‘Women Warriors’: New Movement Challenges Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminists think they have cornered the market on defining a woman. They think they own the agenda on what a woman wants; that only they represent women’s rights.
To listen to a liberal feminist, it’s as if the women’s revolution was only about sex and the womb. This is ultimate hypocrisy, yet this limitation of women as sexual objects is the primary mantra from the Obama White House — one that has been accused of being a hostile workplace for women. While fourteen-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for wanting to attend school, liberal feminists in America were disgracefully whining about who pays for their birth control.
Yet we see a new feminist movement arising in America — the “Women Warriors.” Conservative women are representing reason and are selflessly seeking answers to critical concerns beyond gender and sex. Women Warriors understand the conflicts of the world, the crises confronting America, and are sounding the alarm.
The new conservative women’s movement has proven to be vividly aware of the intentions and the failures of President Obama, and the dangers that his reelection pose. They know of the unsustainable, crushing debt that makes America vulnerable to economic collapse and attack; they know that Obama has accrued more debt in the last four years than all past American presidents combined. Do the liberal feminists know that?
Conservative women are aware of the rising health care costs of the Obamacare rollout; they know that Obamacare has hit their pocketbooks and lessened the quality of their health care. They know that as Americans continually voiced their misgivings about Obamacare, Obama obfuscated.
They know the economy is being smothered by government, and they understand the historical evidence as to why “a government that governs least governs best.” They know that Obama has massively expanded government.
Women Warriors know that “spreading the wealth around” is the death of liberty, and how long we have known this — Samuel Adams warned during our Revolutionary era: “The pooling of property and redistributing of wealth are both despotic and unconstitutional.” Women Warriors know that Obama does not embrace free enterprise.
They know that Medicare and Social Security are insolvent, and the have the fortitude and sense of responsibility to address the problem. They know that Obama has done nothing to prevent the failure of the programs.
Women Warriors know that the Lilly Ledbetter law is counterproductive for women, a hindrance to their employment. Women Warriors know that more women than men have lost their jobs during Obama’s tenure. They know that regarding women in the workplace, Obama’s efforts have produced nothing.
Do liberal feminists know that?
With pleasure this man reads your article. Women’s lib is anti-evolutionary movement. What do I mean? 1 (one) German woman plus 1 (one) German man = 1.3 children per woman. 2.1 children per woman is necessary for reproduction. Whatever species (or subgroup) that does not repoduce itself is not, from the point of view of evolution, “fit” for survival and will not survive. By the end of this century one will find that most speakers of German carry non-Germanic DNA. That is simple math, not ideology. Without new recruitment, women’s lib is not fit to survive as they do not reproduce themselves. (I am correct, no?) However, if “Women Warriors” do not the produce the minimal 2.1+ per woman, like the American Indian warriors, you will not be for all too long. Working, jobs, “success”, etc., etc. mean nothing if a group of women is not fit for survival. What, pray tell, is the reproductive rate of warrior women?
What, pray tell, is the reproductive rate of warrior women?
Utah — 2.6
Idaho — 2.5
Alaska — 2.4
Texas — 2.4
S. Dakota — 2.4
Hawaii — 2.3
Arizona — 2.3
Nebraska — 2.3
Wyoming — 2.3
Kansas — 2.3
N. Mexico — 2.2
Oklahoma — 2.2
Mississippi — 2.2
Georgia — 2.2
Arkansas — 2.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
“It’s the Christian fundamentalists, Holy Rollers, born-again Bible Belters, and Jesus freaks of Godly America who are rational and skeptical, especially of Euro-delusions. It’s secular Europe that’s living on faith. Uncowed by Islamists, undeferential to government, unshriveled in its birth rates, redneck America is a more reliable long-term bet.” Mark Steyn – America Alone
Thank you for your information. I live in Germany and enjoy telling the post-”Herrenrasse” Germans that they are evolutionarily unfit. My information and its interpretation is found in David P. Goldman, “How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)”. Goldman represents the thesis that not so much overpopulation, rather underpopulation is threatening at least the West (though his analysis of Muslims in Europe and at home evinces the same pattern of percipitious reduction of reproduction). Goldman notes that it is people of faith (non-liberal type) that are reproducing themselves. In Israel, the (Modern) Orthodox Jews (and Goldman calls himself a Modern Orthodox Jew) are reproducing so fast compared with the shrinking leftist Israelis. I know that I have read Israeli leftest publication where one complains of the “Orthodox danger”. The earth will belong to those who reproduce and those who do not, are evolutionary misfits, that is, unfit to survive. Eventually the left in America will have the same problem, if they do not destroy us first.
When man was made in the image of God he received a creative impulse, and, obviously, procreation is a part of that. Man’s creative impulse also leads him (and her) to labor and to the product of his labor – which is his property. A man’s creativity – the product of his labor – is necessary for his life and survival, and for the life and survival of the family he has created.
“God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience… Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” John Locke
“In the early days of the world, the Almighty said to the first of our race “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”; and since then, if we except the light and the air of heaven, no good thing has been, or can be enjoyed by us, without having first cost labour. And, inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.” Abraham Lincoln
Your remarks remind me of a commercial we had here in Canada several years back. Paraphrasing – because I don’t remember the exact words – the voiceover posed the question “So, which is the true symbol of virility?” while showing pictures of two exotic sports cars – a Lamborghini and a Ferrari (or cars of that kind) – with a single man getting out of each of them or THIS (a picture of a minivan with a man, a woman, and several young children getting out)?
Thank you.
My family outgrew a minivan a few years ago.
So…youre getting a Ducati now, right?
(thats what I’m doing!)
Although I wouldn’t pump up America’s Holy Rollers as much as Steyn, I get his point as an illustration.
Not too different from William Buckley’s observation, decades ago…
“I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard.”
Of particular relevance today, since we’ve seen the effects of the Harvard crowd, self-anointed élites in general, over the past 4 years.
This is the reason liberal leftist are so opposed to home schooling and push their agenda so hard in public schools. Liberals abort their babies, so they have to indoctrinate other peoples children.
Yippee! Phalanxes of modern Boadicea’s, curved blades on all chariots? Why not, it sure beats the alternative — just look at the Supreme Court for where that road leads. Perhaps the first step should be the public destruction and humiliation of the Sandra Fluke’s of the land, just to encourage the others.
Less dramatically, the pendulum is swinging back hard, not before time, as the great good sense of the American people reasserts itself.
A modest plea: When will conspicuously sensitive men stop saying ‘Speaking as a man…’. You sound metrosexual and pitiful. Who you trying to convince, yourselves?
What do you want a man to say? “Speaking as a woman, using the Obama accepted criteria of transgender, I …” There are times when a discussion is proper for women as it concerns them in their sexuality. For a man to butt in and assert willy/nilly apodictic proclamations seems to me to out of place. Alas, much conversation has been formed by leftism, including feminism, such that a criteria determines that only feminist speech is “human speech”. In that context, I would assert my status as a man. Otherwise, who cares? When women come up with a self-conception, I as a man do not share therein. I can make comments about …, but not from within. In such a context, some identification of gender does not make as masculine being into a “metrosexual” (what the “f..k” does that mean?). (There I started to speak as a man, or that is the way lots of men speak). Engage in a dialogue, do not intimidate. Just a suggestion, sweety.
Speak like Clint Eastwood. People will know you’re speaking as a man. Or someone with laryngitis.
Robert Mitchum works, too.
If you want a really manly voice, check out Jeff Chandler. Or Frank Lovejoy, playing Curt Lemay is “Strategic Air Command.”
I do a dead-on R. Lee Ermy myself…
But anyone who spent a day in The Corps can do that!
Well said, Leonard. As a new member of this freshly coined subset of women…that I did not know exixted until this article, let me say:
Men have EVERY right to speak on women’s issues such as abortion. I have known men profoundly affected for life by an abortion of his child. An abortion in which he had no say.
Yes, I know all about the woman’s body/woman’s rights diatribe the left uses. But here’s the thing…the reason societal norms prior to the advent of the birth control pill evolved over the centuries in order to protect a woman from unintended consequences of random hookups.
Now the societal norms have done a one-eighty. Women who have self respect and want to exercise self control and control over their own bodies are decried as repressed and SOOOO 1950′s.
That leftists dare to say they speak for women is ludicrous. They are more repressive than any orher society, trying to make women into government sponsored whores.
(I know, I know, tell us how you really feel, sally)
Go Sally!
I’m watching the feminists obsess about their vaginas this year (Naomi Wolf’s book, Code Pink at the RNC-”batten down the labia, the storm is approaching!”, Sandra Fluke and her Cheap@$$ 1% fiance who won’t pay for her contraceptives, the “vote with your lady parts!” (please bring your own pencil!) meme), and I realized:
Feminists are trying desperately to get SOMEONE to think their girl parts are special, but they’ve spent the last half-century sterilizing them so that now (pardon the vulgar idea), they’re just another orifice. Sandra Fluke wants taxpayers to cough up the dough for upkeep on her recreational equipment? Meh. Use yer hand, or a toilet paper tube or a goat or something. They’re just as sterile and a lot quieter.
Neither men nor women are happy any more, just like Paul VI predicted in 1968. Women wanted their minds to be respected but decided they didn’t need to have their bodies’ unique capabilities respected. We can be the sole sustenance of a child using our own body and blood, for the first year of her life! Oh yeah, and we can go to work every day, just like men can (yawn).
That was a really good comment, right up until you insulted all the conservative women who didn’t have your luck in marrying a paycheck early in life.
You’re a smarmy, judgmental bitch. No wonder most women won’t even stop to listen to conservatives.
Re Heather,
I think this type of discussion turns off a lot of female voters. It’s downright scary. I thought the article was offering a conservative feminist alternative to the contemporary liberal/leftist type of feminism, not the reversal of women’s lib, which certainly didn’t start with the Dems. But the comments here are just the usual. I think American women who are, say, fiscal conservatives, but not social conservatives face a terrible dilemma since both parties threaten their individual liberty from different directions. I guess this is the downside of a two-party system. Social conservatives have to belong to some party and it can’t be the liberal party, so they’re lumped together with fiscal conservatives, classic liberals, libertarians and hawks. That doesn’t leave much of an alternative for independent women who actually like being independent, like their occupation, like being financially self reliant, like equality and like their freedom. All we get here is hostility, insults and name-calling. I thought a conservative feminist movement that might engage in more serious issues than the pill and manufactured “war on women” is a refreshing idea, but judging by the comments I can’t delude myself. The issues brought up in the comments here are not limited to the current leftist demands re abortion and birth control – many of the comments are anti-feminist and anti women-lib, a movement that goes back more than a century and without which achievements I couldn’t have the kind of life I have today. Without which I couldn’t even vote, have a job, get higher education or publish books. So I guess female liberty will always remain the domain of the liberals. And currently there is no true liberal party in the US – one has to choose between the socialists and the social conservatives. I’m glad I’m not American and don’t have to choose which kind of bondage is the lesser evil.
Brava, Sally!
– Spike, another “new” member of the {koff, koff} titular subset
(You do realize we’re not “new,” just newly brand-labeled?)
And anyway, women these days have certainly taken it on themselves to decide what male sexuality ought to be. Considering that both things have impacts on the human race overall, I don’t see why men should not be able to comment.
Leonard, if you have to ask what a metrosexual is, it’s safe to guess you won’t like the answer. Coyly saying “f..k” is a good clue, too, as is a bleating retreat into irony. Are you now on the brink of a hiss and a moisturizing moment?
Most men will applaud the arrival of posses of Valkyries. Maybe something to do with those cool bronze breastplates, usually gleaming in the sun and often, er, anatomically correct — but we applaud the substance too.
This is rather off-topic. Can you take your silly testosterone-battle somewhere else please?
…and your comment is rather petty and divisive. Can you please take your estrogen-fueled hissy-fit somewhere else?
Help!! I do not understand what is flaying about my ears. In Turner I find a woman whom I admire qua woman and whose ideal of feminity inspires me. Relative to women of quality (as relative to men of quality), I reserve the right to manifest the forms of politeness congenial to my manily manhood. I will without doubt add my opinion. However, in the end, it is a woman who decides what type of woman she wishes to be. And if this type of being femine matches my ideals, I comment. However, I will not intrude into a woman’s inner being and disturb. I do not appreciate my masculinity being forced upon me. I make the decision after I have thought it over. So, turn about is fair play. I respect Turner and her Warrior Women, and in my expressive way. The rest of you can go one blabbing whatever nonsense you wish. Amen!
Thanks for “apodictic.” A day without a new word is a day without sunshine….or, more generally, “the day you stop learning is the day you start dying.”
Leonard, here is The Worthless Word Of The Day (yes, there really is such a thing!) online’s definition of metrosexual: “an urban male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle (aesthete, bon vivant, epicure, sensualist).”
Those synonyms are wildly misleading and that entire definition is highly euphemistic. Think more in terms of, “a man who sexually prefers women but in every other way ‘acts gay.’”
Blacks in Chicago have figured out that the supposed ‘war on women’ was merely an excuse to perpetrate a war on black babies.
On Nov. 6, families all over the nation, will congratulate themselves for taking out the White House trash.
‘Bout time we let loose the sexy Aamzons.
Maybe the title of this essay should changed to: Rational Conservative Femininity Challenges Irrational Liberal Feminism.
No, that doesn’t work. You’ve got two redundancies in your proposed title.
“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” George Orwell
Good point, and that’s especially true given our current dumbed-down populace.
I think this works: Femininity challenges feminism.
THAT IS RIGHT ONNNNN. COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER. AM CONSIDERED A VERY FEMININE LADY…AM CONSERVATIVE…AND WORKED FOR A FORTUNE 500 COMPANY.
Whiny liberal feminists wouldn’t recognize the Warrior mentality if it slapped them in the face.
“Women as victims” is the appeal of the democrat party, just another aspect of the decades long effort that separates people out into persecuted groups and then claims it wants to “help” them.
Believe those lies at your own peril.
They know that Obama and his administration are not telling us the truth about Libya
White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
Julia, on a death march, relying on the beneficent Obama at every step of her life.
The Life of Julia
And thanks for this Sam Adams quote: “Samuel Adams warned during our Revolutionary era: “The pooling of property and redistributing of wealth are both despotic and unconstitutional.””
I wasn’t aware of it Janine.
signed, a man not afraid to learn from a woman.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
~James Madison
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816:
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
They would have found inconceivable the imposition of a federal income tax on personal income (16th amendment, 1913)
Just as a note, one of my child’s friends in school is the offspring of a rape. I rather imagine that she (and her mother) has a thing or two to say about the subject!
I think this might be better posted on the article about Richard Mourdock’s statement last night. But thank you!
Paul, how would you POSSIBLY know this?! It’s not the sort of thing anybody advertises even to immediate family let alone barely-known parents of a child’s classmates. I surely hope you’re not spreading this sordid tale around your own neighborhood like you’re spreading it here! Hasn’t it occurred to you that REAL LIVES undergo REAL DAMAGE over precisely this sort of irresponsible rumor-mongering?!
Sheesh…
Really. You can’t think of ANY way he could know that?
I can think of a few just quickly off the top of my head.
He could possibly know it many ways, one of which is that the young girl has told everybody she knows, in which case it’s not gossip.
How could you possibly know that he could not possibly know?
Boy, you really don’t like pro-life talk, do you?
I just saw a picture of a girl who was the product of a rape. She’s a beautiful girl who looks to be in her 20s and the caption under her picture says, “Do I deserve a death sentence?” There are several I’ve seen with their pictures and stories.
Yes, they do:
Mother: “It was horrible but the child was innocent so I had her. It was a sacrifice on my part to carry her 9 months, but I’m glad I did.”
Daughter: “Thank you for letting me live.”
God for her, she CHOSE to do that. Had she chosen other wise, that would also be her right.
Thank you for your excellent piece which describes women such as myself who has NEVER admired the feminists. They seem more worried about their birth control and focused rather selfishly (and unrealistically) on “having it all” while looking down their noses at those women who prefer to focus on motherhood and family.
Thanks again!
NOW could not be reached for comment.
You American women have “choice” only insofar as it is the choice NOW would make for you. Your American Uni’s are clotted with “Grievance Studies” that turn one’s view selfishly inward in a rancid form of ‘navel gazing.’
The difference between this author’s idea of ‘warrior woman’ and the feminist is selfishness vs selflessness.
Feminists coddle themselves and those who are like them. They put themselves and their vaginas before their husbands/boyfriends, their children and even their own health. They live for the idea of ‘if it feels good, do it’ and they do ‘it’ twice if it offends someone.
They are illogical, dishonest, racist, vulgar, obnoxious, immoral, immodest, violent, callous, ambiguous, self righteous and petty in differing degrees. They ignore logic and factual research. They feel a sense of entitlement and lack the ability to control themselves when challenged.
They are dangerous in large numbers and disasterous when in leadership positions.
When found approach with extreme caution and protect your property.
Please be advised.
Do you mean that they (gasp) see themselves as individuals with liberty?
Oh, iprazhm,
How absolutely depressing your words are to me (a middle-aged, married grammy who has worked all her life, both inside & outside the home). I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but the way the word is defined these days is shameful and destructive. And you are one of the people perpetrating this false definition. How dare you imply that only “Warrior Women” are the vaunted “feminine”, while feminists are shrieking viragos who, “put themselves and their vaginas before …” well, everything else, according to you. So the only GOOD women are those that practice self-abnegation and altruism to the place that it’s harmful to themselves? Any real person’s job #1 is to take care of themselves first (sorta like the oxygen mask lecture on airplanes: put yours on first, so you CAN help others). If that means you get your widdle feewings hurt because a woman doesn’t always put YOU first — awww, too bad. I’m sure someone like you puts yourself first anyway, so why do you need someone else to do it too? You’ve got that poor of an ego & self-image? (there now, how does it feel to be attacked by someone who doesn’t know you and makes grand, sweeping generalities?) Btw, who puts all those selfless women first? That’s right, NO ONE. So not only do they make sacrifices tiny à huge, but do so unappreciated. It’s just what “good” women do, right? I’ve made all kinds of sacrifices for all kinds of people all my life, notably my kiddos & family, and didn’t expect or want recognition — until now, from people like you.
All I ever wanted was the same place from which to start, without any made-up, nonsensical stuff put in my way simply because I am a woman. Feminism for me was *always* about giving women the right to make their own decisions about what they wanted to do, along with the hows, wheres, whens & whys as THEY saw it. For instance, it’s undeniably true that only women are mothers; but it does not then follow therefore all women must be mothers. (I’ll bet if you think about it, you know a few mothers who prob. shouldn’t be) I’m one of the despised (in this forum) fiscal conservatives, but defin. not a social conserv. I really don’t much care what another person does as long as it doesn’t infringe on me & my rights — UNLESS they want me to pay for it, then I‘ll holler loud & long. No, govn’t — and by extension you & me, thru tax $$ — shouldn’t pay for b.c. or abortions, or whatever social program O. & his ilk want to fund today.
In short, bottom line: it’s possible for a women to be both a feminist AND a warrior woman!
I was an old fashioned feminist who asked only for a place at the starting line and no chains on my ankles, credit in my own name, the right to have my testimony counted in court and my income counted in procuring a mortgage, and the right to sign a lease without a male co-signor. Everything else I am willing to fight for as my talents and gifts allow. I proudly check “Spinster” (or write it in, draw a box and check that) on forms as I am single by choice — I believe all families need an old maid to pick up the pieces and care for those who need a hand or a shoulder to the wheel. I have great respect for women who choose to marry and rear children, particularly if they stay home with them; it’s not a life I would choose for myself, as I know it’s a full time job and a tough one, but I respect the right of any woman to choose it, just as I respect her right to choose to be a Hawaiian Tropic Girl and drape her near-nekkid body over race cars. I have more male friends than female, and have had women hurl the ultimate insult at me, “You argue like a man!” And I am happy to see that there are more women like me out there.
I respect stay-at-home moms. I also respect stay-at-home dads. But there’s not much respect for you or me here. Before I started reading the reader comments in conservative websites I was never preoccupied with feminist issues because I took my liberty and equality for granted – I enjoyed the fruits of the struggle of generations of women before me and was grateful to them. I thought there’s not much left to fight for. Now I think women should still be alert and struggle just to keep the achievements already won against those who wish to take them away.
Pnina, you’re wrong. Completely.
I call myself a conservative feminist (NOW does not own the term “feminist,” which is rooted in “female” not “I’m Sandra Fluke”) because I believe women are equal to men in every socially important way. Women have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions: single versus married mom of 20, conservative versus liberal, Obama versus Romney, working versus SAHM, etc. NO organization of any sort controls my mind!
I have enormous respect for women who choose to be spinsters, or who choose to be married and childless. I respect women who are lesbians or who choose to be in committed threesomes – you know, whatever, as long as you’re not hurting anyone. I respect women who sacrifice a career to focus on raising their children, and I really, really respect those amazing energetic women like Sarah Palin who can “do it all.”
What I do not respect are whiners, beggars, and people who just give up on everything. I don’t care for people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves: if you have sex, it’s your job to make sure that your choices in life are protected, and if you have a kid, you need to see to its care and raising. If you want equal rights, woman up already!
And what I’ve also observed is that conservative men are far more likely to respect women as a whole than liberal men are. Perhaps that’s because conservative women are more likely to call them out when they use the C word or otherwise misbehave.
Appleby – you totally rock. I love women like you; my husband has a spinster aunt with that exact attitude, and she is wonderful.
None of this is about rational argument. It is about two things. 1) Hatred of everything Republican and 2) Power, raw power over others.
REMEMBER THAT, CONSERVATIVEWS.
They are not `Women Warriors’ – they are a bunch of very rich and wealthy women who have no empathy for those women of America who are discriminated against in every sapect of their lives and are living in poverty and frequently without adequate health care – “I’m alright, Jill, stuff you”.
What a self-centred and selfish bunch they are.Thankfully they do not represent the many good women of America who are caring and concerned for their fellow human beings and willing to help those less fortunate than themselves by any means possible. Those women are truly the `Women Warriors’.
Get off your high horse. You don’t know us. If I were this fabulously rich person, I’d eat three squares a day instead of frequently skipping one or sometimes two meals because we don’t have the money for more. I’d have more than maybe two pairs of bargain jeans. I’d actually have my own cell phone.
Instead, I stand behind those “poor” women who have two or three or more kids, name brand clothing, fancy cell phones, carts full of name brand convenience food, who pay for it all with their EBT cards before loading up in their big, new SUVs while I load up my sad, 10-year-old four door sedan.
But, hey, we make enough to have actual tax liability. So, I guess we’re rich and callous and just don’t care.
But you do Charles? LOL
I prefer stealth attack. Conservative female well on the way to my conceal/carry and I am an excellent shot. Two revolvers and loads of ammo. OH yes, God is on my side.
To the women of the Women Warrior movement:
You didn’t build that!
Barry. O
Women Warrior – these are true women who have back bone, they are not whining about who is going to pay for their birth control, they are living life large. Texas Women know what I am talking about – they are not worried – they live life. My dear mother had breast cancer and probably should have died from it – I asked how did you beat this cancer and she said I have four children to raise and do not have time to die. What am attitude. She and my father took on life together.
WTF?!
Romney’s a Mor(m)on. They believe single men over the age of 27 are a menace to society.
So… pfffft!
WOW!
this was so good brought tears to my eyes and I think tears of joy so i watched it twice so far
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6jk3tKtDRk
thank you
Yeah, go ahead. Try to convince the public that Lilly Leadbetter is counterproductive for women. You are going to lose a lot more elections that way. The liberals will love this.