[Vision2020] Tim's feminism
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:14:19 -0800 (PST)
--0-1004008345-1075011259=:86391
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Amy,
When in doubt--deny.
As far as policy goes, feminist leaders may have had a few disagreements with Clinton, but they sure lined up to support him for a second term---AFTER he had caved in to the GOP Congress on issue after issue.
In reality, very few feminist leaders or democrat leaders spelled it out for what it was-- sexual harassment. The Fiensteins, Boxers and Mikulskis sure knew which side their bread was buttered on didn't they?
Again let's face it, Paula Jones would be a full saint in the feminist world right now if only what? If only Willie had a R by his name.
If the Limbaughs and the Starrs had been on the D side going after him? What then? Glowing reviews in all the D-Lib publications you mention.
TL
amy smoucha <asmoucha@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim,
Throughout Clinton's presidency, the feminist and the feminist-minded spoke
out against him, quite a lot. We spoke out clearly and loudly as he
overhauled welfare to the detriment of families, we spoke out when he fired
Dr. Elders, we spoke out when he made gestures at overhauling affirmative
action in ways similar to Bush's plans (but Clinton backed off), and we
spoke out when he waffled on his election promises to the gay & lesbian
community, to name a few. Our anger at the Clinton administration's
*policies* influenced many of us not to vote for Gore (yep, I confess I
voted for Nader, and in a swing state too. I love the tee-shirt "Gore makes
me want to Ralph").
And Tim, women's groups and feminists even criticized Clinton over the
Flowers, Jones & Lewinsky scandals. Many women's organizations and
political writers had lots to say. If you don't know that, maybe you
weren't listening. Conservative commentators and talk show hosts invented
the "feminist hypocrisy," accusing women's groups of defending Clinton while
so much debate was going on in progressive magazins and zines, it would make
your head spin. Debate aside, nothing could have moved me to spend energy
in the Clinton-hating frenzy that ensued around the sex and the lies. I was
so disgusted with Kenneth Starr,the rabid republicans in Congress, and the
Rush Limbaughs that I wouldn't dream of joining their game. The
investigation and impeachment/censure proceedings were a huge waste of time
and resources.
Do a little research Tim, the feminist and feminist-minded had been speaking
out against Clinton for much more important things, and we had more pressing
concerns in relation to national politics. What did you want us to do, join
Concerned Women for America & the Eagle Forum? You are remembering that
time through an odd lens. Your broad statments about what feminists should
care about and what women's groups were doing during the Clinton presidency
are just uninformed. Just as we are now, with Bush, we were criticizing bad
policies, influiencing legislation and appropriations, and trying to use the
political system to make gains for women, families and communities. Sorry
to bust your bubble.
Amy
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Lohrmann
To: asmoucha@hotmail.com
CC: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it"
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Amy,
It wasn't about his sex life. It was about sexual harassment.
What is it about 1. a state's chief executive exposing himself to a
low-level underling over which he could indirectly have firing authority; 2.
having sex with women under him in the White House; 3. groping women who
work for him. etc. that you don't call sexual harassment.
And THEN for feminists and the feminist minded not to speak out against
him just because he happened to have a D by his name? It's mind-boggling.
If he hadn't been a political ally of the major feminist groups they
would have been first in line on the impeachment bandwagon for his perjury
and you know it.
At least the ARK Bar had the guts to disbar him for his crime.
And again, no one that I saw has defended W for his actions at all.
Best, TL
amy smoucha wrote:
Tim, though I'm sure this is a tired thread by now, I have to jump in.
Feminist-minded Democrats condemned Clinton, but not because of his sexual
behavior or his womanizing. Clinted deserved criticism from women because
he signed a welfare reform bill that punished women and children, forced
them to work for low wages (often less than minimum wage as in New York's
workfare programs), all without adequate funding for childcare, education
and healthcare. Feminists were also outraged because he signed DOMA.
Clinton and Gore did enough to piss off the women who voted for them, but we
care about more important issues than a president's sex life or whether he
calls someone Babe.
As for lying--it is despicable that he lied, but the national discussion of
his sex life was such an affront--another kind of cheating, and you know it.
Politicians throughout this nation's history have been womanizers, have
cheated with their interns. They drink, smoke and have a lot of sex. The
right-wing attack on Bill Clinton was a paparazzo-like attempt to make
national politics more like the Jerry Springer show. And they spent
millions of tax-payer dollars to create the spectacle.
If a leader should impeached for lying, we better start the process for Bush
right now--he's told serious lies that have killed thousands of people. He
lied about WMDs in Iraq, about Hussain trying to buy uranium from Africa,
about our economy improving and about jobs being created during his
administration, about the No Child Left Behind Act working.
The Guerilla Girls have a great new poster showing that Bush is one of the
worst threats to our national security
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/womensterroralert.shtml . I hope
this time next year we are inaugurating another flawed Democrat to replace
this scary Republican. I want to send Bush and Cheney life-sized pink slips
on behalf of the thousands of workers who have lost jobs since they've been
in office. I'd also like to draft them and stick them in Baghdad. I can
dream, can't I?
Amy Smoucha
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Lohrmann
To: Aldoussoma@aol.com
CC: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Separate V2020 Lists?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Ted,
I don't get it. I think it's ridiculuous for supposedly feminist minded
Democrats to defend Clinton's actions--so because of that I'm supposed to
defend Bush?
Why?
Are your political views so simplistic that a person who doesn't
approve of a Democrat party president's actions must automatically be
enamored of any GOP'er president?
Or were you just upset that no one responded to your post?
By the way, your argument about "cause a scholar said so" is
ridiculous.
Just like courtroom "experts," you can find numerous scholars on almost
any side of any issue.
Best, TL
Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:
Carl, Tim, et. al.
I posted to V2020 that Bush telling the nation lies to scare us into a war
was worse than Clinton's lies about his sex life, yet not a peep out of Tim
or just about anyone else that I recall on V2020.
Tim, I'd gladly accept replacing some of the "Wilson/CC" subject headed
posts with "Bush Lied" subject headed posts. But I think this focus on a
religious group that seeks to expand and gain influence over the community
is worth the attention it is getting.
Ted
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
http://wine.msn.com/
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
--0-1004008345-1075011259=:86391
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV> Amy,</DIV>
<DIV> When in doubt--deny.</DIV>
<DIV> As far as policy goes, feminist leaders may have had a few disagreements with Clinton, but they sure lined up to support him for a second term---AFTER he had caved in to the GOP Congress on issue after issue.</DIV>
<DIV> In reality, very few feminist leaders or democrat leaders spelled it out for what it was-- sexual harassment. The Fiensteins, Boxers and Mikulskis sure knew which side their bread was buttered on didn't they?</DIV>
<DIV> Again let's face it, Paula Jones would be a full saint in the feminist world right now if only what? If only Willie had a R by his name. </DIV>
<DIV> If the Limbaughs and the Starrs had been on the D side going after him? What then? Glowing reviews in all the D-Lib publications you mention.</DIV>
<DIV> TL<BR><BR><B><I>amy smoucha <asmoucha@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Tim,<BR><BR>Throughout Clinton's presidency, the feminist and the feminist-minded spoke <BR>out against him, quite a lot. We spoke out clearly and loudly as he <BR>overhauled welfare to the detriment of families, we spoke out when he fired <BR>Dr. Elders, we spoke out when he made gestures at overhauling affirmative <BR>action in ways similar to Bush's plans (but Clinton backed off), and we <BR>spoke out when he waffled on his election promises to the gay & lesbian <BR>community, to name a few. Our anger at the Clinton administration's <BR>*policies* influenced many of us not to vote for Gore (yep, I confess I <BR>voted for Nader, and in a swing state too. I love the tee-shirt "Gore makes <BR>me want to Ralph").<BR><BR>And Tim, women's groups and feminists even criticized Clinton over the <BR>Flowers, Jones & Lewinsky scandals. Many women's organizations and <BR>polit!
ical
writers had lots to say. If you don't know that, maybe you <BR>weren't listening. Conservative commentators and talk show hosts invented <BR>the "feminist hypocrisy," accusing women's groups of defending Clinton while <BR>so much debate was going on in progressive magazins and zines, it would make <BR>your head spin. Debate aside, nothing could have moved me to spend energy <BR>in the Clinton-hating frenzy that ensued around the sex and the lies. I was <BR>so disgusted with Kenneth Starr,the rabid republicans in Congress, and the <BR>Rush Limbaughs that I wouldn't dream of joining their game. The <BR>investigation and impeachment/censure proceedings were a huge waste of time <BR>and resources.<BR><BR>Do a little research Tim, the feminist and feminist-minded had been speaking <BR>out against Clinton for much more important things, and we had more pressing <BR>concerns in relation to national politics. What did you want us to do, join <BR>Concerned Women for America & th!
e Eagle
Forum? You are remembering that <BR>time through an odd lens. Your broad statments about what feminists should <BR>care about and what women's groups were doing during the Clinton presidency <BR>are just uninformed. Just as we are now, with Bush, we were criticizing bad <BR>policies, influiencing legislation and appropriations, and trying to use the <BR>political system to make gains for women, families and communities. Sorry <BR>to bust your bubble.<BR><BR>Amy<BR><BR><BR>----Original Message Follows----<BR>From: Tim Lohrmann <TIMLOHR@YAHOO.COM><BR>To: asmoucha@hotmail.com<BR>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it"<BR>Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:21:21 -0800 (PST)<BR><BR>Amy,<BR>It wasn't about his sex life. It was about sexual harassment.<BR>What is it about 1. a state's chief executive exposing himself to a <BR>low-level underling over which he could indirectly have firing authority; 2. <BR>having sex with women under him in the Wh!
ite
House; 3. groping women who <BR>work for him. etc. that you don't call sexual harassment.<BR>And THEN for feminists and the feminist minded not to speak out against <BR>him just because he happened to have a D by his name? It's mind-boggling.<BR>If he hadn't been a political ally of the major feminist groups they <BR>would have been first in line on the impeachment bandwagon for his perjury <BR>and you know it.<BR>At least the ARK Bar had the guts to disbar him for his crime.<BR><BR>And again, no one that I saw has defended W for his actions at all.<BR>Best, TL<BR>amy smoucha <ASMOUCHA@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>Tim, though I'm sure this is a tired thread by now, I have to jump in.<BR>Feminist-minded Democrats condemned Clinton, but not because of his sexual<BR>behavior or his womanizing. Clinted deserved criticism from women because<BR>he signed a welfare reform bill that punished women and children, forced<BR>them to work for low wages (often less than minimum wage as in New
York's<BR>workfare programs), all without adequate funding for childcare, education<BR>and healthcare. Feminists were also outraged because he signed DOMA.<BR>Clinton and Gore did enough to piss off the women who voted for them, but we<BR>care about more important issues than a president's sex life or whether he<BR>calls someone Babe.<BR><BR>As for lying--it is despicable that he lied, but the national discussion of<BR>his sex life was such an affront--another kind of cheating, and you know it.<BR>Politicians throughout this nation's history have been womanizers, have<BR>cheated with their interns. They drink, smoke and have a lot of sex. The<BR>right-wing attack on Bill Clinton was a paparazzo-like attempt to make<BR>national politics more like the Jerry Springer show. And they spent<BR>millions of tax-payer dollars to create the spectacle.<BR><BR>If a leader should impeached for lying, we better start the process for Bush<BR>right now--he's told serious lies that have kil!
led
thousands of people. He<BR>lied about WMDs in Iraq, about Hussain trying to buy uranium from Africa,<BR>about our economy improving and about jobs being created during his<BR>administration, about the No Child Left Behind Act working.<BR><BR>The Guerilla Girls have a great new poster showing that Bush is one of the<BR>worst threats to our national security<BR>http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/womensterroralert.shtml . I hope<BR>this time next year we are inaugurating another flawed Democrat to replace<BR>this scary Republican. I want to send Bush and Cheney life-sized pink slips<BR>on behalf of the thousands of workers who have lost jobs since they've been<BR>in office. I'd also like to draft them and stick them in Baghdad. I can<BR>dream, can't I?<BR><BR>Amy Smoucha<BR><BR><BR>----Original Message Follows----<BR>From: Tim Lohrmann<BR>To: Aldoussoma@aol.com<BR>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Separate V2020 Lists?<BR>Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:42:19!
-0800
(PST)<BR><BR>Ted,<BR>I don't get it. I think it's ridiculuous for supposedly feminist minded<BR>Democrats to defend Clinton's actions--so because of that I'm supposed to<BR>defend Bush?<BR>Why?<BR>Are your political views so simplistic that a person who doesn't<BR>approve of a Democrat party president's actions must automatically be<BR>enamored of any GOP'er president?<BR>Or were you just upset that no one responded to your post?<BR>By the way, your argument about "cause a scholar said so" is<BR>ridiculous.<BR>Just like courtroom "experts," you can find numerous scholars on almost<BR>any side of any issue.<BR>Best, TL<BR><BR>Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:<BR><BR>Carl, Tim, et. al.<BR><BR>I posted to V2020 that Bush telling the nation lies to scare us into a war<BR>was worse than Clinton's lies about his sex life, yet not a peep out of Tim<BR>or just about anyone else that I recall on V2020.<BR><BR>Tim, I'd gladly accept replacing some of the "Wilson/CC" subject headed<BR>posts w!
ith "Bush
Lied" subject headed posts. But I think this focus on a<BR>religious group that seeks to expand and gain influence over the community<BR>is worth the attention it is getting.<BR><BR>Ted<BR><BR>---------------------------------<BR>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.<BR>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963<BR><BR><BR>---------------------------------<BR>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. <BR>http://wine.msn.com/<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/"><b>Try it!</b></a>
--0-1004008345-1075011259=:86391--