Sorry Kim, Wendy is Correct

Take the time to read the entire linked-to piece by our one and only Kim G. If nothing else this part should give you shudders:

'The least heralded of these new chairs (as in, not even mentioned in The Washington Post list), but one of the most significant, will be the ascension of long-time women's rights supporter Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) to chair the House Rules committee. So powerful and important is this committee that it is always tightly controlled by the majority party. The current rules committee has 9 Republicans and only 4 Democrats, thus ensuring that the Republican leadership has been able to control the terms of every House floor debate (or refuse debate altogether), allow or refuse amendments, and even take up selected bills with virtually no notice. That's about to change.'

I have no objection in the least to a woman being in Congress. What makes me stare blankly onto my bedroom ceiling at night is the thought of a *feminist* being in Congress. [Feminists as we all know come in both genders.] Ms. Slaughter et al. have no problems at all in passing anti-male legislation as we have seen. Indeed feminists view men as inherently dangerous to women and must, for the sake of women and children, be subjugated. That is an accurate description of the feminist mindset. A situation where a man has any exercise of power at all is considered dangerous to feminists. This is akin to how Nazis viewed the idea of a Jew, or anyone who wasn't an "Aryan" (or at least German), having a position of power or influence, in any position at all to decide how his or anyone else's circumstances were to be. No man as boss, certainly no father other than a man reduced to au pair status, without legal rights of any kind relative to his life as a father, no man in a political position that is not usurpable or otherwise controlled by a feminist... in short, men should be disempowered in society entirely, put only into the service of women, particularly feminists. Anyone who can't see this agenda ain't paying attention!

The Rules Committee Chairman(-woman) has extraordinary leverage in the House. This is akin to the chairmanship of the Committee on Committees. Their position allows them to strike deals for voting majorities, etc., in exchange for allowing, or not allowing, such-and-such a procedure to be implemented, etc. Procedure itself is powerful and a tool of political exercise. It is arguably more powerful than any one or even group of legislators at any given time. Any legislative pol knows that the greatest power he (or she) can wield is the power to determine processes, or how business gets done. A feminist in charge of the Rules Committee is something MRAs really ought to be paying attention to.

I am getting sick of the politicising of this whole issue. It is incorrect to patently link any one party with feminism. Obviously it is true that those who are on the left, tend to have more, and more vocal, feminists in their ranks. But what I am worried about is when someone necessarily associates the two agendas for purposes of manipulation, or uses one to push for or against the other.

A Democrat calling a Republican a "woman-hater" if she doesn't agree with a feminist on something, or a Republican saying that single Democrat women tend to rely on the government more, are perfect examples of what I am talking about. What it sounds to me is going on, is that feminists are taking advantage of the recent success of the Democratic party to push their FEMINIST agenda; whereas Republicans are more interested in pushing their POLITICAL agenda, and one tactic they use is to demean Democratic feminists, and therefore by implication all Democrats.

Let us not succumb to the temptation of believing, that Republican politicians are "anti-feminist".

-axolotl