wrote in message 
news:1112231042.944302.187070{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> [Among other swerves] into unreality Michael C.
>> Morris takes in this article is his "we also need
>> everyone... to" blah blah blah plea.  Feminism is a
>> political movement born of a fascist demand that
>> everyone conform to its demands. [...]
>
> 
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050330/ap_on_re_as/laura_bush_afghanistan
>
>   "KABUL, Afghanistan - Inspired by Afghan women
>   who have boldly shed their burqas after years of
>   Taliban repression, Laura Bush urged more
>   educational opportunities and greater rights
>   for women

....but none for men...

>   Wednesday in this war-wrecked nation."
>
> v curious -- distribution of feminism around
> the planet by this neoconservative cabal [...]

"Neoconservative", ooh!    "Neoconservative" is
just left liberal* code for "International Jewish
Conspiracy/Zionist Occupied Government".

IMO, Laura Bush travelled to Afghanistan so she
could wear outfits considered racy without any
change to her wardrobe.  ;-)

On a more serious note, remarksman's remark
about "distribution of feminism around the planet"
raises some points useful to consider.  Has anyone
else noticed what ungrateful wretches US feminists
have been regarding the rescue of Afghanistan's
women?  Before 9/11, I recall some grousing by
US feminists that Something Should Be Done to
 save 
the women of Afghanistan.  What that something
was, the feminists were never too specific about
except that it would involve the exercise of US
military power.  That such power is MANpower
was something the whiny feminists were rather
quiet about.  Their silence on that point was
deafening.

Nor did any feminists back up their mouthiness
with some action, for example by organizing
women-only Matriarchy Militias.  Naah, as is
usual for women who whine about big problems,
they were waiting for some MAN to come along
and bail their broad asses out by doing what
should be the women's work for 'em.

Both clinton and George W. Bush were uninter-
ested in spending the lives of US servicemen
in a Crusade For Feminism way on the other
side of the world in Afghanistan.  Good, I thought,
they're following Nick Danger's dicta: "It's their
country, let them fight for it."

Then came 9/11 and president GW launched
US servicemen to Afghanistan.  Not to rescue
Afghani women but to kick some Tali-butt.
Thinking it politically advantageous on the
US political home front to hype-up the side-
effects of kicking out the Taliban for the women
of Afghanistan, GW started playing that up.
US feminists still grumble that the US military
mission in Afghanistan was undertaken by
a  gasp! Republican
president  and not by a gentle, caring
Democrat like hillary (or failing that, algore).
Worse from the feminist POV was the shocking
(to the feminists!) discovery that most Afghani
women _wanted_ to wear those condemned-
by-feminists burqas.  Ha ha ha.  And Afghani
women still wear those burqas now that they've
been liberated.  And GW ain't doing a thang t'
make those women stop wearin' those burqas.
And US feminists stew over _that_, too!  Ha ha.

NOTE:
   * "liberal" in the US refers to someone who
    is "illiberal".

-- 
   On every radio show I've ever done with ideological
   feminists -- where I was able to raise the Selective
   Service issue -- I was met with a prolonged pause,
   then a gush of unanimous and unequivocal agreement
   that women should be compelled to register, then the
   topic was swiftly changed to something else -- a
   peculiarly feminine technique for avoiding unpleasantness.

   Rich Zubaty
   "How Come Men Have to Register for
   The Military Draft and Women Don't?"
   http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5225/articles.htm#draft 




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 4:47:48 AM ---