to prove the contention that Bush-hating which starts on the Internet fringe can move into the mainstream, shortly after this article was written, Vanity Fair magazine, on page 146 of its September issue, featured a letter from a reader who said he noticed something interesting about a photo of Bush administration military adviser Richard Perle. The picture reminded the reader of a famous Alfred Eisenstaedt photograph of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. "Here it is: the same arrogance, the same malice toward the photographer, the same all-around creepiness," the reader wrote. "Perle isn't the first government official to use deceit and fear mongering to force an extremist, irrational, and ultimately violent view on an entire nation or globe." A letter like that — with rhetoric that could have come straight from Counterpunch — is usually tossed in the trash at major magazines, but Vanity Fair's editors found the argument so compelling that they published the letter in a special box with the Perle and Goebbels photos side-by-side.] **

http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.06.29a.htm

** Senator Robert Byrd, for example, says George Bush reminds him of Hermann Goering, thus forfeiting much of his heralded reputation for political seriousness. There are many strong reasons for opposing the president, but connecting him to Goering is not one of them. *** The Rev. Andrew Greeley, a Chicagoan with three careers (Catholic priest, sociologist, soft-porn novelist), depicts Bush as a demagogic Hitler figure who has carried America over to "the dark side." George Soros, the eccentric billionaire Bush-hater, says Bush's rhetoric reminds him of the Third Reich. Last week Al Gore, in a speech denouncing Bush, used the term "Brownshirts" (i.e., Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams who respond to criticisms of the president and the war in Iraq. **

I realize that was a lot to read, you may have chosen not to read it, but I honestly can't get the "social" connection you make with conservatives and white supremicists or Hitler.

I did not research this nut, I do not want to know about this guy, I do not want to know what makes him tick. K, your correct you can write what I know about hate groups on the inside of a matchbook with a grease pencil.
I guess I wasn't real clear in my post. I didn't really mean for it to be about the Nut. I meant for it to be about the media and how it was able to pigeonhole him within minutes of the crime. I have sure learned a lot about hate today.
K if it makes you feel better about yourself you just keep on calling me names. I am here for you buddy. Have a great day.

Toby, if you are not willing to find out about this guy yourself, then what gives you the right to assume that the media is wrong in their assertions, and to claim that they can't be trusted for this reason? It doesn't make any sense for you to do that. I did not call you any names, other than "arrogant," which isn't really name-calling. I am sorry that you could not handle it, and even more sorry that you have decided not to learn anything from this experience.

I posted a long reply to Tina and Fred Jake earlier, I hope it didn't get lost.

Regrettably K your long response was lost. I apologize for the frustration you must feel. The same thing has happened to me and for some reason it always seems to be the long comments that are lost, lol.

I've noticed the "captcha" feature doesn't always work no matter how carefully I enter the combination of letters & numbers. Be very careful to read what the message says after you hit the submit button.

OK, here goes again.

Tina,

I agree with you that white supremacists are irrational and uneducated people with a serious lack of racial awareness. The term "white supremacist" might be technically inaccurate, but it is the term they identify themselves by and it's a term that has gained common usage. Toby's beef was not with the use of the term itself, but with the media in this specific instance. That's unfair. You can't criticize the media for being "wrong" when they are using a common term that is recognized by pretty much everyone. The term itself may be wrong, but we all know what it means, and the man even identified himself in those terms. Thus, the media was not wrong at all in this instance.

I am not sure what you're trying to prove by pointing out all the times various journalists have compared Bush to Hitler--I don't agree with those journalists, and I think Godwin's Law (that the first person to irrationally compare someone to Hitler automatically loses the argument) applies to all of them. Once again you seem to be diverting from the conversation in order to show me that liberals can be a-holes too, which is something I already know quite well. (I can't stand the hateful, arrogant Bill Maher. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the Left.) I could list just as many examples of right wing talk show hosts calling Obama the next Hitler, but that's pretty much pointless to this debate.

As for why I believe Hitler and Von Brunn were right wing...you guys make some excellent points. But so does this article.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Anyway, the main reason I consider these men right wing extremists is that both are best known for crusading against multiculturalism in order to preserve the dominant white culture. This is a far right principle. Now, keep in mind I am not saying all conservatives want this goal. There is a big difference between the extreme right and most conservatives, just like there is a big difference between most liberals and someone like Bill Ayers. Most liberals aren't going to go out and blow crap up [even if only because they're too lazy ;)]. Unfortunately, however, it is not the left that is lumping you guys all together, but those who speak for you, like Bill O'Reilly, who criticizes the left for wanting to destroy the "white, male, Christian power structure" as if that is a bad thing. Or Michelle Malkin, for selling "Right Wing Extremist" t-shirts on her website. The gap between the moderates and the extremists is shrinking, and I feel sorry for those of you who remain moderate because I believe you are good people, even if I disagree with some of your beliefs. You are going to have to distance yourselves from the most extreme members of your movement, which is becoming harder now that your representatives are becoming more and more extreme. It's not fair, but such is life. At the same time, liberals should also be wise enough to know that just because someone identifies as a conservative does not make them a terrible person or a potential terrorist.

Fred Jake, I am not sure why you assume I am a socialist. I don't remember discussing fiscal policy here much, if at all, because I admit I am not educated enough on such matters to reach a decision yet. However, I am leaning towards being more fiscally conservative, and I am wary of some of Obama's big spending programs.

"As for Michelle Malkin, selling "Right Wing Extremist" t-shirts on her website. Why not? It is the left that demonizes us. I have never said the right wing is bad, you do. So why should we run from it. As I said the only extremists in this country are on the left and you my dear, or Dude (whatever you want to call yourself) are one of them."

This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. First you say that only the left has extremists (so then, the people who shoot abortion doctors are not right wing, or are they not extremists?), then you say that conservatives should embrace the extremist label, then you say again that only the left has extremists, which absolutely contradicts your second statement, and then you call me an extremist with absolutely no attempt to back this up.

Riiiiight. Get back to me once you get your MPD in check. I will not engage such an irrational person any further.

K I don't disagree that exremists of any type always have a "cause" that shapes and determines all they do. The left and right business is really an argument between fascism and Marxism...conservatism is neither of these.

** Unfortunately, however, it is not the left that is lumping you guys all together, but those who speak for you, like Bill O'Reilly, who criticizes the left for wanting to destroy the "white, male, Christian power structure" as if that is a bad thing.**

Interesting term "destroy" and I imagine Mr. O'Reilly used just that word too. I think he has a point. I have watched over the course of my lifetime leftist groups use tactics that can only be described as destructive. They focused on the destruction of the perceived power structure rahter than focusing on building their own strengths. They determined a enemy instead of a challenge.

One example would be the hard core feminist movement. They did a good job in the early years of calling attention to real barriers for women, but they also made a lot of assumptions about what the cause was. Making white males the reason women, and others, could not achieve or succeed was nonesense. The white male power structure was not a conspiracy. had it been they were certainly in a position to make sure we would never have had a Jackie Robinson and Ella Fitzgerald would not have become a worldwide singing sensation. Likewise Margaret Thatcher would have remained "just a housewife" (as if that were some sort of crime). They used a lot of energy trying to break up what they saw as all white male clubs. They demanded to be "included" in everything. If they were so worthy why not just work hard to build their own clubs, corporations, coalitions, and leagues? (some very capable and smart women did just that) The point of this example is to show that white men got into positions of power by working hard, inventing, producing and providing. They were going about their own business and doing what was necessary to take care of their families and make a good living...suddenly they became targets of blame and derision. It didn't occur to hard core feminist women that the men at the top also had to overcome obstacles, compete with others who were better than they, suffer under tough conditions, including teasing or testing by their peers. ..or that many of them never made it to the "big time" but settled for something lesser. They decided that white males got a free ride...were issued a golden ticket at birth that opened all doors without effort or strife. In fact all of the civil rights causes became less and less about opportunity and more and more about takeover...and punishment for the perceived enemy. The "causes" are all standing on a foundation of lies and wasted energy.

As for the "Christian power structure" it isn't any different than the union power structure or the rainbow coalition power structure or any number of other groups in America that try to influence politics. It would be nice if these groups were content to compete in the arena of ideas instead of thinking the mission was to "destroy" the opposition but sadly that has not been the case. The left side of the aisle has been the driver of destruction politics at least over the course of my life and I wonder how much this unwillingness to just compete is at the bottom of their use of demolition a la Saul Alinski to win power. I would bet it's a lot because the prize is the destruction of our republic and our freedom.

"You are going to have to distance yourselves from the most extreme members of your movement, which is becoming harder now that your representatives are becoming more and more extreme."

I have to assume you have included Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and perhaps Sean Hannity in the extreme group. Sad. I can only surmise that you have not spent much time with any of them. I will choose Rush as the one to defend here, not that he needs it. I have been listening to Rush for 21 years and I have learned so much in the process. He is a man who cares deeply about our country and about people. His schtick has always been absurdity. He makes absurd statements to make a point...and it works. People pay attention, they are challenged to think and to question assumptions and beliefs. Interesting people call Rush with information you wouldn't get from media or politicians. The callers give us a clearer sense of America...we see our beloved country in terms of the people rather than the stars, the media personalities and the politicians. The show is entertaining but that part of it is the wine in a seven course meal. If you haven't listened faithfully to Rush for about six weeks continuously (even when he makes you mad) you don't know the man at all and you never will. The Rush you know is the charicature created by those who wish him to disappear...not the man himself. It's an injustice to label Rush without getting to know him...mostly it;s an injustice to you. If you are sincere in desire to learn about politics, current events, founding principles and the conservative position he would be a very good place to begin.

K I visited your website and admit I didn't read it all the way through. I will respond anyway to the basic premise:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

**He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.**

Conservatives are not racist and are tremely extolerant in that they think all people should be free to pursue happiness in freedom under a set of laws that apply to everyone. The left claims tolerance but their behavior says otherwise. They divide into groups according to race or gender or size or style and then discriminate against those outside those groups ie, Christians, white males, conservatives.

The comparison to Hitler’s fascination with eugenics is way over the top. Conservatives believe that human beings give birth to human beings and that a new life is deserving of the same rights and respect as other human beings. This is a far cry from conducting human experiments, etc…which for me is more like an abortionist controlling outcomes of life and population.

Merit over equality…K I find it hard to believe you think that all people should have an equal outcome in life. What conservatives believe in is equality of opportunity but we recognise that some people are more ambitious than others, some want more than others, some value different things than others. This is the great thing about freedom…we, as individuals, can make the life we want not the life some bureaucrat or politician determines we should have in order to make things more “the same” for all. It is the left that is constantly denying our diversity in a quest to be fair.

Conservatives believe in competition but that doesn’t mean they don’t also cooperate. The very notion that these two things are exclusive is absurd. Ever heard of teamwork? All conservative organizations rely on teamwork along with the spirit of competition. Liberals use this argument because they believe competition is evil. Competition is about striving to be better…not destroying the other guy. People who love to compete are very familiar with losing...and are therefore understanding and generous toward the competitor once the game is ended. Good competitors are usually more apt to also be good sports.

Power politics and militarism over pacifism…I don’t know why liberals claim to be pacifists. Look at the war like tactics of Saul Alinski to “destroy” the opposition, to target leaders of the opposition for complete ruin, you can hardly think of them as pacifist. Organizations like ACORN and some unions are anything but peaceful negotiators. Conservatives hate war at the same time they are practical and realize that it’s necessary to be prepared to defend against the Hitlers of the world. They are willing to compete in the arena of ideas and so politically are more likely to avoid the use of strong arm tactics.

Dictatorship over democracy…once again you’ve got to be kidding. Liberals are the ones who form coalitions of groups to create pressure and to “dictate” policy through force. Do the greens create new products and industry to compete with old energy with the goal of eventually replacing the old sources by proving the product is superior? No, they seek legislation to favor their products and prevent the competition from producing…they seek legislation to force the people to use their products and to subsidize them giving an unfair advantage. They use the law to manipulate… that’s not democracy…it sure isn’t freedom or equality.

Capitalism over Marxism…I have to assume a fascist wrote this or he wouldn’t be making this comparison. Marxism and Fascism are both destructive to free markets…conservatives believe in free markets and the rule of law.

Realism over idealism…this is one of the big ones. Lefties love to see themselves as the only people on the planet to ever dream or create or imagine. It’s a rather egotistical position. Successful dreamers acknowledge that without a cavas a painting will remain only a vision in their heads…and without a buyer they would soon need to panhandle or get a job to put food in their mouths. This is a silly argument. People like Bill Gates or Henry Ford began with a dream and ideals.

Nationalism over internationalism…another absurd comparison. Another liberal dream. You can’t get along with neighbors without giving up national identity? Must we give up our personal identities to be citizens of our country as well? The idea that some international organization will bring world peace is so incredibly flawed and yet the left will gladly surrender our Constitution in favor of international policies…who will stand for freedom when dictators take over this one world body…liberals and group think…much more like the dictator who wanted to take over the world, Mr. Adolf Hitler.

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness…we covered this in the tolerant/intolerant claim. Same principles apply.

Common sense over theory or science…what about liberal thought is either oriented in common sense or science in any meaningful way? I need clarification before we can discuss this one.

Pragmatism over principle. More clarification…this sounds like gobbledygook. What is this author really trying to say…or are we back to dictator over democracy?

I won’t remark on the athiest/friendly church business.

Care to reply?

Tina,

I would first like to clear up a few notions you have about feminism that I believe are untrue.

Feminists, at least the ones I associate with, don't believe that the white male power structure is a "conspiracy," per se, with "The Man" or some centralized Illuminati-type organization controlling the world in order to preserve cultural hegemony. They don't blame all white men for sexism, and many feminists have pointed out the uselessness and absurdity of "white liberal guilt." The root of the power imbalance is actually much more subtle and thus, much more hard to fight. The truth is that we are all ingrained with certain sexist and racist ideas and images from the time we are young kids. While it's becoming less and less acceptable to point out differences among races, most of us are still constantly told by our parents when we are young that boys play with trucks, and girls play with Barbies, and this is the natural order of things. Believe me, I have seen plenty of baby girls play with trucks and plenty of baby boys play with barbies, as if it were the most natural thing in the world to them. But kids quickly learn that grown-ups don't like this, and most, not all, are socialized back into their respective gender categories. Feminists basically wish to end this. They want kids to be able to express their individuality and not have to worry about if they'll be scolded, or beaten up, or murdered because they aren't exhibiting the "natural" (actually completely socially constructed) characteristics of their gender.

Feminists recognize that this is a system that hurts men as well as women, although to a different degree. While it's true that "tomboys" are usually more accepted than boys exhibiting feminine qualities, this is because we privilege masculine qualities over feminine ones. Thus, we almost always privilege men over women.

It may not be a "conspiracy" that white men have historically been the inventors, the philosophers, the writers, and the leaders--but it sure as hell isn't coincidence either. It's true that most of them had to work very hard to accomplish their goals, and had to overcome certain obstacles. I don't think I've ever heard any feminist say that it was easy being George Washington or Shakespeare or Lincoln. But it was certainly EASIER for them then it would have been if they were born black or female. It is a fact that white men, for centuries in Europe and America, have been the only ones allowed to go to universities, to lead governments, or even to vote. Even now we still have only had one president of color and no female presidents. By your logic, this is simply because no woman or POC has ever worked hard enough to get there. That just doesn't make sense to me, and it implies that POC and women are inherently lazier or dumber than white men. I know that's not your intention at all, but I'm asking you to look hard and realize that this is exactly the root of your belief that POC and women are not systematically disadvantaged in this country. They may all be equally protected under the law, but we still have different expectations that make it harder for them to achieve. Look at all the articles that have come out questioning Sarah Palin's family life, or the way Michell Obama dresses, or whether or not Sotomayor is too "mean." These questions don't get asked of men.

These disadvantages are not the "fault" of any of us, directly. We are simply repeating to our children the lessons we have learned about men and women, what we believe to be the natural order of things. Liberals do this quite often (see all those so-called "progressive" sites making fun of Ann Coulter for being "mannish," or the blatant misogyny of any PETA ad.) Even die-hard feminists sometimes mess up and promote sexist stereotypes, because they are so ingrained in our culture and hard to avoid. But when they do, they usually apologize and vow to try and do better. That is all they are asking those at the upper end of the power structure to do. No one is interested in taking their jobs or putting another group at the top so that women and POC can rule over white men. They just want to create a world in which the power is not so centralized into one group of people. (Sounds rather conservative, to me. ;) )

So yeah, I want that power structure destroyed. Non-violently, of course. But it needs to go.

"As for the "Christian power structure" it isn't any different than the union power structure or the rainbow coalition power structure or any number of other groups in America that try to influence politics."

It is MUCH more powerful and ever-present, IMO.

"It would be nice if these groups were content to compete in the arena of ideas instead of thinking the mission was to "destroy" the opposition but sadly that has not been the case."

This is a good point. We are a culture which tends to sees competition as a war, rather than something that's good for all of us. But the Christian lobby has been guilty of this as well, and people like Michael Savage have tried to destroy Obama by comparing him to Hitler and implying that the death of his grandmother was a political stunt! Both sides are guilty of this.

"I have to assume you have included Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and perhaps Sean Hannity in the extreme group. Sad. I can only surmise that you have not spent much time with any of them. I will choose Rush as the one to defend here, not that he needs it. I have been listening to Rush for 21 years and I have learned so much in the process. He is a man who cares deeply about our country and about people. His schtick has always been absurdity. He makes absurd statements to make a point...and it works. People pay attention, they are challenged to think and to question assumptions and beliefs. Interesting people call Rush with information you wouldn't get from media or politicians. The callers give us a clearer sense of America...we see our beloved country in terms of the people rather than the stars, the media personalities and the politicians. The show is entertaining but that part of it is the wine in a seven course meal. If you haven't listened faithfully to Rush for about six weeks continuously (even when he makes you mad) you don't know the man at all and you never will. The Rush you know is the charicature created by those who wish him to disappear...not the man himself. It's an injustice to label Rush without getting to know him...mostly it;s an injustice to you. If you are sincere in desire to learn about politics, current events, founding principles and the conservative position he would be a very good place to begin."

Let's just say I'll agree to disagree here. I have heard Rush make countless racist and sexist statements. This is a man who blamed Elizabeth Edwards for her husband's affair, saying he understood why John would want a woman who "did something with her mouth other than talk." I don't need to hear any more from a man who would say something like this. Those are not the words of an intelligent human being worthy of being a major force in political discourse.

Tina,

Two misconceptions I think you made in your responses that hurt your argument.

I don't believe the author was saying that he thought Marxism was better than Capitalism, or that we all deserve equality of results. He was simply saying that many of Hitler's views fell along the conservative line, not that all conservative principles are inherently wrong. The author also did not seem to be saying that you couldn't have a mixture of two different principles, such as "nationalism" and "internationalism," just that Hitler extremely favored one over the other. I don't think the author put in a lot of bias of his own, he was just pointing out what principles Hitler adhered to--not saying that all of the principles were either bad or good. Hitler was an extremist, he took some principles that may have made sense on a moderate level and took them to far out and ridiculous conclusions.

Like I said, I think both sides have good points and perhaps Hitler was more left than right on some issues. But either way, the actions of Von Brunn and Hittler don't speak to what the majority of either conservatives or liberals believe. Whatever label they deserve, I just hope most people realize that.

Another example of liberals promoting sexist stereotypes would be David Letterman's recent Sarah Palin joke. I was angry about that. But thankfully, he apologized, and even acknowledged something that feminists have been saying for years: that it's not the intent of the joke that matters, but the effect.

K,
I will not pretend that I speak for you or the feminists you know but I feel confident to speak for women who grew up in the fifties and sixties since I was a part of that group. I feel competent to be critical of rabid feminists since I was a part of the generation that gave birth to modern feminism. Please note also that I was not talking about feminists in general but the hard core activists, many of whom became designated spokesmen (falsley) for all women and many of whom were rabid in their hatred of men.

*But kids quickly learn that grown-ups don't like this, and most, not all, are socialized back into their respective gender categories. Feminists basically wish to end this. They want kids to be able to express their individuality and not have to worry about if they'll be scolded, or beaten up, or murdered because they aren't exhibiting the "natural" (actually completely socially constructed) characteristics of their gender.*

There are studies that have found this conclusion to be false. There are always exceptions to every rule but in general women and men are different...very different. They learn differently, they are motivated differently, and they approach problem solving differently. Social construction was a theory used to promote feminism. I read all the copies of Cosmo...I remember it well. They claimed that girls were forced to settle for playing with dolls and discouraged from doing the better things that boys could do. This wasn't true in my childhood or with my friends. We liked girly things and dolls but we also played war, baseballand football, and cowboys and Indians right along with the boys. My friends and I crawled all over the canyons where I lived and loved to play in the dirt and make forts. We also had sewing clubs and we attempted to earn money by creating the "Busy Body Cleaning Service". In short we were kids and we did whatever interested us in the moment. We were not segregated in school and we were encouraged to go to college.

The scenario you provided of children being beaten into submission makes for a good story but I think it is, genrally speaking, patently absurd. (propaganda)

**While it's true that "tomboys" are usually more accepted than boys exhibiting feminine qualities, this is because we privilege masculine qualities over feminine ones. Thus, we almost always privilege men over women.*

Guess what honey...we always will "priviledge" men over women if your definition is that men get to do all the fun stuff and women have to do all the dreary stuff. Good grief! What a silly way to look at life. Men don't exactly have the option of staying home to give birth...nor are they truly suited to it even if they could...generally speaking.

It is crazy to try to make people conform so that the exceptions don't have to find a way to deal with their unique circumstance. We live in a free country with more opportunity and diversity than anyone could ever want. I say quit trying to figure everything out and LIVE...believe me life is too short to spend it trying to manipulate the world to fit your idea of what it should be.

** But it was certainly EASIER for them then it would have been if they were born black or female. It is a fact that white men, for centuries in Europe and America, have been the only ones allowed to go to universities, to lead governments, or even to vote. Even now we still have only had one president of color and no female presidents. By your logic, this is simply because no woman or POC has ever worked hard enough to get there. That just doesn't make sense to me, and it implies that POC and women are inherently lazier or dumber than white men. **

You're right, it is not my intention to say that women or POC haven't had obstacles, even very different obstacles, to overcome than have white men. What I am saying is that the tendency has been to blame, supplant, and in general make white men pay as if they had intentionally constructed things by conspiracy. Most of what happened for women and men was a matter of our differences. Men were stronger and they did not give birth. When life required brute strength and stamina for survival the natural order placed men in the forefront and women in a position of support. They often worked as a team with plenty of appreciation, if they had any sense, on both sides...and they didn't have time or energy to "figure things out". As for POC I am not learned enough to address this adequately but it is curious to notice that white Europeans were the ones who stepped forward to create universities, industry and all the attendant conveniences that have brought us to this land of plenty and ease. It is an accomplishment not seen in other civilizations, many where POC live...why not? What is the difference? And what do you notice about the esteem and opportunity given to women in the white societies as compared to many of the POC societies? (also note how men treat each other in those regions of the world)

"Look at all the articles that have come out questioning Sarah Palin's family life, or the way Michell Obama dresses, or whether or not Sotomayor is too "mean." These questions don't get asked of men."

Are you sure about that? People are rotten to the core and will, unless trained to be civil, do and say the most vile things. Men have learned to let this stuff roll off their backs. Women want to make the whole world change and stop that...good luck!

It becomes an issue in politics for me only when the media sides with Democrats and in fact works as an ally to ruin opponents. They covered (reluctantly and apologetically) Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior toward women but they also covered for him when they could. Bill Clinton made it clear Chelsea was off limits and the media complied...not so the Bush daughters. Sotomayer has not been treated very badly in the media. Condoleeza was treated very badly. Clarence Thomas was nearly ruined. Ronals Reagan & GWB were not treated with kid gloves...both very white men. In short it isn't women being treated badly it is people being people and politics being politics.

*They just want to create a world in which the power is not so centralized into one group of people.*

I don't have a problem with any person going as far and high as he can...most conservatives feel the same way. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that democrats use the law and legislation to force outcomes. Republicans would just get out and compete. Also the conservative men I know promote women on their merit. They prefer strong capable women. They hate whiney, manipulative women...just like they hate whiney, manipulative men.

(we don't get to "create a world" that's already been done. What we get to do is play in it. You and I are so fortunate to have been born in America where we have opportunities and are limited only by our own thoughts and level of performance)

*So yeah, I want that power structure destroyed. Non-violently, of course. But it needs to go.*

How sad that you think something must be destroyed when it has given you so much. Why not just become a part of that power structure...Oprah did it...a lot of women and POC have done it and I got news, it wasn't legisaltion or law suits that got them where they are. It wasn't protest movements either...it was people: men, women and POC opening doors and pushing against obstacles in their everyday lives.

Feminists have succeeded to such an extent that we are sending too many boys out into the world totally unprepared to become good men...this does not bode well for our society or for future generations. (I'll bet there isn't a college course that covers this subject)

* It (Chritian power structure) is MUCH more powerful and ever-present, IMO. *

Possibly a consequence of your youth. Most of my life Christians were in the background. They only became active when push came to shove in the early eighties...and with good reason IMHO.

*Let's just say I'll agree to disagree here. I have heard Rush make countless racist and sexist statements.*

I have to ask...did you hear Rush say them within the total context of his monologue or have you heard quotes taken completely out of context on other programs that want you to believe he is what they say he is? In other words how many hours of programing have you listened to yourself? Rush cannot be understood with a few soundbites. Like I said I have lisrened for many years and I can say unequivocally that Rush loves people and wants them all to succeed and he is NOT a racist or bigot. He is one of the finest men, and educators, in America today...your loss.

*

*Two misconceptions I think you made in your responses that hurt your argument. *** I don't believe the author was saying that he thought Marxism was better than Capitalism, or that we all deserve equality of results. He was simply saying that many of Hitler's views fell along the conservative line...*

I think you misunderstood me. The original question was whether what Hitler did was more along conservative or liberal lines. My arguments were meant to demonstrate why this author was wrong in his assessment that Hitler was an extreme conservative. He was not. But I'm not surprised that you have difficulty getting my point, conservatives in America are seen just as this man portrays them and the portrait is absolutely wrong!

There are a number of people who think letterman used Sarah Palin to prop up his ratings...his were not casual remarks but were planned. I'm glad he apologized but I'm not convinced he was sincere. The good that may come from this is that we are pushing the media and entertainers to clean up their acts. I for one am very tired of coarse shock humor. It lacks creativity...is it any wonder that adolescent boy/men are the main demographic? LOL

"K,
I will not pretend that I speak for you or the feminists you know but I feel confident to speak for women who grew up in the fifties and sixties since I was a part of that group. I feel competent to be critical of rabid feminists since I was a part of the generation that gave birth to modern feminism. Please note also that I was not talking about feminists in general but the hard core activists, many of whom became designated spokesmen (falsley) for all women and many of whom were rabid in their hatred of men."

I was speaking of modern, mainstream feminism. Yes, there are still radical feminists who think all men are potential rapists and become political lesbian separatists even though they aren't even attracted to women, but these are not the norm. If anything, I've found that most of the conservative writers at places like Townhall.com have a much lower opinion of men than most feminists do.

"There are studies that have found this conclusion to be false. There are always exceptions to every rule but in general women and men are different...very different. They learn differently, they are motivated differently, and they approach problem solving differently. Social construction was a theory used to promote feminism. I read all the copies of Cosmo...I remember it well. They claimed that girls were forced to settle for playing with dolls and discouraged from doing the better things that boys could do. This wasn't true in my childhood or with my friends. We liked girly things and dolls but we also played war, baseballand football, and cowboys and Indians right along with the boys. My friends and I crawled all over the canyons where I lived and loved to play in the dirt and make forts. We also had sewing clubs and we attempted to earn money by creating the "Busy Body Cleaning Service". In short we were kids and we did whatever interested us in the moment. We were not segregated in school and we were encouraged to go to college."

I'm glad you were able to perform activities that might be seen as unfeminine. Many girls don't have that benefit. And very few boys are allowed to do anything even remotely associated with being effeminate without being thoroughly shamed by someone.

"The scenario you provided of children being beaten into submission makes for a good story but I think it is, genrally speaking, patently absurd. (propaganda)"

Are you saying that this is too rare to be an issue, or that it just doesn't happen at all? Do you ever listen to the news, Tina? Surely you've heard about at least a few of the gay children who have either been murdered or committed suicide in this year alone. And just a few weeks ago, a few radio hosts thought it was acceptable to promote beating a child if he defied gender norms:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/06/04/krxq-radio-hosts-attack-trans-children/

Thankfully, though, these people lost their sponsors and have since apologized.

"Guess what honey...we always will "priviledge" men over women if your definition is that men get to do all the fun stuff and women have to do all the dreary stuff."

That's not my definition at all.

"Good grief! What a silly way to look at life. Men don't exactly have the option of staying home to give birth...nor are they truly suited to it even if they could...generally speaking."

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say many conservatives have a low opinion of men. I know plenty of fathers who are perfectly capable of staying at home with their kids. The reason most men are not suited to doing so is because they are not only not taught how to be, they are actively discouraged from wanting to learn how.

"It is crazy to try to make people conform so that the exceptions don't have to find a way to deal with their unique circumstance."

I think the entire point of feminism is that it's crazy to make people conform. In what way do you think feminists are trying to make you conform? No one is forcing you to do anything. Meanwhile, kids are being forced to not do what they love because it will make people think they are gay.

"We live in a free country with more opportunity and diversity than anyone could ever want. I say quit trying to figure everything out and LIVE...believe me life is too short to spend it trying to manipulate the world to fit your idea of what it should be."

So philosophy is meaningless, then? We should all just go about life without questioning anything at all? Come on Tina, you're smarter than that.

"You're right, it is not my intention to say that women or POC haven't had obstacles, even very different obstacles, to overcome than have white men. What I am saying is that the tendency has been to blame, supplant, and in general make white men pay as if they had intentionally constructed things by conspiracy. Most of what happened for women and men was a matter of our differences. Men were stronger and they did not give birth. When life required brute strength and stamina for survival the natural order placed men in the forefront and women in a position of support. They often worked as a team with plenty of appreciation, if they had any sense, on both sides...and they didn't have time or energy to "figure things out". "

But we live in a different world now, Tina. The differences between men and women just aren't as important as they were when we lived in the wilderness. We need to catch up.

"As for POC I am not learned enough to address this adequately but it is curious to notice that white Europeans were the ones who stepped forward to create universities, industry and all the attendant conveniences that have brought us to this land of plenty and ease. It is an accomplishment not seen in other civilizations, many where POC live...why not? What is the difference? And what do you notice about the esteem and opportunity given to women in the white societies as compared to many of the POC societies? (also note how men treat each other in those regions of the world)"

Hm...what you're implying here seems dangerously close to racism, Tina.

"Are you sure about that? People are rotten to the core and will, unless trained to be civil, do and say the most vile things. Men have learned to let this stuff roll off their backs. Women want to make the whole world change and stop that...good luck!"

I am quite sure that the attacks on women are very different than attacks on men, Tina. Didn't you write an article about this yourself just a few months ago?

Yeah, they want the world to change. Why shouldn't they? Isn't it a good thing to try and change the world for the better?

"It becomes an issue in politics for me only when the media sides with Democrats and in fact works as an ally to ruin opponents. They covered (reluctantly and apologetically) Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior toward women but they also covered for him when they could. Bill Clinton made it clear Chelsea was off limits and the media complied...not so the Bush daughters."

This is true. I do admit that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, and that they are harsher on Republicans than Democrats. The attacks on Sarah Palin's family are also unfair.

"Sotomayer has not been treated very badly in the media."

She has been treated absolutely horrendously by the conservative media.

"Condoleeza was treated very badly. Clarence Thomas was nearly ruined. Ronals Reagan & GWB were not treated with kid gloves...both very white men. In short it isn't women being treated badly it is people being people and politics being politics."

They may all be treated horribly, but in different ways because of their gender. No one ever asked if a male judge was going to make a stupid decision because of too much testosterone, or questioned why he wasn't married with kids, or if he was, why he wasn't staying home with them.

"I don't have a problem with any person going as far and high as he can...most conservatives feel the same way. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that democrats use the law and legislation to force outcomes. Republicans would just get out and compete."

Not at all true. I have seen many Republicans try to use the law to ban books they don't like, or to promote one holiday over another, or to stop people from getting married, or to stop integration.

"How sad that you think something must be destroyed when it has given you so much. Why not just become a part of that power structure...Oprah did it...a lot of women and POC have done it and I got news, it wasn't legisaltion or law suits that got them where they are. It wasn't protest movements either...it was people: men, women and POC opening doors and pushing against obstacles in their everyday lives."

Tina, just because there are exceptional women and POC does not mean that the world is equal for them. Why is it a bad thing to try and fight stereotypes and make the world a little easier for them? I just can't see why that's a bad thing.

"Feminists have succeeded to such an extent that we are sending too many boys out into the world totally unprepared to become good men...this does not bode well for our society or for future generations. (I'll bet there isn't a college course that covers this subject)"

Many colleges have gender studies classes that deal with masculinity studies. And I don't see how you could possibly blame feminism for men being immature. Feminists are constantly criticizing things like Girls Gone Wild or those Judd Apatow movies that tell men to act like sex-crazed teenagers even into adulthood. They hate the stereotype of the bumbling man who acts like one of the kids and has to be coddled by an intelligent wife found in almost every sitcom. In what way do you believe feminism is responsible for making men immature?

"Possibly a consequence of your youth. Most of my life Christians were in the background. They only became active when push came to shove in the early eighties...and with good reason IMHO."

And now they are extremely powerful and extremely pushy. More proof that the Republican party has moved much further to the right to accommodate the Fundamentalist movement.

"I have to ask...did you hear Rush say them within the total context of his monologue or have you heard quotes taken completely out of context on other programs that want you to believe he is what they say he is? In other words how many hours of programing have you listened to yourself? Rush cannot be understood with a few soundbites. Like I said I have lisrened for many years and I can say unequivocally that Rush loves people and wants them all to succeed and he is NOT a racist or bigot. He is one of the finest men, and educators, in America today...your loss."

Tina, please tell me. In what context is saying a woman should "do something with her mouth other than talk" acceptable?

" The good that may come from this is that we are pushing the media and entertainers to clean up their acts. I for one am very tired of coarse shock humor. It lacks creativity...is it any wonder that adolescent boy/men are the main demographic? LOL"

I completely agree.

* I've found that most of the conservative writers at places like Townhall.com have a much lower opinion of men than most feminists do. *

Please explain and name names.

*And very few boys are allowed to do anything even remotely associated with being effeminate without being thoroughly shamed by someone *

Where do you get this information and how many actually want to?

* The scenario you provided of children being beaten into submission makes for a good story but I think it is, genrally speaking, patently absurd. (propaganda)" *
*
-Are you saying that this is too rare to be an issue, or that it just doesn't happen at all? Do you ever listen to the news, Tina?-

I'm saying that the number (and severity) involved in this claim is overblown and exaggerated. There will always be kids that live in homes that are less than ideal and some that live in homes that are downright horrible. There are three hundred million people in America this isn't a problem that is epidemic.

*a few radio hosts thought it was acceptable to promote beating a child if he defied gender norms*

From the website:

ROB WILLIAMS [11:12]: This is a weird person who is demanding attention. And when it’s a child, all it takes is a hug, maybe some tough love or anything in between. When your little boy said, ‘Mommy, I want to walk around in a dress.’ You tell them no cause that’s not what boys do. But that’s not what we’re doing in this culture.
ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels.
ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.
ROB WILLIAMS [18:15]: Or because they were molested. You know a lot of times these transgenders were molested. And you need to work with them on that. The point is you don’t allow the behaviour. You cure the cause!
ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’
ARNIE STATES [29:22]: You know, my favourite part about hearing these stories about the kids in high school, who the entire high school caters around, lets the boy wear the dress. I look forward to when they go out into society and society beats them down. And they end up in therapy.

This sounds like shock jock banter to me, not serious social/political talk…there is a difference. But the larger point is that a remark made by a shock jock about hitting a fictitious child with a shoe when the child is found wearing high heels is hardly serious advice to BEAT a child. I would bet it was more a rather poor attempt at humor.

*This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say many conservatives have a low opinion of men. I know plenty of fathers who are perfectly capable of staying at home with their kids. The reason most men are not suited to doing so is because they are not only not taught how to be, they are actively discouraged from wanting to learn how.*

BOLOGNA...with all due respect. First of all, I did not mean to imply that men "could not" take care of children. In fact men are better suited to care for children in some ways. My point was they are not equiped to get pregnant, give birth, or breast feed infants and in general are not naturally inclined toward the roll of "homebody" or "nurturer" on a regular basis. Men have come a long way since the sixties and take a greater roll in the care of their children. I think this is a good thing but the reason is because they have a lot to offer their children as men...not as substitutes for mommy. In general men are better suited and more inclined to get out there every day to slay the beast. It's importsant that we both honor and appreciate this basic difference. Men and women have different qualities to offer and together create a balance that children need. Of course I speak in generalities. People need to work out how they will approach these rolls within the context of their own lives and preferences. A movement, special studies and/or legislation isn't required.

*just because there are exceptional women and POC does not mean that the world is equal for them. Why is it a bad thing to try and fight stereotypes and make the world a little easier for them? I just can't see why that's a bad thing.*

What if they are not exceptional? What if the main reason that POC and women don't advance is because for the last 40-50 years we've been saying they are disadvantaged and helpless without government assistance or intervention? What if in our fervor to help we have actually created an atmosphere for despair, for giving up before you even try. The most immediate and effective motivator is survival. We tore down actual barriers to getting a job or an education. No amount of help will make a person who has no personal incentive to better himself go for it. Pampering people, treating them like they don't have a chance "poor things" is detrimental to their well being and sense of urge. What if we have crippled them. Think deeply on this and you will find a gem of truth about the gender differences. Men don't generally abide excuses and soft nurturing because they know that coddling never helped them. They ask a lot of themselves and each other. Now granted I'm talking about centered men, successful men, but shouldn't we look to them to find a working model? And to answer your question, it's a bad thing because people don't appreciate what has been handed to them and they also don't grow from the experience.

* And I don't see how you could possibly blame feminism for men being immature. Feminists are constantly criticizing things like Girls Gone Wild or those Judd Apatow movies that tell men to act like sex-crazed teenagers even into adulthood. They hate the stereotype of the bumbling man who acts like one of the kids and has to be coddled by an intelligent wife found in almost every sitcom. In what way do you believe feminism is responsible for making men immature? *

I can blame feminism because the problem has exploded since the feminist movement and although it isn't the only contributing factor it is a major one. Women left their homes, put the rearing of their children in the hands of strangers or left them to their own devices on the streets and several decades later we have a high proportion of men (and women) in prison or living off the government in one form or another. We have higher rates of divorce and people living together casually without any sense of responsibility to themselves, their children or society. Drug use exploded. Boys are being trained or encouraged to deny natural tendencies in an effort to tame them where once they were taught to channel those natural tendencies in a positive direction and to temper them with discipline and reason. We even drug them.

*In what way do you believe feminism is responsible for making men immature?*

By making them unimportant. By dishonoring them AS MEN and trying to fashion them into something else. By desiring to make men and women the same when clearly they are not. By blaming them for just about everything in the world that doesn't work. By imagining that every "exclusion" women were sure was happening was somehow an intentional desire to oppress women. By calling them chauvanist pigs. By being incredibly ungracious and ungrateful for the things men did willingly for generations...like providing a home, food, clothing, vacations, entertainment, new fangled gadgets to make life easier...and so much more. The message we have sent to boys is that they have no value.

* And now they are extremely powerful and extremely pushy. More proof that the Republican party has moved much further to the right to accommodate the Fundamentalist movement.*

BOLOGNA...with all due respect. They have come forward to "meet" the opposition toe to toe...the opposition does not believe in free expression they demand that the opposition be silent...how dare you have an opinion! If they are all that powerful maybe it's because they are in the majority. At one time they were even called (or at least a big part of) "the silent majority"...pretty telling.

Tina, please tell me. In what context is saying a woman should "do something with her mouth other than talk" acceptable?

In the context of describing what a sleezey person John Edwards has been. Without hearing what was said before or after, however, it could be anything including something someone else said that Rush was quoting...the media does that all the time with Rush. The thing that's interesting to me is that you assume it was a put down to women when in fact it was a put down to Edwards who behaved despicably toward his wife...you aren't suggesting there aren't women who perform such "other things" proudly?

The truth is you have no idea what he meant when he said it but you are happy to assume it was against women in general.

For the record I do not put Rush in the category of shock entertainment. Rush does absurdity to make a point with an incredible level of effectiveness. His audience includes professional people, working people, educators, students, housewives and their children, retired people, people from foreign countries, POC, gays and reasonable leftists...if I left someone out I didn't mean to.

"Please explain and name names."

I have seen Bill O'Reilly and many other conservative pundits blame women for their own rapes. They imply that because of what the woman was wearing, or how drunk they were, or what part of town they were in late at night made their rapist unable to control themselves. This in turn implies that men have no self-control, and are potential rapists just by nature. This is dehumanizing to both men and women. Feminists, on the other hand, believe that men are the ones who can stop rape. They can not only use self-control, but they can learn to change the root attitudes and beliefs that lead to rape. I will get to what these root beliefs are in a minute.

Dennis Prager has also said some questionable things about men in his articles on marriage. For instance:

"Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control."

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/23/dennis-prager-hands-out-marital-advice/

I have seen this mantra repeated by many, many conservative columnists. While their intent is to show men as "heroic," in reality they are setting a far lower standard for men than they do for women. (This double standard goes far, far back. It has long been thought that women are inherently more moral than men, or at least that they "should know better." Read anything from the Middle Ages.) So if a man does meet the low standard of not being an adulterer, he is a "hero." Notice how a woman doesn't get the same kind of credit. This hurts both men and women. As a man, I certainly don't like being held to such a low standard. I don't want to be expected to be adulterous. And it's unfair to women that they are expected to be better without getting any credit for it.

In the same article, Dennis Prager compares a woman not being in the mood to have sex with their husband to a man not being in the mood for going to work. Only a person who didn't think a woman could find a man sexually desirable could make that comparison.

Another conservative columnist, Sam Schulman, has also insulted men in regards to marriage:

"But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?...Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom."

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/05/25/that-dweam-wivvin-a-dweam/

Schulman's whole article is insane--he argues that gay marriage isn't really marriage because the whole point of marriage is to control female sexuality, which I guess invalidates most marriages in countries not under Shariah law--but this passage is especially puzzling. He literally cannot seem to imagine that a man would want to pledge himself to a woman for eternity unless he was pressured into it by society. That is extremely dehumanizing to men.

"*And very few boys are allowed to do anything even remotely associated with being effeminate without being thoroughly shamed by someone *

Where do you get this information and how many actually want to?"

Where did I get this information? Tina, are you kidding me here? Seriously, there is nothing controversial or debatable about my statement. Everyone knows that boys are constantly shamed by society if they are outwardly effeminate. We know this because of scientific evidence gathered by having eyeballs.

I also know this because as a child I was scolded by adults whenever I would play with girly toys or refuse to watch sports. I had all girl cousins and I played with them more than anyone, so naturally I tended to do the same activities they did. It didn't make me gay, and I can only imagine how much worse my treatment would have been if it had, or if I were more outwardly effeminate today (I'm not all that outwardly masculine, either, though.) I was never beaten, luckily, and didn't suffer anything resembling emotional abuse, but was taunted by peers and adults alike, and I did feel shame sometimes. I didn't understand why all boys had to act one way and all girls had to act another. It didn't make sense to my child brain, and it doesn't make sense to my adult brain either.

How many actually want to? Who can answer that question? I would guess...a lot? Jeez.

"I'm saying that the number (and severity) involved in this claim is overblown and exaggerated. There will always be kids that live in homes that are less than ideal and some that live in homes that are downright horrible. There are three hundred million people in America this isn't a problem that is epidemic."

Tina, if, God forbid, your child or someone close to you is ever the victim of gender based violence, it will feel like an epidemic to you. Again I will say that your unwillingness to look at the root causes of this problem is a result of privilege.

And while the violence may not be epidemic, gender-based taunting is, without a doubt. "Fag," "dyke" and "p***y" are common insults in every school in America. These are the root causes of gender-based violence.

They are also the root of another cause of violence which is certainly an epidemic: rape and sexual assault. Last I heard, one in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. This is a result of a sexist culture which sees men as active possessors and women as passive receivers. Sexism is everywhere in the media. It's inescapable. Rape and violence are extreme examples of the consequences of such a system, but they are prevalent enough to where it's clear that the system is at fault.

"People need to work out how they will approach these rolls within the context of their own lives and preferences. A movement, special studies and/or legislation isn't required."

Considering that women are still shamed if they do not stay at home with their family and men are still shamed if they do, then yes, a movement and education are necessary. And considering that women still make less than men in the same jobs, yes, legislation is necessary for that issue, among others.

We will have to agree to disagree on the inherent differences between men and women.

"I can blame feminism because the problem has exploded since the feminist movement and although it isn't the only contributing factor it is a major one. Women left their homes, put the rearing of their children in the hands of strangers or left them to their own devices on the streets"

I don't think any child has ever been "left on the streets" because a woman wanted to work outside the home.

"and several decades later we have a high proportion of men (and women) in prison or living off the government in one form or another."

Funny, because feminism is constantly trying to stop the root causes of violence, which would lead to a less drastic prison population, and they stress being self-reliant and professional as well.

"We have higher rates of divorce"

Maybe because today people don't feel quite as pressured to remain in loveless marriages as they did in the past. This is a good thing.

"Drug use exploded."

This is feminism's fault because...?

"Boys are being trained or encouraged to deny natural tendencies in an effort to tame them where once they were taught to channel those natural tendencies in a positive direction and to temper them with discipline and reason. We even drug them."

For example?

"By making them unimportant."

Given that they still make up the vast majority of government leaders and CEOs in every part of the world, and that the media targets men far more than women, I don't see how men are seen as "unimportant."

"By dishonoring them AS MEN and trying to fashion them into something else. By desiring to make men and women the same when clearly they are not. By blaming them for just about everything in the world that doesn't work. By imagining that every "exclusion" women were sure was happening was somehow an intentional desire to oppress women."

Up until very recently, the exclusion of women in almost every field WAS intentional.

"By calling them chauvanist pigs."

Not all men, but certainly many are.

"By being incredibly ungracious and ungrateful for the things men did willingly for generations...like providing a home, food, clothing, vacations, entertainment, new fangled gadgets to make life easier...and so much more."

I would suggest you actually did some reading or tried talking to a feminist before you make these assumptions.

"The message we have sent to boys is that they have no value."

Ridiculous. Male privilege still exists. Men are still far more represented in positions of power than women. Men are still better able to get jobs than women.

What feminists posit is that all people have value, regardless of their gender, race, orientation, or religion. What feminists tell boys is that they have value even if they don't meet the impossible standards of masculinity. And they have value if they do meet those standards. It is our sexist society that tells boys they have no value if they do not meet those standards.

"In the context of describing what a sleezey person John Edwards has been. Without hearing what was said before or after, however, it could be anything including something someone else said that Rush was quoting...the media does that all the time with Rush. The thing that's interesting to me is that you assume it was a put down to women when in fact it was a put down to Edwards who behaved despicably toward his wife...you aren't suggesting there aren't women who perform such "other things" proudly? "

Tina, here is the video of what Rush said. His hatred of Elizabeth Edwards and of women in general is palpable. It is very clear that he thinks that Elizabeth Edwards "doesn't shut up," and this attitude towards women is a staple of his. He is projecting his own feelings onto Edwards, not talking about Edwards' "sleaziness."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pvyC5_51rU&feature=related

"His audience includes professional people, working people, educators, students, housewives and their children, retired people, people from foreign countries, POC, gays and reasonable leftists.."

I don't know why any gay person would want to listen to a man who clearly hates them.