I Enjoy Being a Girl

So, a conservative female friend forwarded the following picture to me today. The subject line read: Why Republican Men Are Happier.

The Married Women's Property Act Passed in 1948


Here are my thoughts.  I remember when I was a little girl and I learned about Sandra Day O’Connor. I remember reading that she was the first woman on the Supreme Court. And that just blew my young mind. She was the first woman – but the Court had been around for so long. I remember being confused by this. When I got older, I read about how she graduated third in her class at Stanford Law school, but that after she graduated, law firms would only interview her for secretary positions. And again, I was confused. Why would people think that she was worth less just because she was a woman?  Hadn’t she proven otherwise?

Despite my confusion, I never questioned what *I* could do. I believed – without question – that it wasn’t like that anymore. I believed that things were better now; that merit outweighed ignorant bias. That we valued intellect and ability more than superficial things. That if you just worked hard and were smart and good at your job, you would be valued. That’s what we were told, right?

Many years later, now a lawyer myself, I would be forced to admit that things were not as I had thought. Superficial things matter more. And if you want to overcome those superficial things and succeed on the merits, you have to have more drive and more bravery and thicker skin than I could ever have. You would have to be willing to always work harder than the others, to swallow your pride, to get used to being left out of things, to pretend that it didn’t bother you when your bosses ignored your successes while celebrating others’, to force a laugh when they talked about your legs/tits/ass, and to smile and nod your way through every joke and leer for shittier assignments and higher scrutiny.

And for what? To move “up” to a more elite group of people that ignore your opinions and look down on your work? I knew early on I wasn’t willing to do that. I wasn’t willing to give up so much of myself to be a part of something that had nothing of me in it.

So when I see things like this, joke or not, all I can think is that we really have gone nowhere. Smart women are mocked for being unattractive while people like Carrie Prejean are lauded as “brave.” What has Carrie Prejean done to make things substantively better for anyone?

I’ve accepted the fact that society is what it is – and that, no matter what people want to tell you, women are simply not valued the same as men.  Just saying things are “equal” doesn’t make it so. Fight all I want, I can’t change that. I can’t change millions of minds and all the things that reinforce thoughts like those behind this email. All I can do is raise my kids to know that it is utter bullshit.

If I do my job as a mother correctly, the LAST thing on *my* daughter’s mind will be the happiness of Republican men.


  1. southern female lawyer said,

    April 30, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    If only I had thought to name my daughter after a *real* female role model like Carrie Prejean instead of Sandra Day O’Connor.

    I mean, sure, she was the first female Justice and all, but what was she doing to make Republican men happy? Just sitting there all old and intelligent in that robe…

  2. Bob S. said,

    April 30, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Some of people are going to find this hard to believe — considering what I’ve been accused of on this blog — but I find this type of stuff to be rubbish.

    I dislike attacks on physical appearance — no matter the politics of a person.

    I find enough to talk about someone’s politics, philosophy, etc without resorting to cheap shots.

  3. April 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Republican men are happy? When did this start?

  4. Dr. Monkey said,

    May 1, 2010 at 12:27 am

    If one looks long enough, one finds pictures of those Republican women looking like hell. I know because I’ve found and used those pictures on my blog.

  5. A.Y. Siu said,

    May 1, 2010 at 12:47 am

    Because making men happy is what life is all about

    By the way, Hillary Clinton and Janeane Garofalo are hot-looking in addition to being just generally awesome and smart.

  6. Nance Confer said,

    May 1, 2010 at 7:22 am

    My thought — sexism lives.


  7. Ani said,

    May 1, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Republican men want parrots with tits or subservient whores. Which is why women still only make 75 cents to the dollar that a man makes, and which is why they voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and why they still only pride themselves on women who look like they’ve hugged a stripper pole or two in their lifetime. Do you ever see one slightly unattractive but extremely accomplished and intelligent woman on FOX News, hell no, everyone of them is a parrot with tits. And don’t get me started on Republican women “c-units”! I had my fair share of one that my husband went to high school with yesterday. Same type as Carrie Prejean, thinking life is a beauty pageant/ high school popularity contest. But ugly (and stupid) as hell because of who she was on the inside! I keep hoping that there will be some shift in society’s idea of “importance”, but I’m not holding my breath. Superficial importance is so much less demanding on people. However, rest assurred, your daughter will grow up and live a much more fulfilled life because you taught her that even though she though is beautiful, beauty is not enough.

  8. southern female lawyer said,

    May 1, 2010 at 9:31 am

    On the bright side…

    Today I asked SFL, Jr (my she-toddler) what she wanted to do today; her response, “Fight the POWER!”

  9. May 1, 2010 at 9:41 am

    […] The Southern Female Lawyer waxes philosophical on being a girl and delves into the mores of the superficial. […]

  10. Kristi Larkin Havens said,

    May 1, 2010 at 10:44 am

    FIght the Power! Hope lives. I immediately thought about using this image in my freshman composition course (but oh am I brave and strong enough to deal with the inevitable lack of questions about how the image is constructed; will I have to construct a counter image that ultimately reinforces the focus on physical image to get them to see any of the problems here?). It did make me think about the day a few weeks ago when the news reported that women had achieved equality w/men in terms of college attendance (or was it graduation– the attendance it seems has been equal for awhile), only to follow it up w/the statement about the continued inequity in pay for women.

  11. more cowbell said,

    May 1, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Sandra Day O’Connor is a republican. And yet she didn’t make the photo array. Of course Phyllis Schafly is a republican who knows all about “The Total Woman” and she did not make the cut either. I’m confused.

  12. Sam said,

    May 1, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Ha. If they want to play the “looks” game, then we lefties can always go get our A-listers: Scarlett Johannsen, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Charlize Theron, Natalie Portman… the list goes on and on. We’ve got more talent, and a MUCH deeper bench. And they must have gone to page 100 of Google Image to find an attractive picture of Laura Ingraham.

    Not only that: liberal women can actually think for themselves, which makes them attractive… and attractive.

  13. Celeste Peck said,

    May 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

    This is also a recruiting effort. In an attempt to recruit more of the younger generation, offer the men beautiful, brainless slaves and prey on the young women’s insecurities. Insecurities, planted by a patriarchal society, that their self worth lies solely in their physical attractiveness.

    As evidence of planted insecurities, please see the following razor commercials. Note the differences in the commercial for men’s razors vs the one for women’s razors.

    Mens razors:

    Women’s razors:

    The democratic women are deliberately portrayed to look like they want to castrate someone. Men in power fear smart women, and this image shows their fear and what type of attacks they are willing to resort to to maintain the status quo. It screams, “Coward” to me.

  14. Celeste Peck said,

    May 1, 2010 at 11:50 am

    I believe you Bob S., and I’m glad you found it distasteful.

  15. Ani said,

    May 1, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Also, ask your conservative friend “If Republican men are happier, then why do they have much higher divorce rates, teenage birthrates, and subscriptions to online porn sites?”
    This is just one of many source showing studies have found that the conservative “family values” are a crock-o-s#*t!!!


    BTW, I heart your blog!

  16. May 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Yeah, that’s my goal in life: to be in some old Republican creeper’s spank bank. Barf. Also, the idea of anyone finding Michele Bachmann or Ann Coulter physically attractive is equally vomit-inducing.

  17. musicmom1956 said,

    May 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    It saddens me that your female friend does not respect herself enough to find this offensive. The media has a lot to do with the way women view themselves as far as physical attractiveness and what a man wants. The looks of all of these females are superficial at best. One only has to listen to these women speak and you will instantly know which ones have the true beauty within. I have a son and I am proud to say that he views an intelligent women far superior to the beauty queen (he has been that way since I can remember). He is very lucky to be marrying a strong independent woman with a brain! It is our jobs as mothers to teach our sons the value of women to society as equal partners so they do not wind up like the Rushs’, Hannitys’ etc. who view those “good lookin’ babes” as what we as women should be. Both my husband and myself have worked very hard to rear creative individual thinkers in both our son and daughter. Hopefully we have guided them in the right directions. I would much rather have an intelligent, self confident, creative child than the one who judges and values people by their looks- oh yeah that is what I do have in both of my children and I am so proud!

  18. mike w. said,

    May 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    This is just dumb. political affiliation has nothing to do with physical appearance. Not to mention that some of the “attractive” Republicans they listed aren’t all that great.

  19. The Queen said,

    May 4, 2010 at 7:38 am

    The sad thing is that your friend the conservative woman is jumping right in there and judging other women based on their looks, when she should know that the right make up and lighting can do wonders. It would be easy to do a poster that makes the opposite point, except that it would be playing into the same tired stereotypes.

    The real question is, who’s making the greatest contribution? Imagine getting the opportunity to have lunch with three women from each group. On the Democrat side, any combination would be an outstanding experience (with the possible exception of Andrea Dworkin, because I imagine her being a bit preachy). Conversely, I honestly can’t pick a combination of three women from the Republican group that wouldn’t make me want to poke my eyes out with a fork before the main course arrived. In fact, having to spend 2 hours in the company of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Carrie Prejean might be my version of hell.

  20. mike w. said,

    May 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

    I honestly can’t pick a combination of three women from the Republican group that wouldn’t make me want to poke my eyes out with a fork before the main course arrived.

    That pretty much mirrors my thoughts on the Democratic side.

  21. The Queen said,

    May 5, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Well, Mike W., as long as you’re making that determination based on something other than looks, then we’ve found something we can agree on.

  22. roshan said,

    May 9, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Another straw man argument: “republican men are happy” and the sender really brought out the point that women especially republican women have the most value in their tits/ass and legs.

  23. 5th Estate said,

    May 9, 2010 at 8:39 am

    By way or response you could send your noxious friend this little list of happy Republican men made happy by their Republican women; :

    Newt Gingrich (souble adulterer, 3rd marriage)
    Rudy Giuliani (double adulterer, 3rd marriage)
    David Vitter (adulterer, client of prostitutes)
    Mark Sanford (adulterer)
    John Ensign (adulterer who paid his mistress Cindy Hampton for sex)
    Doug Hampton (who pimped his wife Cindy to John Ensign)

    Republicans that Republican women don’t make happy:

    Mark Foley
    Larry Craig
    Ted Haggard

    (h/t Crooks and Liars that brought me here) .


  24. bulbul said,

    May 9, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Now as a leftist-commie-peacenik-gay-abortionist-hippie guy myself, I will be the first to admit that most of the ladies on the Republican list are pretty damn hot. Exceptions (I like to be thorough in my treatment of this subject, kthxbye): Carrie Prejean (something about beauty pageant contestants I can’t stand), Debbie Schlussel (watch her video commentaries, you’ll see why) and Ann Coulter (the voice, oh my Lord, the voice!).
    But once we get past the looks, what do we get? Bimbo, actress, pundit, bimbo, pundit, news actress, actress, cheap pundit, evil pundit, news actress, crazy person, bimbo. So yeah, if the authors of this message were going for a representative sample of modern-day conservativism, I’d say mission accomplished.

  25. Terrible said,

    May 9, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Look at the women in any picture of a teabagger/republican gathering and compare that to the women in any picture of an anti-war crimes progressive gathering and you’ll really see just how stupid this stupid “joke” is.

  26. ATLERIK said,

    May 9, 2010 at 10:15 am

    This e-mail (i’ve recieved it before) reminds me of how us socialist Democrats have to keep telling old Republican Southern white guys to stop sending out/forwarding e-mails depicting Obama as a monkey or Witch Doctor or on the White House lawn farming watermelons….their excuse is always the same “I had no idea that was racist – I just thought it was funny”. I think that is the point – on the Right, this behavior & belief is not only accepted but it is held onto as a reason why they think that they are “better”. It’s like arguing with a 3rd grader…..just ignore it & it will be less important…

  27. WildRice said,

    May 9, 2010 at 10:30 am

    HHHmmm… Let’s See…

    Republicans List:
    2 Politicians – Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin
    2 Actresses – Angie Harmon and Janine Turner
    1 Beauty Queen – Carrie Prejean
    7 Journalists, Pundits and Media Personalities

    Democrats List:
    2 First Ladies – Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton
    1 First Lady of Journalism – Helen Thomas
    2 Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright
    1 Attorney General – Janet Reno
    1 Speaker of the House – Nancy Pelosi
    1 Civil Rights Lawyer – Lynn Stewart
    1 Political Activist – Andrea Dworkin
    3 Actresses/Comedians/Musicians – Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O’Donnell and Barbra Streisand
    (Note: Even our “celebrity personalities” are more talented.)

    I’ll take our list over theirs any day.

  28. May 9, 2010 at 11:52 am

    I remember a documentary in which Ted Haggard, standing with friends in front of his church, boasted about how much better and more frequent sex was for evangelicals. I saw it, like, a month before he was “outed.”

  29. professor fate said,

    May 9, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Looking at the Republican women in this old old internet trope – the phrase that comes to me is – “the lights are on, but nobody’s home” except maybe for Ann Coulter – She has the dead eyes of someone who has sold their soul to satan.

  30. grimeden said,

    May 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    The post largely ignores the flaws of the picture and the friend.

    Shouldn’t a point be made about the manipulative presentation? Old vs. Young. Approachable/Smiling vs. Hostile/Frowning.

    And then one should attack the friend for judging the worth of a woman solely based upon their looks and for stereotyping men as universally shallow. Each of those arguments is absurd. The friend is clearly a sexist–and probably stupid considering she couldn’t figure out the picture was manipulative and the claim is discriminatory and false.

    But what is done instead is an anecdote is brought up. Well … bye-bye reason, hello emotion. That’s fine if what you want to do is express your emotions, but it is certainly not a counter-argument to the provided material. At the end of the story we know sexism is real. Well, guess what, I knew it was real already because the image is sexist and your friend spreading around the material, as if it is sound, is sexist. A personal story is a fine device, but its presence here is in lieu of a rebuke.

    And then, having gotten nowhere with discussing the source material, you say, “we really have gone nowhere.”

    Okay, so instead of jumping to a hilarious emotional lament that the world is irredeemable evil and the future will be certainly be just as bad because millenniums of patriarchy have fostered continued sexism, perhaps some perspective on the recent advancement of women’s rights in the legal field, your field, would sufficiently ground optimism for the further egalitarian progression of society and the destruction of illegitimate sexism and misogyny.

    But I get none of this. What I get instead of a complete refutation of the idiocy of the image, the incompetence of the friend, and the invalidity that women are fated to always be discriminated against is: “I’ve accepted the fact that society is what it is… Fight all I want, I can’t change that.”

    And now I guess I have to commit suicide. I mean, if we’re going down the pessimistic fatalism approach to the world, life isn’t worth living if you’re the world’s doormat and have no hope of ever being anything else.

    But you made a post criticizing sexism, didn’t you? And you resolved not to allow your child to believe in such an invalid and discriminatory belief, didn’t you?

    So you’re not a fatalistic. You’re not particularly good at arguing, you didn’t make a single criticism of the friend or the image, but you’re not as committed to hopelessness as you profess.

    Thankfully, musicmom and The Queen offered insight about the flaws of the picture, the friend, and offered positive outlooks on combating sexism.

    But the original post was not inspiring. Maybe, if you had tackled the image, you could email back your friend explaining what she was really saying and why she shouldn’t say it. Then you might be able to change her mind. It wouldn’t be a million minds changed, but it would be one.

  31. Zach said,

    May 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    #23 can add George Rekers to the list, which is of course much, much longer.

  32. Greg Tedesco said,

    May 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I tend to be attracted to ladies with compassion, so I tend to like Democrats. Happy mothers day! Let us try to treat EVERYONE with RESPECT all the time. Say please, and thank you. Life is better when you treat people well.

  33. Steve said,

    May 9, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Wow. They really picked apples and oranges here. A bunch of Republican cheerleading talking heads versus real Democrat politicians. And didn’t Andre Dworkin work for Ronald Reagan? And what does any of this have to do with ability?

  34. Molly, NYC said,

    May 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    The R women above clearly spent hours getting ready for those photos. The liberal women looks like they all were photographed while trying to get some legislation passed or something.

    This has to do with the conservative mindset; the R women above look nice, but they’re expected to spend literally hours a day on their appearances to live up to conservatives’ extraordinarily narrow idea of what a good-looking woman looks like.

    The hours with hairdressers (and colorists! and manicurists. The time spent getting their faces on. The time spent buying, cleaning, choosing clothes, arranging ensembles. The starving to get into those ensembles, and the guilt when they don’t.

    And the expense!

    Oh, and the plastic surgery. What land-fill would Streisand’s nose be in if she were a Republican? (And re Streisand’s above photo–we all should look so good at 68 with no make-up.)

    And conservative women have to put in that effort. Because what happens to conservative women who don’t look like call-girls?

  35. Molly, NYC said,

    May 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    The R women above clearly spent hours getting ready for those photos. The liberal women looks like they all were photographed while trying to get some legislation passed or something.

    This has to do with the conservative mindset; the R women above look nice, but they’re expected to spend literally hours a day on their appearances to live up to conservatives’ extraordinarily narrow idea of what a good-looking woman looks like.

    The hours with hairdressers (and colorists! and manicurists. The time spent getting their faces on. The time spent buying, cleaning, choosing clothes, arranging ensembles. The starving to get into those ensembles, and the guilt when they don’t.

    And the expense!

    Oh, and the plastic surgery. What land-fill would Streisand’s nose be in if she were a Republican? (And re Streisand’s above photo–we all should look so good at 68 with no make-up.)

    And conservative women have to put in that effort. Because what happens to conservative women who don’t look like call-girls?

  36. Molly, NYC said,

    May 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Sorry about the double post.

    (If I apologize like this–since there are now two extra posts instead of one–does that make it worse? If so, I apologize for that too.)

  37. Nance Confer said,

    May 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Let us try to treat EVERYONE with RESPECT all the time.


    Let’s not. Let’s call sexists and idiots what they are.


  38. southern female lawyer said,

    May 9, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Ahoy all you Crooks & Liars folk and welcome aboard! Double/triple whatever posts are kosher. grimeden brought up the point about posing and cherry picking photos; I agree – because on what planet is Ann Coulter sexy?

    And while I also agree that there are some hot and sexy ladies across the political spectrum, my main issue with this email was that it suggests – excuse me, shoves down our throats the statement that women are only involved in politics to make the men feel all stiff and tingly.

    I wanted to put together a collage of photos that simply said ‘Why WOMEN Are Happier’ and put in pictures of people who actually did shit FOR women without giving a shit whether or not they looked good doing it. And yes, many women *did* look good doing it, but that wasn’t the point.

    Anyhoodle – thanks for stopping by! Come for the rants about misogyny, stay for the food pr0n and general mockery of idiots…

  39. Ron said,

    May 9, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Another C&Ler, here: Notice how the conservative poster puts a premium on youth, as well. Nothing wrong with youth. But then, the poster compares youth with maturity. The average age of the GOP women shown is probably in the mid 30s. The average age of the Democratic women (did you know that journalist Helen Thomas, who is in her 80s and regularly takes on Obama’s press secretary, is a Democrat? I didn’t) is perhaps closer to 50.

    Also, as someone else noted, the GOP images are clearly portraits, while the Democratic images are snapshots, and probably the least flattering ones the poster maker could find.

    Which says a couple of useful things: The poster, perhaps like other conservatives, values image over substance. Also, the poster is willing to play hard and fast with facts and to manipulate reality to make it better serve his (and it’s got to be a “he”) interests.

    Because, you see, at this point that’s all they’ve got.

  40. Windi said,

    May 9, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    On what planet is Ann “Colt-er” hot? She looks like the end result of a harpy, a horse, and a bottle of tequila.

    Also, I thought Republican men were happier these days due to the proliferation of gay bars.

  41. Michael said,

    May 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    The sad truth is that your conservative friend is a douchebag who thinks that posing for a pretty picture is more important than contribution. What a shame for a woman to do that to other women.

  42. Hipstercrite said,

    May 12, 2010 at 10:08 am

    oh. my. god. you are my new hero.

  43. mike w. said,

    May 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Let’s not. Let’s call sexists and idiots what they are.


    Let’s do that. I’d certainly say that someone who considers a person a “threat” for doing nothing more than carrying a piece of metal and plastic on their hip is an idiot.

    What do you think nance?

    At the very least I’d say that person has a gross misunderstanding of what a threat actually is.

  44. mike w. said,

    May 12, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I have to ask, does ANYONE find Ann Coulter hot?

    I mean seriously, I can understand Hasselbeck, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim Coulter was attractive (other than this E-mail)

  45. Nance Confer said,

    May 13, 2010 at 6:59 am

    What do I think? As I’ve posted before, Mike, I think you are adorable.

  46. mike w. said,

    May 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    And based on what I’ve seen from you I think you’re incapable engaging in rational thought and an adult discussion.

    You’re also apparently incapable of answering simple questions, but I think that stems from the aforementioned rational thought issues.

  47. JJ said,

    May 20, 2010 at 7:23 am

    The older you get, the less you may harumph at actual adults about what it means to think like one. Who among us wasn’t an sufferable twerp in college — but take heart, usually it passes after you live long enough to get pulled over by cops young enough to be your children’s friends . . .

  48. JJ said,

    May 20, 2010 at 7:27 am

    INsufferable, she surely wrote, but her long-adult eyes never saw it vanish! 😉

  49. Nance Confer said,

    May 23, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I apologize, Mike. Until JJ wrote this, I had no idea you were so young. 23. Wow! What a lovely age. So certain. So untested.

    Well, perhaps you will have the lovely experience of becoming less certain with age. I hope so. It is one of the better parts of growing up.

    I will leave you to it.


  50. mike w. said,

    May 24, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Ah, how sad. When you have nothing intelligent & rational to say simply attack my age.

    Have you figured out what the term “threat” means yet Nance?

  51. JJ said,

    May 24, 2010 at 10:15 am

    The witness opened the door, your honor, to the meaning of “adult discussion.” Permission to treat as hostile?

  52. marla said,

    May 25, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Looking at that lineup of Republican “beauties” (very subjective term and not applicable to many/most of them IMO), I kept thinking over and over, “You know what’s missing from this picture? A custard cream pie … right in the face!”

    Is that an unworthy thought? Probably, but my other choice was my fist in their face, so I think the pie is less violent?

  53. southern female lawyer said,

    May 25, 2010 at 9:56 am

    marla – I am generally a pretty die-hard pacifist, but I have to say that I would totally support the restrained use of pie-violence. Because pies are nice.

  54. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Yes JJ, “adult discussion,” which you and Nance apparently continue to avoid, thus proving my original point. You cannot look up definitions, provide substantive, factual arguments and / or counterpoints, and so you obfuscate and attack my age because your intellect does not allow you to attack the substance of my positions. To do so is childish, which is why I used the term “adult discussion” (something you folks refuse to engage in. it’s unsurprising given your bigotry and the outright intellectual weakness inherent in your positions)

    I mean hell, if I knew I was entering the discussion from a position of profound weakness and was incapable of rationally backing up my claims I suppose I’d probably engage in the kind of “discussion” you folks do (and delete comments & ban dissenters)

    Well, perhaps you will have the lovely experience of becoming less certain with age. I hope so. It is one of the better parts of growing up.

    Some things are black and white. Words have clear definitions. Perhaps with age you have forgotten this, or perhaps you never learned it in the 1st place. When objective facts and definitions conflict with your ideology a rational person uses what they’ve learned to question that ideology so that they may learn and grow. Others, like yourself and JJ, staunchly deny reality and everything that is right in front of them because you can’t let your ideology crumble under the weight of facts, definitions, and objective truth. It’s sad to see such close-mindedness and bigotry, but I can only show you the way, I can’t actually open your eyes. You have to do that yourselves.

  55. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Guns as reality, gun politics as adult discussion, gun molls (there’s something to look up in your dictionary!) as womanhood, gun nuts as gods? Even with the raging testosterone of youth and without a fully developed frontal lobe yet, surely can at least sound more grown-up and critically thinking than THAT.

  56. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Y’know, it really is disappointing when you come along and post something that proves exactly what I discussed in the comment just above yours.

    Do you have anything substantive to say? (I notice more petulant attacks on my age. sad but predictable) Anything at all? Any counterpoints? Anything that shows some critical thinking or even the slightest hint of reading comprehension skills?

    I’m still waiting for you to explain to me (rationally please) how someone lawfully open carrying is “threatening” or in any way guilty of “simple assault”

    Then again, I suppose asking you to back up any of your assertions with anything resembling rational thought and factual citations is like asking a 4 year old intelligently discuss national politics. I’m asking something of you that is beyond your capabilities. Besides, people who espouse bigotry are rarely eager to defend it once their bigotry has been exposed and ridiculed.

  57. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    What’s Up with [armed and dangerous] Fightin’ Mad White Women?

    Orly Taitz: Another Fightin’ Mad White Woman:

    . . . the “Kentucky Machine Gun Show,” which I shudder to think could be a real thing at which anybody’s children much less America’s lunatics and psychotics can roam free. . .

    “We are ignoring the broader mixture of paranoid apocalyptic fantasies that feed this troubling — and growing, perhaps into the tens of millions — group of people. People who told me they’re not just looking for the president’s birth certificate. They’re looking for his death certificate. . .

    Swensson chuckled. “If you cut off the head of the snake, the rest of the serpent is pretty much gon’ die.”

    Another man stopped to talk up the tea parties. “You know what the Patriot said: Trust in God and keep the powder dry.””

  58. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Also, in case you didn’t notice the only person that has brought up “guns as reality,” gun molls, gun nuts as gods or raging testosterone is you. I’m not sure where you’re getting these things from. You’re pulling useless stuff out of left field that has never been argued here by anyone. Frankly it makes me wonder what in the heck you are actually trying to say. Do you have a point? (even a flatly illogical one?)

    Once again you must obfuscate because you cannot logically refute the positions of others or in any way engage in discussion based on the merit & logic (or in your case lack thereof) of various arguments that are presented.

    Also, your continued insistence on personal attacks only shows desperation. It just shows everyone that you know you have weak positions. Since you can’t undermine the actual arguments of others (like an intelligent adult would do) you instead levy childish personal attacks at me as I calmly, logically and factually disprove what you have to say.

    It is in fact sad but predictable. I hope you don’t teach people to argue this way, because it’s a sure way to lose every debate you enter.


  59. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Tutorial to Young Mike on how to comment more effectively: calling me “petulant” is sexist but in a discussion about women, not too smart! You could call me “senile” instead and it would fit your age-sensitive position better.

  60. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Ahh, can’t comment intelligently so you’ll accuse me of sexism instead.The word “petulant” by the way has no sexist connotations, It is gender neutral. but I guess in an irrational mind stuck in a state of perpetual victimhood you see sexism everywhere. Or perhaps it’s simply more obfuscation on your part? Are you actively trying to prove me right and make yourself look foolish?

    BTW – your ignorant, bigoted post was referencing the Knob Creek machine gun SHOOT (Not show)

  61. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    I dont’ think you’re senile either. Just willfully ignorant, condescending, clearly bigoted and alltogether not particularly good at logically deconstructing an argument as a means of making your point.

    Having a good argument is near impossible when only one side seems able to bring intelligent points & counterpoints. When all you bring is nonsense all I can do is point it out as such and laugh. That’s hardly conducive to good discussion, but then good discussion requires logic and intelligence from both parties.

  62. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    BTW – what’s your issue with TX CCW holders being able to skip capitol inspection lines? Do you have some rational, factually based opposition to it? (I’m laughing, but I figured it can’t hurt to ask)

    And Texas should secede because……….OH MY GOD! Governor Perry shot a wild Coyote! The horror! If I’m walking my lab and a coyote approaches him I’m shooting the coyote as well. What’s the big deal?

    You also show horrid reading comprehension in your post. The huffpo article quite clearly states that he DID NOT have his security detail with him during the jog, as you claim in your blog post.

  63. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    the Knob Creek machine gun SHOOT (Not show)

    Oh, yes, good note, that’s so much saner-sounding! LMAO

  64. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    What exactly is “insane” about going to a shooting range to, y’know, shoot guns! OH MY GOD! THEY’RE SHOOTING GUNS AT A RANGE! Clearly they’re all INSANE!

    Projection at it’s finest courtesy of JJ.

  65. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    More gun news for Mike, with my customized headline:
    Alaska Newspaper Apologizes for Suggesting Sarah Palin Shoot to Kill Her New Neighbor

  66. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    How many people have been killed at the annual Knob Creek shoot by all these insane gun nuts? (since you claim they’re not sane)

    Oh wait! Your objective is ignorant fearmongering, so why would you bother to actually know anything about the event in question & its history?

    In fact, the only death I can think of off the top of my head at ANY large “machine gun shoot” was a couple years ago in Mass. That was a case of a young boy being handed a gun that he could not physically control. He ended up shooting himself.

  67. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    And what does that link have to do with anything currently being discussed? Aside from showing the violent tendencies of anti-gunners.

    Intelligent discussion please. Give it a try if you’re capable.

  68. mike w. said,

    June 3, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    And honestly, the paper made a good point, but leave it up to liberals to go apeshit. Mcginnis is an ass.

    Oh, and I see more obfuscation and inability to offer counterpoints from you once again. You wouldn’t think it’d be all that hard. I’m hardly trying and you still can’t keep up.

  69. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Quite right, I’m correcting the error. The jogging governor was without personal security, except of course for his concealed laser-sighted pistol. And deadly aim. Still calls himself pro-life though, I’ll bet . . .

  70. JJ said,

    June 3, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    SLF, I’m making progress toward your OP’s goal for your daughter: the happiness of conservative men is far down my priority list these days. 😉

  71. mike w. said,

    June 4, 2010 at 8:06 am

    I wasn’t aware the abortion debate applies to coyotes. Perhaps in the mind of an irrational anti-gunner it does….

  72. southern female lawyer said,

    June 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Alright kids – as much as I enjoy a spirited debate, this has gone on for quite some time now, and across several threads, and some of the other readers are complaining. Either wrap it up in the next post or two or take it somewhere else. Thanks – SFL

  73. JJ said,

    June 4, 2010 at 8:54 am

    (Growing up helps ignorant but not flat stupid; Stupid’s only hope is not exposing itself so publicly.) Intelligent pro-life thinking is more akin to Darwin, Dawkins and Douglas Adams:

    If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat.

    Life is a level of complexity that almost lies outside our vision; it is so far beyond anything we have any means of understanding that we just think of it as a different class of object, a different class of matter; ‘life’, something that had a mysterious essence about it, was god given’and that’s the only explanation we had.

    The bombshell comes in 1859 when Darwin publishes ‘On the Origin of Species’. It takes a long time before we really get to grips with this and begin to understand it, because not only does it seem incredible and thoroughly demeaning to us, but it’s yet another shock to our system to discover that not only are we not the centre of the Universe and we’re not made of anything, but we started out as some kind of slime and got to where we are via being a monkey. It just doesn’t read well.

  74. JJ said,

    June 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Thanks for all your patience SFL – I won’t respond to gun-nuttery again here.

  75. mike w. said,

    June 4, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Fair enough SFL. I think I’ve made my point and pretty well destroyed every bigoted position JJ or Nance have spewed.

    I do have to laugh at JJ once again proving me right. Refusing to even attempt to engage in adult discussion and instead calling me “stupid.” I suppose she thinks insults make her look good, but damn, at least make the insults good ones.

    What is it with anti gunners and a complete aversion to calm, rational debate? JJ is the embodiment of Sad But Predictable.


  76. mike w. said,

    June 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Growing up helps ignorant but not flat stupid; Stupid’s only hope is not exposing itself so publicly.

    Ah, so we agree on something. I for one am glad to see stupidity and bigotry like you’ve espoused. I’m glad you expose it publicly for all to see.

  77. July 1, 2011 at 1:07 am

    I just added your blog to my blog roll, I pray you’ll consider doing the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: