See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The ad the cows don’t want you to see | BitsBlog
2. Planck's Constant
3. Tel-Chai Nation
4. Tel-Chai Nation

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.

   Gender card has been played.

2. #2
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.

   But the ones who run the organizations and the magazines—

   Contradiction?

3. #3
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm, unclemonkey said:

   And yet, as cheerleaders for the palestinians, they seem to have no problem with women being treated as slaves and property. Not to mention blowing themselves up for the cause.

4. #4
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm, MDH3 said:

   I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.,

   based on what? Please.

   Other than that, her points are well taken.

5. #5
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:42 pm, aunursa said:

   So would Ms magazine reject an ad featuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Secretary Condoleeza Rice?

   (Would Ms. argue that such an ad shows favoritism because presumably two of them belong to the same political party?)

6. #6
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:45 pm, granite said:

   “I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.”

   So tired of hearing that…as are my wife and my mother!

7. #7
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, madchef said:

   Where is their outcry of so called “honor killings”?

8. #8
   On January 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, uhangtight said:

   Yes, it would pi$$ off the Islamofascists so we must dhimmi to them at all costs. Even at the cost of Woman’s Rights.

   Please, they are not concerned about women. They are concerned about Abortion. Period. That is all that they want advertised, free abortions all the time anytime.

   Pathetic.

9. #9
   On January 11th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, PBoilermaker said:

   I’m a big fan of Israel.

10. #10
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    I saw the ad and there’s nothing offensive about it. It’s ridiculous they’re not allowing it to be published.

    OK, maybe I would’ve done the ad in color, but that costs more.

    But this?

    A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is.

    So, let me get this straight. It’s “OK” to run a pro-abortion ad, but not an ad showing three successful women of Israel.

    How…I’m at a loss for words here.

11. #11
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:29 pm, jimwesty said:

    One cannot come to another conclusion other the Ms. mag is prejudice against Isreal…or is not really about strong woman who have empowered themselves on a national level…

12. #12
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pm, Lifeofthemind said:

    The punch line is that the MSM are denigrating and rejecting the Israeli liberal accomodationists aligned with Olmert. Proof there isn’t a coherent Vast Left Wing Conspiracy only a collection of muddle headed group thinkers who end up eating their own; with maybe a small core of conspiracy fanatics playing along.

13. #13
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, navywife91 said:

    “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is.

    I would say that’s one statement that bothers me. I’m confused. I thought the picture was about women’s empowerment.

14. #14
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm, Archon said:

    I love Israel. Beautiful beaches, great weather, and some of the best looking women on the face of the planet, a lot who, incidentally, carry fully automatic firearms….I love it.

15. #15
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm, navywife91 said:

    I would say that’s one statement that bothers me. I’m confused. I thought the picture was about women’s empowerment.

    Wow, I managed to mess that up. Oops!

16. #16
    On January 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, graysonret said:

    Nothing new with these left-wing ladies. They pick and choose what they want to promote in their quest to promote socialism/anarchism. “Rights of women” is the cover story to mask what they really want. It’s part of the left-wing mentality to hate Israel. They are quiet when it comes to Arab abuses of women, and, of course ,they promote abortion, as a way to control women with their philosophy. They will also only support left wing female candidates, which I’m sure you’ve noticed.

17. #17
    On January 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, handyandy said:

    In America it is the Republican party that strongly supports Israel. It is the Democrats who are critical of Israel and sympathetic to the Muslims.
    The irony is that by and large Jews in America are liberal and vote democrat.
    I guess that supporting their godless church of liberalism is more important than supporting a God fearing, educated, civilized country of people who are surrounded by blood thirsty murderers. Ms. magazine staffers are typical liberals. No ethics or morals, bash America every chance they get, but are not adverse to enjoying the fruits of our society. How long would their magazine last in a Muslim country? Long enough to blow it up with them inside it.

18. #18
    On January 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm, bloghooligan said:

    it’s the siberian leftist double bluff.

19. #19
    On January 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    The irony is that by and large Jews in America are liberal and vote democrat.

    I can’t figure that out either. I’ve been wondering for a couple of decades now why that is.

20. #20
    On January 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    There is a lot of ironing associated with this story…

21. #21
    On January 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    

22. #22
    On January 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, magicarb said:

    As shown elsewhere:

    “No woman is illegal.”

    But apparently some women are less legal than others.

23. #23
    On January 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm, frizzbee said:

    Gender baiters
    race baiters
    homosexual baiters
    All seeking special treatment, with no intention to provide ability and responsibility.

    Each group happy to kill babies…
    America the beautiful my ass.

24. #24
    On January 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm, chow said:

    The funny thing about all of this is that most, if not all, my liberal acquaintances seem to think that the isreali high court is a model our supreme court should emulate (you know, giving into the enemies of liberty)

25. #25
    On January 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm, TexasTiger said:

    I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S., although we have come farther than ever before.

    Tragic. Some things haven’t changed in two thousand years.

    BRIAN: Larks’ tongues. Wrens’ livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars’ earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get ‘em while they’re hot. They’re lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar. Tuscany fried bats.

    JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

    REG: Agreed. Francis?

    FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–

    STAN: Or herself.

    FRANCIS: Or herself.

    REG: Agreed.

    FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

    STAN: Or sister.

    FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

    REG: I think you’d finished.

    FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

    REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.

    STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

    STAN: I want to be one.

    REG: What?

    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.

    REG: What?!

    LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.

    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

    LORETTA: I want to have babies.

    REG: You want to have babies?!

    LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

    REG: But… you can’t have babies.

    LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.

    REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! — Where’s the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

    LORETTA: [crying]

    JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

    REG: What’s the point?

    FRANCIS: What?

    REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!

    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

26. #26
    On January 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, garyt said:

    Would MS and NOW make some comments about the strong girls who keep getting killed by their fathers? NOW and MS seem pretty silent when it comes to that. The innocent girls getting killed are indeed strong women standing up for what is right even though it cost them their lives.

27. #27
    On January 12th, 2008 at 1:16 am, JohnHolliday said:

    TexasTiger - love it! (Life of Brian, I believe.)

    As for me, on September 10, 2001 I was about as anti-Israel as you could get. I was against their policies, their torture, and the U.S. sending them so much money. I probably would have defended Ms. magazine and their anti-Israel stance.

    On September 12, 2001 I did a complete 180. Whatever Israel wants to do to the jihadis is fine with me. I support them now because they are fighting the jihadi scum in their own back yard. Anything the U.S. can do to help, we should do.

28. #28
    On January 12th, 2008 at 9:56 am, Larraby said:

    I think I understand the peculiar form of psychosis that is at work with Gloria Steinem and the people who run Ms. Magazine. To them, being Jewish or being associated with Israel is a sign of being serious uncool. To them it is a sign of being nerdy, of not being part of the revolution. That is why they can associate with the Palestinian cause, despite HAMAS forcing women to wear the veil in public and despite so called “honor Killings” which occur in the Palestinian territores and throughout the Arab world. To the editors and “reporters” at Ms. Magazine, wearing the Khaffiyeh (Arab headdress) or at least draping around your neck is a sign of ultimate cool and hipness. And this is what motivates the women of MS.
    They dread the thought of being surbanites driving kids to the school play or to Chucky Cheese.

29. #29
    On January 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am, englishqueen01 said:

    “I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.”

    Really? As a woman, there is no other country on the planet where I feel I’d be treated more equally or have the same freedoms I have here.

    The problem is not “equality”. Feminists strive to remove gender from the equation at all, preferring to create a generation of androgynous beings rather than looking at men and women as equal and complimentary.

    They shun the feminine and demonize the masculine and call this “equality”. I’ll have none of it, thankyouverymuch.

30. #30
    On January 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, jsr said:

    “I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S.”

    Around my house they have achieved not only superiority, they have iron rule! The heavy hand of Latina oppression is not a pretty thing.

31. #31
    On January 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm, BrianNY said:

    MS. Magazine are just typical liberals who are both deathly afraid of the real global threat to women, and have absolutely no solutions to correct the problem.

    They saw what happened to Theo van Gogh in 2004, and they’re not stupid.

32. #32
    On January 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pm, joeblough said:

    The “feminists” consistently live up to, and indeed exceed my worst expectations.

    They clearly have no interest in the welfare or the rights of ordinary women.

    If they were primarily interested in the rights of women, that alone would decide them in favor of Israel, where women are everywhere integrated into the communities of business and politics, and against the “palistinians” under who’s sway women are truly reduced to chattel.

    If women’s rights were their litmus test for anything, this would be a simple uncontroversial matter.

    When you consider their actions their priorities are clear:

    – Political power for themselves personally
    – Fashionable standing among the anti-western political crowd

    An ordinary housewife or schoolgirl in the “territories”? Who cares!

    And I’ve seen a fair amount of writing on this subject from women who come from the mohammedan parts of the world, and those who have experience there, who are truly concerned with women’s rights, about how little interest they receive from fashionable western “feminists” !

    The Ms. magazine crowd are scum. Collaborators. Worse than the Vichy servants of the Nazis.

    At least the Vichy gang had the excuse that the Nazis had conquered them militarily. These people are pro-actively seeking opportunities to collaborate.

    Why?

    Because they imagine that under a mohammedan regime they would be members of the privileged ruling class. — that they would be hanging out with Queen Noor and her pals, bossing the servants around.

    They don’t identify with the ordinary girl-in-the-street mohammedan, bossed around and possibly even molested by her own father and brothers and male cousins, smothered under concealing robes, and condemned to a life of ignorance and obedience.

    =============

    BTW I heard all of this before from the women of the black civil rights movement.

    The issue of that day was: “black women have always been ‘liberated’ in the sense of having to work for a living. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we’re still treated like dirt because we’re black!”

    And guess what?

    The Ms. types and NOW types had no time for them either.

    Those ordinary, often poor women had nothing to offer in the way of political power and influence. So they were dropped like a hot rock.

    It’s an old story.

    ============

    Someone who knows more than me ought to write a book about it.

    For all I know, maybe somebody has.

33. #33
    On January 14th, 2008 at 9:08 am, pokenhorn said:

    Equality? If we are equal, why do we have separate athletic events for men and women? In golf, track and field, swimming and diving, etc. Why do women receive softer justice in the courts…recall Winkler, LaFave, et. al.? Why do certain entertainment establishments have ‘ladie’s night’ but not gents night? Why historically have men made virtually all the advances in math, chemistry, physics, electronics, the arts, literature, and all matters cerebral? O.K. there is a Hatshepsut here and a Madame Curie there, but what freakish exceptions they are. Liberalism requires that we all live a lie. Trying to live this lie has corroded our culture grievously.

34. #34
    On January 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, dakine said:

    If I’m not mistaken ladies, I believe pokenhorn is basically saying that males are superior to females (specifically, that men are smarter than women) and to think otherwise indicates that one has been brainwashed by the liberal MSM. That about cover it bra?

35. #35
    On January 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm, dakine said:

    Sorry, “brah” not “bra” as pointed out by aj in another thread.

36. #36
    On January 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm, pokenhorn said:

    Whoa, Dakine. Easy girl. I did not, and do not, use the term ’superior’. I am saying ‘not equal’. Can you say that with all we know about history over the last 5000 years that men and women have made positive contributions in those areas in approximately equal numbers? Don’t take it personally. Look at the proposition with detachment and argue it from whatever facts we have. Sheesh.

37. #37
    On January 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, dakine said:

    poke, it’s pretty obvious what you’re trying to say. Do us all a favor and remind me when women were granted the right to vote, began attending college and post-graduate programs in meaningful numbers and have had access to the whole gamut of career options. Sometime in the extreme later end of the 5,000 year period to which you refer maybe?