|
|
|
| Authored by: stegu on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
> accuse the married father of three girls of being sexist
> and having problems with women
In what way would you consider that a counter-argument?
Sexism is not in any way unique to unmarried men
without children. It is not even unique to men.
"He can't be sexist, he is married and has children".
Seriously?
The quotes she dug up speak very clearly about his
problems with accepting a woman as his opponent,
trying to discredit her because of her gender,
and encouraging the same behavior in his peers.
I enjoyed the roasting thoroughly for the full
15 minutes, and I am fully convinced it was well
deserved.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
It is plainly evident that she had the difficult job of defending a sexist. She
was obviously stuck in a very difficult political position between condoning
sexism and agreeing with the opposition. If she agreed with the opposition she
would have done severe damage to her reputation, but if she protected the
Speaker and he was later found guilty they would hang her out to dry. I know no
more than what she said and what you all have written, but it is clearly a
rather sordid affair. However it was an almost impossible task both to write
that speech and to deliver it, but she and her speech writers managed a
magnificent job that deserves to go down in history.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
