Oh my God! They've discovered that we women actually want equal rights and might even be aggressive about getting them!!!

Billo is such a fucking idiot, I'd be more worried if he actually said something sensible, because then I'd be worried I was going off the deep end myself.

How on Earth do these men keep justifying their sexism except that they don't consider women to be people? Seriously, do they not think that every president so far has had a MALE agenda?

It's just mind-boggling how oblivious antifeminists are to the fact that a "female agenda" is just a human being agenda.

How on Earth do these men keep justifying their sexism except that they don't consider women to be people? Seriously, do they not think that every president so far has had a MALE agenda?

It's just mind-boggling how oblivious antifeminists are to the fact that a "female agenda" is just a human being agenda.

(Also, I can't wait for the site update, because boy this thing runs slow.)

I've heard about gay agendas as well.

I searched the internet, everyone talks about these agendas, but no one will say what they actually ARE.

The only thing I found was that gay people want other gay people in positions of power so that they can legitimize these deviant sexual acts and force others to engage in them. Right.

So, what IS the female agenda?

A friend of mine recently came up with this definition, for the gay agenda.

"The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by some social conservatives in the United States to describe the goal of increasing LGBT acceptance and equality through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. The term is most often employed by social conservatives in debates over LGBT rights in the United States. Some believe that this agenda is a secret one.

The term is offensive to many, particularly those who view the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Sometimes those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.

Some issues often listed as included in the agenda are hotly debated today in the United States, from same-sex marriage, to anti-discrimination laws, to hate crime legislation, and more."

(http://www.reference.com/search?q=gay%20agenda)

Personally, I am completely behind the gay agenda. And the female agenda. And the black agenda. And the child agenda. Hell, I will even get behind the rich-white-male agenda. They deserve rights, too.

What is scary about Rudov's assertion is that his statement seems to indicate any president would feel the need to push for their "bloc voter" agenda. As if he expects a male president to push forward with the "male agenda".

He doesn't seem so concerned that McCain might pull out a "Conservative-White-Male-Against -Reproductive-Choice-And-Gay-Rights Agenda".

Does Obama have a BLACK agenda? He just gave a half an hour speech focusing on slavery, racist issues, and equality. Fox better be looking out for him too.

Destra, if Obama becomes the nominee I'm sure that will be suggested by the right wingers. They'll question whether Obama can really represent all of america. It will be interesting to see how blatantly they say it.

Because respect and equality are a scarier agenda than warmongering and supporting oil companies.

I did a presentation not too long ago on Women in Management positions and structural barriers. At the end of the presentation, I had an open discussion about Hilary Clinton and the structural barriers she faces as a female running for president.

Our country is still very sexist. Women are marginalized. So whats so bad about a Female Agenda? I think both men and women would benefit from the social change a female president could cause. So far, though, I haven't exactly noticed that Hilary has a Female Agenda. I do think that the media as well as society targets her because she's more visible than the other candidates running for President. She's more visible because she's a woman.

If Obama has a right to ask us to reevaluate race in our society, to address racism, why can't Hilary ask us to readdress sexism, and the role of women in society? I'm just saying. :)

I did a presentation not too long ago on Women in Management positions and structural barriers. At the end of the presentation, I had an open discussion about Hilary Clinton and the structural barriers she faces as a female running for president.

Our country is still very sexist. Women are marginalized. So whats so bad about a Female Agenda? I think both men and women would benefit from the social change a female president could cause. So far, though, I haven't exactly noticed that Hilary has a Female Agenda. I do think that the media as well as society targets her because she's more visible than the other candidates running for President. She's more visible because she's a woman.

If Obama has a right to ask us to reevaluate race in our society, to address racism, why can't Hilary ask us to readdress sexism, and the role of women in society? I'm just saying. :)

Ugh. Sorry, didn't mean to post that twice. Just had some technical problems.

"she specifically does have a female agenda".

Damn skippy she does, and that's one of the reasons I voted for her. The basic implication of these two baboons is that fully one half of the population shouldn't have an agenda. Women are not a special interest group!

Shorter Rudov: I'm a resonable guy! I'm fine with a woman president as long as she keeps misogyny alive and well!

You know someone is crazy when Bill O'Reilly asks them to be fair to women.

I was very disappointed when I found out what the homosexual agenda actually was. The way it was described to me by the religious right, what with the widespread sexual deviancy and perversion, promiscuity, universal bisexuality, the destruction of the nuclear family, the end of religion, and so forth, made it seem like it'd be really fun to get in on. Then I actually see what it's all about and it's just a bunch of boring stuff about equal rights under the law and social acceptance.

LAME.

Shameless plug:

Hey Feminists in the DC Area - Next Wednesday, March 26 at 4:00 pm, the GW Law School is hosting a discussion on sexism in the media, focusing on politics and election reporting. We'll have great scholars and journalists presenting, and it's open to the public, so please come! The Law School is at 2000 H Street and the panel will be in the conference center on the 5th floor.

"Seriously, do they not think that every president so far has had a MALE agenda?"

Funny Vodalus, that's exactly what I was thinking.

I've never heard any liberals talking paranoidly about the conservative agenda or the Christian agenda or the racist agenda. I've only heard the conservatives talk about other people's agendas. EVERYONE has a fucking agenda. They're called political goals. Get over it.

Alice, LOL!

i love how oreilly claims the clinton is "raising the gender issue" when he has a segment on his show that does that same thing. way to go bill. and fuck you mark rudov.

In regard to O'Reilly, we are talking about the man who expressed anxiety about the threat that illegal immigrants posed to the "white male power structure".

Who cares if Senator Clinton has a female agenda? Of greater concern is that she has a Hillary über alles agenda. Her conduct in pursuit of the Democratic nomination has risked making that nomination worthless.

By every measure--primary states won, caucus states won, total aggregate votes--Senator Clinton is losing. She has responded by playing Calvinball with regard to pre-existing rules and agreements about illegitimate primaries in Michigan and Florida, to which her campaign agreed on the front end. If this kind of legerdemain costs Senator Obama the nomination, that risks teeming racial resentments which would render the Democratic nomination worthless in November.

Senator Clinton has further stated that she and Senator McCain can cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold--whatever the hell that means--but Senator Obama cannot. She speaks there of a doddering, warmongering fool who cannot even appreciate the difference between the Sunni muslims of al-Qaeda and the Shia muslims supported by Iran. To suggest that McCain is better qualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief than Obama is no less than political treason--a metaphor which no one should use lightly.

How many Clarence Uncle Thomases does Hillary Clinton want to see appointed to the Supreme Court during the next four years?

Kudos on the Hillary media watch. The amount of bigotry surrounding her campaign is so nauseating that I'm surprised that no one outside of the feminist blogsphere picks it up.

Regardless, I got to agree with roro80 when she says: "Damn skippy she does, and that's one of the reasons I voted for her. The basic implication of these two baboons is that fully one half of the population shouldn't have an agenda. Women are not a special interest group!

Because, honestly, the fact that goons like O'Reilly are so common, and that I obviously care enough about feminism to post on a feminist blog at 1 am, goes to show you that I really do care about feminist issues. Aside from her loony policies on video games and other questionable ties to big oil, I don't see any other candidates even acknowledge that that other half of humanity (heck, more than half, I think we outnumber them now) might not like the way things are for the particular reason that our "interests", which are the interests of the majority when we're the only ones concerned with the children and ourselves, are considered wacko by polite society.

Well, if O'Reilly is polite society, screw 'em and his fan base of sexually frustrated angry boys. The rest of America needs to wake up and figure out that remarks like these are just as unacceptable as anything about "nappy headed hoes". The very fact that they aren't denounced, and writers obviously think of them as acceptably funny, makes me draw the conclusion that we obviously need a female President so bad that I'd set aside all of my misgivings about another Clinton and vote for Hilary. This on the tail of supporting Kucinich last time around, the most liberal anti-War politician out there.

Of course, voting for Obama, who seemingly seems perfectly fine with profiting off of sexist media exposure of Hilary, or Edwards, who specifically encouraged it (hey, does anyone else remember that?) churns my stomach. I'd rather shove needles in my eyes than support anyone that profits off of sexism and says nothing. Particularly when Obama is a racial minority himself and should know better. Then again, they're all politicians. I'm beginning to believe that expecting any sort of integrity in the lot is an exercise in futility.

Kudos on the Hillary media watch. The amount of bigotry surrounding her campaign is so nauseating that I'm surprised that no one outside of the feminist blogsphere picks it up.

Regardless, I got to agree with roro80 when she says: "Damn skippy she does, and that's one of the reasons I voted for her. The basic implication of these two baboons is that fully one half of the population shouldn't have an agenda. Women are not a special interest group!

Because, honestly, the fact that goons like O'Reilly are so common, and that I obviously care enough about feminism to post on a feminist blog at 1 am, goes to show you that I really do care about feminist issues. Aside from her loony policies on video games and other questionable ties to big oil, I don't see any other candidates even acknowledge that that other half of humanity (heck, more than half, I think we outnumber them now) might not like the way things are for the particular reason that our "interests", which are the interests of the majority when we're the only ones concerned with the children and ourselves, are considered wacko by polite society.

Well, if O'Reilly is polite society, screw 'em and his fan base of sexually frustrated angry boys. The rest of America needs to wake up and figure out that remarks like these are just as unacceptable as anything about "nappy headed hoes". The very fact that they aren't denounced, and writers obviously think of them as acceptably funny, makes me draw the conclusion that we obviously need a female President so bad that I'd set aside all of my misgivings about another Clinton and vote for Hilary. This on the tail of supporting Kucinich last time around, the most liberal anti-War politician out there.

Of course, voting for Obama, who seemingly seems perfectly fine with profiting off of sexist media exposure of Hilary, or Edwards, who specifically encouraged it (hey, does anyone else remember that?) churns my stomach. I'd rather shove needles in my eyes than support anyone that profits off of sexism and says nothing. Particularly when Obama is a racial minority himself and should know better. Then again, they're all politicians. I'm beginning to believe that expecting any sort of integrity in the lot is an exercise in futility.

"do they not think that every president so far has had a MALE agenda?"

I'm sorry, when you start talking about a "male agenda" you sound as nutty as Rudov who accused Hillary of having a "female agenda." What kind of crap is that?

I'm voting for Hillary because she's more of a proven commodity than Obama, but let's not foment this asinine gender war by talking about "female agenda is good because it's a human agenda," whatever the hell that means, or "we're the majority now so we get our say," etc. This is divisive nonsense. Women don't speak as a block -- nor do MEN for that matter. The rich, white protestants who've been president so far (except for one rich, white Catholic) have as much in common with me as I have with the Dalai Lama.

Let's stop talking "them versus us" and keep to specifics -- it serves no one's purpose except to fire up Rudov's devotees.

I'm sorry, when you start talking about a "male agenda" you sound as nutty as Rudov who accused Hillary of having a "female agenda."

Just so's when I have to argue that Hillary doesn't have a "female" agenda, will someone explain to me what a "male agenda" looks like? Cause all I'm getting from this conversation in war and oppression, which, it seems to me, is not the exclusive domain of american white guys. And also, isn't it impossible to get away from the fact that Hillary is a woman? And really, do we actually want to?

wow...just, wow. What's the downside of a male president?