Skip to comments.Why are the rules always different for women?
Posted on 02/01/2014 6:55:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Am I the only reader who talks to her newspaper? Who chokes on her steaming cup of café con leche and wonders out loud about fundamental issues of decency and fairness?
Why, oh, why do we continue reading that Wendy Davis, a state senator who wants to be the first Democratic governor of Texas in 20 years, left her daughters, then 2 and 8, with her then-husband, Jeff Davis, while she pursued a law degree at Harvard University?
Given that he is the father of one of those daughters and the stepfather of the other, it would make more sense to write that he stayed with their children, or that the children stayed home with their father.
And, given that no one disputes that fact or seems damaged by it, what is the big deal? What does it say about our society, about us, that we continue to penalize women, but not men, for pursuing their dreams?
Some say the issue is not what Davis did or didnt do, as a mother and as a wife, but that she fudged on the details as she runs a campaign that heavily relies on the narrative of her private life: teenage bride, early divorce, single mother of one, brief stay in a trailer, married again, another child, law school, a husband who helped pay for her education, divorce after a long marriage....
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
I am so fricken tired of gender politics.
At the end of the day, women pretty much go what they wanted.
Now they’re still unhappy. Well, on those matters, that pretty much makes it unanimous.
Selectivity to the extreme. I have read on more than one FR thread that Ms. Davis filed for divorce shortly after the sucker paid for her Harvard education.
The day after he made the last payment
the natural state of women is unhappiness. if you ever need to know what’s wrong in your relationship, house, car, etc just ask and a list of stuff will be uttered.
it’s why God made Eve last. didn’t want someone over His shoulder saying “it’s nice, but what about...” for every single thing.
If Wendy Davis would have run on the platform of, “I left my family the day after my then husband finished paying the bills for my Harvard Law degree, and I am continuing my anti family parade, using my newly found fame from my tirade at the Texas State house in favor of keeping late term abortion legal, which wouldn’t be interesting but for the fact that I look fabulous, and use that to my advantage, while men say they’ll vote for me because whatever I am for doesn’t matter to them, as long as I look like this”
Then we could talk.
But this being her platform, while she pretends to be on a different platform, she is a complete liar, running on the deaths of unborn babies, and her destruction of her family.
So, that’s a problem for decent people.
Men who don’t care, excusing her for her looks, and democrats want to support her. Fine. It’s a free country. Sort of.
But they don’t get to have it both ways.
This stupid article is a demand to have it both ways.
Sorry, lady. Vote for her. But you and she and all of her supporters are sleazy.
That truth will not change.
Find something else to write about.
How about because it's true, it's relevant to her lack of character and because it's unseemly. That you (Mirta) are more concerned about appearances than core issues tells me that you are a leftist.
Red Herring Alert.
Mirta knows the controversy isn't about the circumstances of Wendy Davis's life and education.
It is about the lies she told and the padding of her resume with fantasies to gain sympathy.
Wendy tried to follow in the footsteps of Harvard's Lie-A-Watha but Texas isn't Massachusetts and she got called on her lies and prevarications.
I resemble that remark.
A break, please.
Stanley Ann Dunham.
“Am I the only reader who talks to her newspaper?”
Yes. You are also one of a very few who are still READING a newspaper.
LOL, I hear ya...
I wonder, who does she think that statement is making points with.
General percentage of men in the electorate that her leaving her children that would fail to vote for her (IE: those who MIGHT vote for her to begin with): near zero.
General percentage of women in the electorate who might let this impact their voting: 20%
So the author effectively is chiding the media for running a story that undercuts the liberal by waiving around flash and mirrors, as the entire goal is to obfuscate the fact that she took off from her kids to go pursue a law degree.
The author thinks that so long as you hide it in plain sight (IE: father took care of the children while she was at school..), this is just a fine way of confusing and hiding facts from women voters as they’re too stupid to not see it through to the liberal conclusion.
As normal, the only ones who constantly and consistently insult women are liberals who take them for granted, you outright lie to them, and believe them to be too stupid to think on their own. Way to go liberals.
“Am I the only reader who talks to her newspaper?”
Does your newspaper talk back?
What is this? An impromptu meeting of The He Man Woman Haters Club?
These are abortionists
Because she sold a cock and bull false history of being a single mama (as if she never married, let alone twice, or had someone raising her kids and paying for her degree).
It's called informing the public that they are being sold shinola.
It was OK for pResident Trayvon to have Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce records made public to clear the field for him to become Illinois’ Senator.
The Wendy Davis scandal doesn’t even involve unsealing sealed records.
Seems like fair game to me, if Ryan’s divorce records were fair game.
But Democrats always think that standards are for their enemies, and it is so unfair when they are held to any.
She’s just mad because she know that Wendy Davis won’t win
S A D
She defended botched abortions when she railed against legislation to protect patients’ safety.
Stupid author..... the rules are no different. If a man had done this he would have been skewered for being a dead beat dad.
Wendy Davis and her supports.... the only words that come to mind aren’t fit for mixed company
Not all. I respect conservative women highly. I also believe they are a majority -- it's just that the liberal minority are very loud.
She is a butcher. An enemy of the institution of the family. Beautiful to look at, as the enemy would design it, and does so, when necessary.
Please include a (Barf Alert) in the next thread title that you post relating to this Professor.
The ramblings of Prof. Mirta had little to do with the title she had on her(?) article, and much to do with nothing.
Abortion Barbie must be in one heap of electoral trouble if a Columbia University Professor Bag Lady has to boil down all Barbie’s lies into a nondescript, compact sentence that omits the twist pack of lies surrounding every compacted detail.
Good luck, stick a fork in her - she’s done.
Davis just had several very late term abortions.
As the”0”ne stated no woman should be punished with a child.
Call a waaaambulance for that whiner! Abortion Barbie is castigated for advertising herself as a single mom struggling against great odds to fulfill her dreams. That she found a sugar daddy to pay for her education and watch her kids for her was NOT part of her biography. She’s paying the price for lying.
Bleached and packaged. She doesn’t look like she did in law school.
The logic displayed by this author is as leaky as an unstanched wench.
Wendy Davis isn’t about Dems winning Texas and turning the state Commie/Socialist/Libtard (or “Blue” as they’d say these days but RED was once the color of Rat victories and it is more fitting socialist revolutionaries).
The Wendy Davis campaign is about a getting national spotlight on “The War on Women”. Let her draw some lightning strikes. Let her be the poster child of the woman who stands up to those who want to restrict (late term and unsafe) abortions. She’ll get national funding. She’ll be good for the War on Women meme. Her actual history, politics, or state campaign means nothing in the big picture. No other reason for libs from coast to coast to be trumpeting her name.
Maybe she’ll use her war chest in a few years to win some office (maybe a Congress seat in Travis County where Austin is).
I find it really hard to keep reading when some pretentious individual finds it necessary to broadcast the fact she drinks “steaming cafe con leche” instead of plain old coffee.
Stanne, I think you’ll note that there aren’t any supporters of abortion in these parts. People make loose comments that don’t mean much in jest. Don’t take them to heart.
Yeah, ‘all women are miserable, and that explains this defense of an abortionist’ is always good for a laugh.
They have half the money and all the p****. You think that wold be enough for them.
If someone was defending an abortionist, I missed it.
As for other loose comments that don’t clearly state my beliefs, I’m not going to pounce on each of them when it’s clear the vast majority of folks here are able to judge them on their own.
Sometimes you just lighten up, and cars don’t swerve off streets into homes, nobody hangs the neighbor lady, cats and dogs don’t go at each others throats, and people in public don’t have to take others to task because they got a little of track.
Life goes on. You’ll see...
I get your point. Heh heh heh... We’re in trouble now...
“the natural state of women is unhappiness. if you ever need to know whats wrong in your relationship, house, car, etc just ask and a list of stuff will be uttered.
its why God made Eve last. didnt want someone over His shoulder saying its nice, but what about... for every single thing.”
“LOL, I hear ya”
“They have half the money and all the p****. You think that wold [sic] be enough for them.”
This doesn’t take over the conversation about a late term abortion legislator, and move it into condemning all women?
Oh. OK. Lighten up.
Problem is, it’s not funny. Men who aren’t gentlemen don’t have respectable women in their lives about whom they could imagine people talking this way about. So they can’t relate to the view that it is obnoxious.
By referring to all women, the category the writer places herself becomes all women, abortionists or not, and abortion proponents are not as bad as all women in general.
If you don’t know that, I’ll bet there won’t be any self respecting ladies at any of your all’s super bowl parties this evening. Just a bet.
By the way:
“its why God made Eve last. didnt want someone over His shoulder saying its nice, but what about... for every single thing”
Here’s Adam’s virile reply:
The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Don’t be deceived that men are not every bit as culpable in contraception (and abortion, which is bloody contraception), the way Adam is just a culpable, here.
And don’t be deceived that women are aware of getting the finger pointed at them, and the animosity.
In Catholicism, from Ephesians (St. Paul’s Christian philosophical lectures), it is said that womens’ happiness is a reflection of how virtuous her husband is.
Okay, you’re convinced I hate women, disrespect them with frequency, and defend abortionists. Is that about it?
Why would I possibly suggest you might want to lighten up?
I was pointing out that some people would take it as changing the subject from abortionists to women in general, in reading this misogynist exchange. You were refuting it.
Still are. We’re done here, I am sure.
Stanne, overreact much?
Thankfully you’ve pulled out the last insult in your quiver, misogynist.
Does it ever occur to you that there is no word that describes the hatred of men in this fashion?
Think about that. Nobody took the time to develop a word that references misogynist like action against men.
Why do you think that is?
Is it because only men can be haters?
Is it because women thought there needed to be a word like this for actions against them.
Is it because men simply don’t operate on a level where they feel the need to dismiss actions based on the concept negative things said about them would have to be broad enough to cover all men?
Could it be that women are so fragile, that they needed a word men didn’t?
Could it be that women are so shallow, that they can’t deal with rejection, criticism, and the daily strife men do without having to be so petty?
Thanks in advance for the “reasoned” answers I’m sure will come.
Me, too. I do have a "no chicks" rule when it comes to electing public officials - unless the other choice(s) are totally unacceptable.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I will say that I am very under impressed with how women’s votes go for men like Clinton and Obama. It has actually caused me to wonder if a significant enough percentage of women are capable of judging these candidates logically. Should they be participating?
As for electing one to office, it depends on how they handled their previous position. What was their previous position?
What are their views. Do their views telegraph loop-holes in logic?
In short, these are the types of things I consider when it’s a man. Men having voted down Obama and Clinton, I haven’t made a review of whether they should be participating or not. If they can weigh the issues, and come down on the right side, that’s good enough for me.
While that’s funny, no denying it, that isn’t my overall view of women and their attempt to expand on their traditional roles.
I will say this though. Our society has paid a very heavy toll for women leaving the home and joining the work force. Our homes are failing at alarming rates, and our children are being abandoned to raise themselves.
We have seen the results. Now it’s time to reassess. Were the people who predicted this right in the 70s and 80s?
Is our society better off today?
There are many factors to be sure, but I think we’ve made a big mistake in undervaluing the home, and over valuing participation in the work force.
Something is rotten in Denmark, when one wage earner can’t go out and earn a living that will sustain their family. Today it’s hard enough for two to do it, in most instances.
Women will say that it shouldn’t be them who should be staying home. It’s just as good an idea if the man stays home. Strangely, when it comes to divorce, that logic is long forgotten. Oh, my darlings should live with me. I’m their mommy.
My husband, and his friends, rightfully refer to them as, “manhaters”.
Distinguishable from the icky Miss Davis by her willingness to get close to men in order to extract money from them, AKA, “golddiggers”.
Shall I go on? Or are you now remembering that there are plenty of derogatory terms for women, earned and acquired by mere association, no doubt in your vocabulary.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you, it’s not my view either, but IMHO, the dems and feminists do a bang-up job of painting conservatives with that mantra.