PDA

View Full Version : Michelle Malkin on Why Women Ought to Support the War


kasia
10-25-2004, 04:28 PM
she longs for the days of rosie the riveter, when birth control pills were outlawed, discrimination in the workplace was rampant, the Equal Pay Act nonexistent, the civil rights act of 1964 still only an idea, forcibly raping your wife not considered rape, sexual harassment in the office unrecognized, and domestic violence completely ignored.

thanks, michelle, for always wanting your own communities to take a step forward.


Hysterical women for Kerry
Michelle Malkin (archive)

October 20, 2004

Rosie the Riveter has given way to Sally the Sniveler.

During World War II, young Rose Will Monroe was the face of American women in adversity: strong, supportive and resolute against the enemy forces that threatened our existence. Tens of thousands like Rosie rolled up their sleeves, gritted their teeth, and flexed their muscles in factories and shipyards and arsenals across the country.

They made rockets and rifles and bombs and boats. They painted and drilled and welded. When they got home to their kids, they cooked and cleaned and collapsed in bed after praying for their husbands and brothers and uncles on the battlefield. Rosie and her sisters in arms didn't have the luxury of complaining about their lack of "me time." There was a war to be won. And so, as this presidential campaign season has constantly reminded us, there is today.

But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers' union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.)

They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they're apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his "Star Wars" light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan).

In battleground states, the Kerry campaign has dispatched such incoherent nervous Nellies to scare the pantyhose off of young women and moms.

Kerry's sister, Peggy, landed in Ohio at a Women for Kerry rally to scare up female votes to oppose President Bush's "war against women." At a time when Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders, Peggy Kerry chose to whine about the alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries. "That is not fair," she said. "Let me tell you what my brother is going to fight for -- pay equity."

Meanwhile, a teacher for Kerry complained: "If we lose the White House again, it is very possible we will lose public education." In Michigan, actress/legal observer Christine Lahti rallied Kerry women by warning: "Listen up. If (Bush) is re-elected, he will appoint a (Justice) Clarence Thomas clone and reverse Roe versus Wade." The Kerry campaign has also sent actress Sharon Stone -- who recently blamed President Bush for preventing her from kissing fellow actress Halle Berry in the awful movie "Catwoman" -- to drum up female votes in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But if Hollywood had to crown a poster girl for the new Sally the Sniveler campaign, it would be Cameron Diaz. Rosie the Riveter delivered a unifying message to her fellow American women with simple, rousing clarity: "We can do it!" In stark contrast, here's a painful partial transcript of Diaz's vote-beseeching appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month:

Diaz: "We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo -- if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the .

Winfrey: "It's your voice."

Diaz: "It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right."

We've come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war.


Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com

Arex
10-25-2004, 05:13 PM
This woman isn't too bright if she can't tell the difference between WW2, where our country sustained a direct attack by a foreign navy, and the war in Iraq, where an isolated dictator merely dreamt of one day acquiring WMDs.


RX

applehead
10-25-2004, 06:09 PM
she's totally not seeing the big picture.
very narrow minded.
or maybe she's just dumb.

kimpossible
10-25-2004, 06:20 PM
Why do we have to go back to being Rosie the Riveter when we can now be Paula the Fighter Pilot, Tina the Tankgirl and Samantha the Soldier (With a Big f-in Gun)? If she's going to call up images of women supporting the war why limit it to an auxilliary effort? Why not fight?

BigLew
10-25-2004, 06:42 PM
I think she is a robot planted by the government to piss you guys off.

Mostly by saying shit that doesn't make any sense.

DragonKnight
10-25-2004, 06:52 PM
Brainwashed this woman is.

hooligan
10-25-2004, 09:01 PM
here's reality .................................................. ................................. here's malkin.

etcj
10-25-2004, 11:39 PM
Hmm...is it me or is Michelle Malkin essentially calling women stupid?

kimpossible
10-26-2004, 12:03 PM
Hmm...is it me or is Michelle Malkin essentially calling women stupid?

It seems to be part of her schtick. Minority female attacks 'liberal' female and minority themed issues in the name of conservatism.

Hey, if she's so pro-war she's free to put her money where her mouth is and enlist.

achtungbaby
10-26-2004, 02:09 PM
My two cents as an ignorant male: don't give Michelle any more air time than she's already been given. Why not invite the local reps from the KKK or skinheads to speak about women's issues too?

ellsworth81
10-26-2004, 02:21 PM
pay inequity/abortion - those seem like legitimate women's issues to me. i wonder why she doesn't think that's important.

her writing got incoherent and confusing after a while. i don't know how these ppl get these "columns" anyway.

Shuriken
10-26-2004, 02:22 PM
I don't mind reasonable, well-argued conservative opinions, even when I disagree with them. But Malkin wallows in overstatement and ridiculous hyperbole. And if someone has to go to such extremes to make their argument, that tells me their views have a very mushy foundation.

If you can't stick to a reasonable discussion of the facts, something must be wrong with your perspective.

moser
10-26-2004, 03:54 PM
I'm telling y'all, she's a wanna-be Ann Coulter.

Cipherous
10-27-2004, 12:00 AM
man, I think I hate Malkin moreso than any uber white conservative.

PropellerheadCP
10-27-2004, 04:23 AM
She is insulting to Asian people, women and my general intelligence.

I'm starting to imagine that she's actually a white racist who got plastic surgery, so that she can say all those idiotic things to disarm and confuse minorities, as well as women.

Faithless
08-11-2005, 02:22 PM
MM is stepping in it again. This time with her comments about Cindy Sheehan's late son -- who was killed Iraq.

Ms. Sheehan has been protesting the war outside Bush's Crawford home, wanting to know what has been so noble about the war.

Sheehan has drawn lots of support from an every increasing sentiment that is against the war.

But that doesn't stop MM from sinking to a new low by suggesting:

MM comment (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003225.htm)
She has aligned herself now with Michael Moore, who considers those very Iraqi terrorists Minutemen. That's what he calls them. He's likening them to the American revolutionaries and considers them heroes. I can't imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric.

Commentary about Malkin comments:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508110002

One day after smearing protester Cindy Sheehan, O'Reilly claimed he and Malkin were "respectful" to her

On the August 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer e-mail, which accused him and right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin of "savaging" Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan, by claiming that the viewer was distorting the show's coverage. O'Reilly maintained, "Both Michelle and I were respectful to Mrs. Sheehan, sir." But on the previous day's O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that Sheehan's "story has been inconsistent" and suggested that she hates the government and the United States. Malkin also falsely claimed Sheehan's "story hasn't checked out," and said Sheehan should be scorned for the views she and O'Reilly falsely imputed to her. And on her weblog, Malkin sought to discredit Sheehan by suggesting that her son who was killed in the Iraq war would not approve of her protest.

From the August 10 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Heather O'Neill, New York City: "I see the right-wing smear tactics have begun against Cindy Sheehan."

Well, I don't know where you're seeing that. Not here, Ms. O'Neill. We've reported the story accurately and fairly.

[...]

Al Nagengast, Payson, Arizona: "O'Reilly, the savaging of Mrs. Sheehan by you and Michelle Malkin is a new low for The Factor."

Both Michelle and I were respectful to Mrs. Sheehan, sir. You are distorting and perhaps lying about the segment.

O'Reilly has treated this story neither accurately nor fairly. As Media Matters for America documented, he repeated the false claim that Sheehan, a critic of President Bush and the Iraq war, has changed what she has said about Bush and the war since meeting with him in June 2004.

As for O'Reilly's claim that he and Malkin were "respectful" to Sheehan, the transcript of the August 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor shows otherwise:

O'REILLY: Well, I have to say that she obviously does because she's the lead story on Michael Moore's Web site on an almost daily basis. And she knows -- I mean, Michael Moore isn't a subtle guy. Everybody knows where he stands.

So I mean, I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.

You know, you got to think about those people as well. What about their feelings?

[...]

O'REILLY: She has thrown in -- there is no question that she has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country. That is -- now, it happened before. Some of the 9-11 families also took this road, you'll remember, and are still active to this day. There's a big controversy about the 9-11 Museum down at the World Trade Center.

And, you know, there are some people who hate this government, hate their country right now, and blaming Bush for all the terrorism and all the horror in the world.

Here's a question, Michelle. Do they have a right to this opinion without being scorned?

MALKIN: No, without being scorned, no. And I wouldn't call it scorned. I would call it scrutiny. And the mainstream media is not doing it. I mean, the New York Times editorial board is all too eager to prop her up as some sort of martyr and to buy her line when clearly her story hasn't checked out.

O'REILLY: Yes, her story hasn't [sic] changed.

MALKIN: And so I think -- and I think that angle you're emphasizing is absolutely right here, which is the mainstream media just lapping this up and perpetuating myths and inaccuracies when they know it's not the truth.

O'REILLY: Yes. They don't identify -- in the New York Times editorial today, it was obvious they did not say her story has been inconsistent. And they did not pinpoint that she is in bed with the radical left.

Malkin also found another way to smear Sheehan. In an August 8 entry on her weblog, Malkin purported to divine what Sheehan's son Casey, an Army specialist who was killed in Iraq in 2004, would think of his mother's actions: "I can't imagine Army Spc. Casey Sheehan would stand for his mother's crazy accusations that he was murdered by his commander-in-chief, rather than the Iraqi terrorists who ambushed his convoy."

Chad
08-11-2005, 02:47 PM
It is revealing that she paints a romantic and rosy picture of life during wartime. This is characteristic of fascists. I've talked to enough people who were around during WWII to know this was not a pleasant or fun time. There is nothing romantic about mustard gas, landmines, starvation, or atom bombs. People at home were not very happy with life. But she has bought into the image created in post-war popular culture of WWII; the always good-willing anglosphere of the US and Britain vs. the evil barbarian Teutons and the inhuman Japanese.
When you read about this person's ideas and values you get the idea that there's been some troubles in their life that led them to think this way. But I think she goes way beyond the normal case of the "sellout", she is really beyond anything I've seen before. It's almost a joke or parody.

Napoleon Chynamite
08-11-2005, 03:42 PM
I don't think you need to hear stories or talk to war veterans to know that war is not a fun time.

TyroneK(prettypretty)
08-11-2005, 03:43 PM
I think what's funniest about this is that Michelle Malkin forgets what happened to all the women who worked during World War II.

After World War II, Michelle, all the Rosies were let go, and told to go back home and cook because men were returning home. The emergency that called on all those women to achieve their true potential as productive citizens was over. Most of them were unhappy because they were making good money and were valued for more than their reproductive capacity, but that was just too bad. Usher in those fabulous 1950s with rampant sexism, racism, McCarthyism, cultural stagnation, and soul-crushing consumerism!

The US basically used women (and minorities) as temporary fuel and then told them to go away. The efforts of most Rosies went unrewarded and it took years of liberal pestering to get the US to open up the kind of society that would properly engage the potential of these women and reward them for their efforts.

Napoleon Chynamite
08-11-2005, 03:50 PM
You guys need to stop giving Michelle "2 dollah" Malkin undeserved attention.

TyroneK(prettypretty)
08-11-2005, 03:51 PM
You're not helping.

yoMAMA
08-11-2005, 04:05 PM
Milkin's an idiot.

thaite
08-11-2005, 04:36 PM
good grief that's a lot of red herring and straw women.