Progressives and The Real War on Women

[easyt65]

Open and shut case:
Hillary has taken millions from nations that oppress women and engage in female genital mutilation.

She and Obama both were busted paying women on their staffs less than men doing equal work.

Hillary spent most of her political career bullying, threatening, and attempting to silence the victims of her husband's sexual harassment, sexual assaults, rape, and affairs in order to save her own political career / future.


Many people are too ignorant to know / remember that the whole 'War on Women' was created as a 'smoke screen' to distract people from the fact that Obama's mandate that a medical facility run by a religious institution had to hand out contraceptives and / or provide abortion services was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. When this fact was brought out the Liberals, in their best Saul Alynski imitation, spun - successfully, I might add, because people are dumb as a box of rocks like Gruber said - the argument to be about some non-existent 'War on Women' rather than the Un-Constitutionality of the law / mandate. Liberals falsely claimed the GOP simply did not want women to have access to contraceptives. Despite the ignorance of the argument their liberal partisan 'zombies' latched on to the argument and began repeating the cr@p. Thus the 'War on Women' was created, successfully distracting the people from the Un-Constitutionality of Obama's ACA mandate.

Taking everything in as a whole, such as the points first made, it is clear to see Liberals are the aggressors in the 'War on Women'. The point was driven home by Hillary desperately rolling out the dinosaur, Madeline Albright, to declare that there is a special place in hell for women who do not blindly support other women.

This led to somewhat of a backlash and feminists like Susan Sarandon to reject that message and declare she does not 'vote with her vagina', implying that ethics, morals, etc matter more than just the fact that a candidate is a woman.

Since then, in NH, Hillary lost the women's vote to Bernie. In fact, the only demographic she won was the '64+yo' group. This proves women are 'onto' Hillary and don't buy her 'vote for me because I am a woman' shite!

 

[Camp]

This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:

"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'

This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"



1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:

'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'


[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]




2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker



3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.


"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).


Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"

You far-rightie chicks should smarten up and see the writing on the wall -- The GOP sees you as a sperm-recepticle breeding machine.

Get a clue.

While my OP is supported and linked....yours reeks of bias and propaganda.


Another day, another conservative vs. liberal dialogue.

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

 

[OldLady]

I never understood the term "progressive". What exactly are they trying to progress to? I mean Hitler was a "progressive". He progressed into power and was trying to progress to controlling the world.

1. You are on the right track, and I won't go into the details here...but it is an anti-American ideology that crept in in the 19th century via academia.
It is based on Germanic political thought, along these lines: Hegel, Karl Marx and as you say....Hitler.

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").

b. It became strongest under FDR....
The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism



As seen in the OP....it is a hatred of individualism.

Yee gads. But he is only one very screwed up man. If you were to go out (not today--it's freezing) and do a random person on the street poll, you would not find one in a thousand who agreed with Chandler's statement as you have quoted it. In this country, we DON'T have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. What some conservatives CALL authoritarian rule isn't really. If it were really authoritarian, people wouldn't be free to bitch about it so much.

"we DON'T have a history of embracing authoritarian rule"

The best indication of the fact that many do, is that FDR, who did more to damage guidance via the only law Americans agreed to be governed by, the Constitution, was elected four time.

I wasn't around in FDR's day, but I know he was dealing with an economic collapse and starving Americans the likes of which we have never seen. Are you really against the wonderful infrastructure built by the WPA, much of which we are still using? Are you really against Social Security and disability for those who truly need it? I probably shouldn't argue this, since I am not a political history major, but maybe the problem is that we don't put time limits on some of these great new deals. The need for so much government intrusion is long past, but it is hard to stop once the government has started feeding its fat Jabba the Hut self with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:

"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'

This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"



1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:

'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'


[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]




2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker



3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.


"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).


Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"

You far-rightie chicks should smarten up and see the writing on the wall -- The GOP sees you as a sperm-recepticle breeding machine.

Get a clue.

While my OP is supported and linked....yours reeks of bias and propaganda.


Another day, another conservative vs. liberal dialogue.

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never understood the term "progressive". What exactly are they trying to progress to? I mean Hitler was a "progressive". He progressed into power and was trying to progress to controlling the world.

1. You are on the right track, and I won't go into the details here...but it is an anti-American ideology that crept in in the 19th century via academia.
It is based on Germanic political thought, along these lines: Hegel, Karl Marx and as you say....Hitler.

a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").

b. It became strongest under FDR....
The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism



As seen in the OP....it is a hatred of individualism.

Yee gads. But he is only one very screwed up man. If you were to go out (not today--it's freezing) and do a random person on the street poll, you would not find one in a thousand who agreed with Chandler's statement as you have quoted it. In this country, we DON'T have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. What some conservatives CALL authoritarian rule isn't really. If it were really authoritarian, people wouldn't be free to bitch about it so much.

"we DON'T have a history of embracing authoritarian rule"

The best indication of the fact that many do, is that FDR, who did more to damage guidance via the only law Americans agreed to be governed by, the Constitution, was elected four time.

I wasn't around in FDR's day, but I know he was dealing with an economic collapse and starving Americans the likes of which we have never seen. Are you really against the wonderful infrastructure built by the WPA, much of which we are still using? Are you really against Social Security and disability for those who truly need it? I probably shouldn't argue this, since I am not a political history major, but maybe the problem is that we don't put time limits on some of these great new deals. The need for so much government intrusion is long past, but it is hard to stop once the government has started feeding its fat Jabba the Hut self with it.

You need a great deal of education about FDR.
He took his entire New Deal from Benito Mussolini.

He considered himself in league with Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

1. The current narrative is geared toward minimizing the relationship between Roosevelt’s New Deal, and that of Mussolini and of Hitler…and that only due to the exigencies of the Second World War did it become necessary for Roosevelt to assume extreme powers identified with those of the other two regimes.
2. In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.
   1. At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm
3. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
   3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
4. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
5. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.
   1. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
   2. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.
6. Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “too far in the Russian direction,” and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.” Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.
   1. Herbert Hoover: “We must fight again for a government founded on individual liberty and opportunity that was the American vision. If we lose we will continue down this New Deal road to some sort of personal government based on collectivist theories. Under these ideas ours can become some sort of Fascist government.”
   2. “The similarities of the economics of the New Deal to the economics of Mussolini’s corporative state or Hitler’s totalitarian state are both close and obvious.” Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party.

c. “Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as “his ‘blood brothers.’ ” (In fact, it seems clear in Schivelbusch’s source—Arthur Schlesinger’s The Age of Roosevelt—that FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to each other, not to him.) But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship.” Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

Roosevelt’s Sec’y of the Interior, proclaimed: “What we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.” Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression… When He Died



But....I may just post a thread on FDR this week....

You should take notes.

 

[OldLady]

Open and shut case:
Hillary has taken millions from nations that oppress women and engage in female genital mutilation.

She and Obama both were busted paying women on their staffs less than men doing equal work.

Hillary spent most of her political career bullying, threatening, and attempting to silence the victims of her husband's sexual harassment, sexual assaults, rape, and affairs in order to save her own political career / future.


Many people are too ignorant to know / remember that the whole 'War on Women' was created as a 'smoke screen' to distract people from the fact that Obama's mandate that a medical facility run by a religious institution had to hand out contraceptives and / or provide abortion services was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. When this fact was brought out the Liberals, in their best Saul Alynski imitation, spun - successfully, I might add, because people are dumb as a box of rocks like Gruber said - the argument to be about some non-existent 'War on Women' rather than the Un-Constitutionality of the law / mandate. Liberals falsely claimed the GOP simply did not want women to have access to contraceptives. Despite the ignorance of the argument their liberal partisan 'zombies' latched on to the argument and began repeating the cr@p. Thus the 'War on Women' was created, successfully distracting the people from the Un-Constitutionality of Obama's ACA mandate.

Taking everything in as a whole, such as the points first made, it is clear to see Liberals are the aggressors in the 'War on Women'. The point was driven home by Hillary desperately rolling out the dinosaur, Madeline Albright, to declare that there is a special place in hell for women who do not blindly support other women.

This led to somewhat of a backlash and feminists like Susan Sarandon to reject that message and declare she does not 'vote with her vagina', implying that ethics, morals, etc matter more than just the fact that a candidate is a woman.

Since then, in NH, Hillary lost the women's vote to Bernie. In fact, the only demographic she won was the '64+yo' group. This proves women are 'onto' Hillary and don't buy her 'vote for me because I am a woman' shite!

There isn't any 'war on women,' at least not any new war on women that hasn't been going on since Adam. Your post is equating Hillary with Progressive theory. If you want to trash Hillary, there are many sites you can go to, but we all know she's not a progressive anyway. This thread is about something a little different.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Open and shut case:
Hillary has taken millions from nations that oppress women and engage in female genital mutilation.

She and Obama both were busted paying women on their staffs less than men doing equal work.

Hillary spent most of her political career bullying, threatening, and attempting to silence the victims of her husband's sexual harassment, sexual assaults, rape, and affairs in order to save her own political career / future.


Many people are too ignorant to know / remember that the whole 'War on Women' was created as a 'smoke screen' to distract people from the fact that Obama's mandate that a medical facility run by a religious institution had to hand out contraceptives and / or provide abortion services was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. When this fact was brought out the Liberals, in their best Saul Alynski imitation, spun - successfully, I might add, because people are dumb as a box of rocks like Gruber said - the argument to be about some non-existent 'War on Women' rather than the Un-Constitutionality of the law / mandate. Liberals falsely claimed the GOP simply did not want women to have access to contraceptives. Despite the ignorance of the argument their liberal partisan 'zombies' latched on to the argument and began repeating the cr@p. Thus the 'War on Women' was created, successfully distracting the people from the Un-Constitutionality of Obama's ACA mandate.

Taking everything in as a whole, such as the points first made, it is clear to see Liberals are the aggressors in the 'War on Women'. The point was driven home by Hillary desperately rolling out the dinosaur, Madeline Albright, to declare that there is a special place in hell for women who do not blindly support other women.

This led to somewhat of a backlash and feminists like Susan Sarandon to reject that message and declare she does not 'vote with her vagina', implying that ethics, morals, etc matter more than just the fact that a candidate is a woman.

Since then, in NH, Hillary lost the women's vote to Bernie. In fact, the only demographic she won was the '64+yo' group. This proves women are 'onto' Hillary and don't buy her 'vote for me because I am a woman' shite!

There isn't any 'war on women,' at least not any new war on women that hasn't been going on since Adam. Your post is equating Hillary with Progressive theory. If you want to trash Hillary, there are many sites you can go to, but we all know she's not a progressive anyway. This thread is about something a little different.

I didn't claim Bill's wife was a Progressive....she did.



A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005


Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!
Read more at Hillary or Karl?

 

[easyt65]

There isn't any 'war on women,' at least not any new war on women that hasn't been going on since Adam. Your post is equating Hillary with Progressive theory. If you want to trash Hillary, there are many sites you can go to, but we all know she's not a progressive anyway. This thread is about something a little different.

The DNC has been taken hostage by Progressive Liberalism, and Hillary is operating in that realm. Is Hillary a Democrat, a Socialist, a Liberal, a Progressive? I believe Hillary is whatever Hillary needs to be at the time to further her own personal / political future. I think Hillary would * a snake if it meant she would in the Presidency.

All that being said, I chose to focus on the 'War on Women' issue brought up in the OP. Of all the Candidates running, in either party, Hillary is the one who would best be described as the premiere 'warrior', or 'General', in the 'War on Women'...if there truly was such a thing, as you pointed out. That is saying something considering Donald Trump, who I believe to be a sexist, is in the race.

Women have more or less been taken for granted and been victims - 'collateral damage', threats - of Hillary as she has sought to destroy her husband's victims in order to secure her own personal goals.

 

[OldLady]

Open and shut case:
Hillary has taken millions from nations that oppress women and engage in female genital mutilation.

She and Obama both were busted paying women on their staffs less than men doing equal work.

Hillary spent most of her political career bullying, threatening, and attempting to silence the victims of her husband's sexual harassment, sexual assaults, rape, and affairs in order to save her own political career / future.


Many people are too ignorant to know / remember that the whole 'War on Women' was created as a 'smoke screen' to distract people from the fact that Obama's mandate that a medical facility run by a religious institution had to hand out contraceptives and / or provide abortion services was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. When this fact was brought out the Liberals, in their best Saul Alynski imitation, spun - successfully, I might add, because people are dumb as a box of rocks like Gruber said - the argument to be about some non-existent 'War on Women' rather than the Un-Constitutionality of the law / mandate. Liberals falsely claimed the GOP simply did not want women to have access to contraceptives. Despite the ignorance of the argument their liberal partisan 'zombies' latched on to the argument and began repeating the cr@p. Thus the 'War on Women' was created, successfully distracting the people from the Un-Constitutionality of Obama's ACA mandate.

Taking everything in as a whole, such as the points first made, it is clear to see Liberals are the aggressors in the 'War on Women'. The point was driven home by Hillary desperately rolling out the dinosaur, Madeline Albright, to declare that there is a special place in hell for women who do not blindly support other women.

This led to somewhat of a backlash and feminists like Susan Sarandon to reject that message and declare she does not 'vote with her vagina', implying that ethics, morals, etc matter more than just the fact that a candidate is a woman.

Since then, in NH, Hillary lost the women's vote to Bernie. In fact, the only demographic she won was the '64+yo' group. This proves women are 'onto' Hillary and don't buy her 'vote for me because I am a woman' shite!

There isn't any 'war on women,' at least not any new war on women that hasn't been going on since Adam. Your post is equating Hillary with Progressive theory. If you want to trash Hillary, there are many sites you can go to, but we all know she's not a progressive anyway. This thread is about something a little different.

I didn't claim Bill's wife was a Progressive....she did.



A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005


Anybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind!
Read more at Hillary or Karl?

Alright. I haven't seen an answer to the basic premise of the OP yet, which was what interested me, but now that we're into "pin the label on the candidate," I'll be moving on.

 

[Camp]

This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:

"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'

This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"



1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:

'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'


[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]




2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker



3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.


"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).


Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"

You far-rightie chicks should smarten up and see the writing on the wall -- The GOP sees you as a sperm-recepticle breeding machine.

Get a clue.

While my OP is supported and linked....yours reeks of bias and propaganda.


Another day, another conservative vs. liberal dialogue.

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You far-rightie chicks should smarten up and see the writing on the wall -- The GOP sees you as a sperm-recepticle breeding machine.

Get a clue.

While my OP is supported and linked....yours reeks of bias and propaganda.


Another day, another conservative vs. liberal dialogue.

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."

So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.


Prove it.

 

[Camp]

While my OP is supported and linked....yours reeks of bias and propaganda.


Another day, another conservative vs. liberal dialogue.

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."

So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.


Prove it.

How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I mention a "War on Women"?

5. " Many now credit government for past progress in gender equality, mostly because of late 20th-century legislation that appeared to benefit women in the workplace. This is a distorted view. Few know that government at all levels actually sought to prevent that progress.


A century ago, just as markets were attracting women to professional life, government regulation in the United States specifically targeted women to restrict their professional choices. The regulations were designed to drive them out of offices and factories and back into their homes — for their own good and the good of their families, their communities, and the future of the race.


... a century of interventions in the free labor market — were designed to curb the sweeping changes in economics and demographics that were taking place due to material advances in the last quarter of the 19th century. The regulations limited women’s choices so they would stop making what elites considered the wrong decisions."
Fee, Op.Cit.


Elites....another term for 'Progressives.'
You know....the term Bill's wife so proudly espouses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is interesting and linked, but it's about philosophies and attitudes over 100 years ago. Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for how progressivism (?) is waging a war on women anymore than on men.

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."

So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.


Prove it.

How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.

"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."


(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.

And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!

 

[Camp]

Seems to be an edited (cherry picked copy and paste) of the recent article by Libertarian propagandist Jeffery Tucker (Mise,Rockwell, Ron Paul), but of course the OP is presenting it as if it is an objective thesis by an objective scholar and recognized scholar.

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."

So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.


Prove it.

How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.

"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."


(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.

And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!

I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ohhhhh....nooooozzzzz!

I've antagonized the FDR boot-licker!!!

"Heavens to Murgatroyd!",



And...you never have to guess the source of my posts....I link and source every one.
The quote is 100% accurate.

As is my description of you.

It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.

" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."

So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.


Prove it.

How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.

"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."


(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.

And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!

I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.

"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."

With good reason!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another term for collectivism is 'control.'


6. ....Progressives were all about ending choice for women...a real 'War on Women," and a later branch of the same origin, Feminism, the very same view: control women so that they don't make the 'wrong' choices.

"Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”


Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”


Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people.

[Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self….


[Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”


Steinemhas never been a fanof women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda.


“Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves."

Gloria Steinem Birthday | Comments That Will Shock Today's Young Women





See that.....every permutation of Liberalism/Progressivism, is opposed to indepentent thinking, and individual choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Having control of academia, and the schools, allows Progressives to pretend that the facts aren't the facts.

Here they are:

7. "The real story, which is only beginning to emerge within the academic literature, is striking. It upends prevailing narratives about the relationship between government and women’s rights. Many cornerstones of the early welfare and regulatory state were designed to hobble women’s personal liberty and economic advancement.


The growth of industrial capitalism meant that women could leave the farm and move to the city. They could choose to leave home without having married — and even stay in the workforce as married women. They enjoyed more choice in education and professional life than ever before.

[Spoiler alert: capitalism and collectivism are antitheses. OK...back to our research:]


[Instead of progress, the story was] 'Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920
The Progressives’ Attempt to Halt Progress'

A Rand corporation study of wage differentials discovered an interesting fact: women’s wages relative to men’s were higher in 1920 than they were in 1980."
Fee, Op. Cit.

Progressives/Liberals couldn't allow that!!!



Can you imagine....today there are drones who believe Obama's lie that women aren't paid equally..."
"U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday that it is imperative the pay gap between what men and women earn be eliminated. " Equal Pay For Equal Work: Obama Calls For End To Gender Pay Gap



Any still believe the Leftist lie that women get paid 77% of what men do for the same job??

"A year ago, The Fact Checker awarded Two Pinocchios to President Obama for claiming that “the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.”
The ‘Equal Pay Day’ factoid that women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men


Any?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8.And....early 20th century, the power-era of the Progressives,....

".... these were also the years in which we first saw government intervention in the labor market, much of it specifically targeting women. As historian Thomas Leonard argues in his spectacular book 'Illiberal Reformers' (2016), an entire generation of intellectuals and politicians panicked about what this could mean for the future of humanity.


Society must control reproduction and therefore what women do with their lives. So said the prevailing ideology of the age. We couldn’t have a situation in which markets enticed women to leave the control of their families and move to the city.


They were incredibly successful. Over a 10-year period between 1909 and 1919, 40 states restricted the number of hours that women employees could work. Fifteen states passed new minimum wage laws to limit entry-level jobs.


Such laws were completely new in American history (and in almost all of modern history) because they intervened so fundamentally in the right of workers and employers to make any sort of contract.

The Progressive agenda involved government deeply in issues that directly affected people’s ability to provide for themselves." Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker



No matter the era, the year, the century....Progressivism...and Liberalism....are based on the premise that government knows best what is good for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Progressives Louis Brandeis and Woodrow Wilson: "Control those women!"


9. "Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom ....

.... the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.”



The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women .... That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis."
Fee, Op. Cit.


a. It was an era of Progressive domination, and Louis Brandeis made the election of the most racist Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, possible. Wilson understood that the election was between himself and TR, with Taft inconsequential. And Wilson knew his problem was to come up with a plausible alternative to TR’s Progressive program. It was the ideas of Louis Brandeis that persuaded Wilson to base his campaign on the issue of monopolies: while TR saw regulation of a necessary evil as the way, Wilson claimed that the best way to restore competition, was to destroy monopolies. (see Chace, "1912")

Brandeis and Wilson....medal of 'honor' winners in the War on Women!