I don't CARE what the next president is as long as it's COMPETENT and HONEST.

I've never felt diminished by being considered attractive, as long as "attractive" is PART of the package, not the only thing of value.

But I always ran afoul of the "how can you be a feminist, you love clothes" types. There are -some-, or were -some-, not many.

What it's left me with is a distrust of symbols.

Uncle Fester...and there are those of us who are lateral thinkers and forget where we put the box!

Captainlarab, you -had- a dress code. It was a uniform. The other dress codes are either decorations or recognition symbols, as one prefers. I've done a lot of informal observation of the semiotics of dress, probably because I got so much flak for it back in the day. I didn't realize that the lipstick Lesbians had established such a caste system. I suppose the old saying applies: you haven't been trashed till you've been trashed by a sister. Same applies for heterosexuals. I've been hassled by academics and SF people for not being casual enough; weirdly enough, corporate types have been more tolerant, although many screen for price tags.

Basically, these days, I calibrate my clothes to my mood and the occasion. And, given the ageism I see about me, I use them for self-protection. Which is neither here nor there, but an extremely technical discussion of clothes. Not fashion. There's a difference.

Uncle Fester, I've been on the Net nearly 20 years and put in my time as a flamewar artist. That's not to go all gunslinger on anyone (and thanks for the kind words). I'll still flame if I see a reason for it, but interesting ideas trump flames any day and, lately, so does humor.

As King Lear says, he needs the civet because he has foul imaginings.

Having fun, Jeebery?

And I suppose that without these sloshed young women determined to be cool, the young frat guys would be lily-white angels?

Or they're simply unable to control themselves?

Or it's simply easier to blame the girls?

Or maybe, you just like posting gross dreams.

And self-gratulatory anger is okay HOW?

I'm sure you enjoyed posting that. What was its point? To exult in how coalitions are fragmenting or to brag about the contribution of white males?

I realize that spelling flames are tacky, but if you're worried about any kind of correctness, you might start with orthography, then move on to politics.

Francis? FRANCIS????

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

why feminists advocate for young women to be sexually abused mannequins is beyond me.>>>>

Say what? It's not beyond you to make up a lie.

>>>> maybe they actually hate women. but there they are, telling their 8 year old daughters to get vaccinated so when they have unsafe sex they won't get cancer (and meantime, they may get brain damage, or pass out from side effects)>>>>

There are risks to any treatment. Cervical cancer is a risk. If they did not concern themselves with this, doubtless you'd complain that the girls were neglected.

>>>>>and putting 15 year olds on the pill (don't worry about blood clots, bone thinning, or damage to your sex drive). just like the old grannies in africa, who cut their girls woman-hood off b/c they think it's good for them, it is the feminist mothers of america who feed their own girls to the sexual sausage machine>>>>

Wow. Just wow. If a girl has dysmenorrhea, sometimes a minimal dose of the pill will help. Again, all medical treatment balances one risk against another. If you were female, you'd say you sounded hysterical.

Most feminists I know regard female genital mutilation as a cimre against humanity. What lapse of logic prompts you to compare these "grannies in Africa" (with a racist subtext) to American feminists?

That final declaration...again, just wow. In addition to being one Godawful image, it's a wonderful case of victim blaming.

Do people actually believe you when you spout this?

I call bullshit.

In fact, I think you're crazy.

I disagreed with Steinem's Op Ed piece. Just as I'd have disagreed with the people who said, when women first and finally got the right to vote, that they'd vote as their husbands told them. We are independent, independently thinking beings (that Washington Post character's subsidized ditherings notwithstanding). I don't need one of the Mothers of Us All, a guy, an IWF, a young careerist, or anyone else to tell me how to make up my mind and cast my ballot.

I reserve that obligation and that privilege for myself.

I voted for Hillary in the NY primary, and I hope to vote for her again.

I don't think they're upset. I think they're getting off on it.

It isn't the former president of Harvard Law you mean, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University.

The "submit references to me" is the first refuge of people too lazy to google for anything that high-profile.

So, the idea is that if enough of these characters post long enough, loudly enough, and irrationally enough, with enough overgeneralizations and denunciations, we'll be silenced? And then they'll be free to pronounce and overgeneralize more than they already do?

People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. That's one mistake -I'm- not making.

Gentlemen, you're just not very good at this, and I hate to think about the amount of karma you're amassing.