Tuesday, October 19, 2010

2010 is Year of the Woman---Again

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I'm sure you've noticed. There are a lot of women running for Congress in this election.

In fact, it is a record number---145 total, with 17 for the Senate and 128 for the House.

In 1992, the media was abuzz calling it the, "Year of the Woman," however they should have called it the "year of the liberal woman."

Despite the fact that there are more women in this election than in 1992, the media is quiet---no proclamations about the woman.

Sonja Eddings Brown says in POLITICO that the media is mum this time because in '92, 54 women were elected to Congress and all the new female members , both Republican and Democrat, supported abortion.

This time, many of the women running are conservative, with conservative values, and that just doesn't fit the media's usual narrative.

Brown says from the time Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage she, "has been criticized, even vilified , about everything from her wardrobe to her reading list. But her original (and continuing) sin, in the eye of the elites, is her unwavering conservative views and values."

Palin has motivated other women to run, many share her faith and values.

Brown observes that when successful businesswomen run for office, "The focus is nearly always on non-economic, extraneous issues."

"The old girls club," Brown says, "that honors life-long, liberal pols like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is as narrow-minded and snobbish as the old boy's club. Maybe more so."

Most of the media is overlooking or simply avoiding the fact that a record number of women are running this year because of their view.

Brown says even Forbes missed it when they recently named Michelle Obama the 2010 most powerful woman in the world and placed politically right-of-center German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, at number 4.

"In what universe does a woman who has never run a company, let alone a government, outrank the nationally elected leader of the world's fourth-largest economy?" Brown asks.

Her answer?

"In a universe where it's more important to be liberal, than it is to be a woman."

The litmus test for the elite progressive liberal media is simple. You must be pro-abortion---support the redefining of marriage, affirm the homosexual agenda and be pro-tax and support big government. If you are a conservative, with conservative values, they will work to politically destroy you. It won't matter if you are more qualified than your opponent, they will choose the lesser candidate to support.

Even, as in this case, it means trampling on the very political correctness they have advocated as a social control mechanism.

May God free us from their bondage.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. Wow, the facts sure do get mangled and lost when one is looking to support a partisan persecution complex, rather than address reality.

    In the real world:

    1. 1992 was called the year of the woman in politics because a record number WON their races, not just ran.

    2. A record number of women did file for Congress this year, a total or 298 women filed, (36 in Senate, 262 in the House), of these 298 women, the majority (153 - 19S, 134H) ran as Democrats and 148 (17S-128H) ran as Republicans. I guess Sonja, in her frenzy to falsely snivel about the neglected Republican women running for office just completely forgot about the greater number of Democratic women running. Seems Gary just can't be bothered to check facts before presenting them to his followers.

    3. When we look at the number of women candidates, who won their primary, we still see the majority of them are Democrats in this year of Conservative women. In fact the difference in numbers is even starker when we look only at those, who received the endorsement of their party: 15 women candidates for Senate won their primary 9 Democrats and 5 Republicans; 138 women candidates for the House won their primaries 91 Democrats and 47 Republicans. So overall in the Senate 47% of Democratic women won their party's endorsement, while only 29% of Republican women did, while in the House 68% of Democratic women won their party's endorsement, while only 37% of Republican women did. I guess Republicans just don't like voting for women, Conservative or not.

    So when we look at the facts (I'd post a link but the censors won't allow - all figures are from the Center for American Women and Politics), we see that the maybe, just maybe the reason the media isn't calling this the year of the conservative woman in politics is because such a claim is nothing but empty partisan hype. Not only did the vast majority of conservative women candidates lose their primary, but those who didn't are vastly outnumbered by liberal women candidates. In fact, more "conservative" (which I guess is synonymous with Republican when it suits conservatives' needs) women were successful in their House primary bids in 2004 (53 vs 47).

    So much for the year of the conservative women in politics, and so much for the sniveling whine about the biased press ignoring it.

    Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Check facts rather than believe pleasing falsehoods.

  2. Odd that Fox and the right wing owned corporatist owned media missed this - have you checked?

    I am likewise surprised that Limbaugh and the other right wing corporatist talking heads that dominate the media from coast to coast.

    The media as the aggressor is an anchronism which quickly dies in light of the truth - Jesus said, I am the truth. We are called to speak the truth. The media is simply right wing corporatist effort to conform America to their values - whom I guess don't really have the same values those of us whom are pro-life.

  3. Palin was exposed for her stunning vacuity. She was a candidate for the 2nd highest office but demonstrated no depth beyond simple talking points. It wasn't her reading list that was criticized, it was the lack of one.

    You can add one more item to the progressive litmus test - the ability to discuss issues in depth and actually take unrehearsed questions.

  4. It looks like not all the media outlets are failing to notice the trend. Slate lists several different negative pigeonholes in which to put these uppity females:

    Odd that we didn't hear the Democrat women a few years ago being plastered with misogynistic stereotypes. Umbrage-taker/ Emasculator? Which of those fit St. Hillary in 2008?

    (As an editor, I can't resist pointing out that the correct term should be "emasculatrix." The irony in the masculine term is priceless. I wish I thought the reporter was educated enough to understand it.)

  5. 8:13 The Democrats you mention were most all incumbents.

  6. Joel,

    I'm not an editor, but I feel compelled to point out that the correct usage is 'Democratic women'.

  7. 8:14 PM

    So the fact that Democrats have a far better record of electing women makes these women irrelevant? Also, even disregarding incumbents, this still is not the year of the Conservative women in politics. The numbers break down for non-incumbent candidates, who won their party's endorsement: Senate: 4 Democratic, 5 Republican; House: 37 Democratic, 32 Republican. So, even moving the goal posts, ignoring incumbents, ignoring the dismal success rate of Republican women candidates in securing their party's endorsement, the grandiose claims of this being the year of the conservative women in politics is all hype with no substance.

  8. 2:23 PM

    I don't know about in 2008 when conservatives were all pretending to support Hillary in hopes of sinking Obama, but back in the 90's she was labeled a lesbian, fornicator, dominatrix, murderess and many other things by conservative media outlets. Of course, these days they all pretend none of that happened and claim St Sarah is the most vilified woman in politics.

    Also, the Slate article you cite (funny how the rules against posting links only apply to some) doesn't just talk about Conservative women, but pigeonholes an equal number of Democratic women, and leads off with an attack on Michelle Obama. I guess you just missed that in your quest for support for the phony persecuted conservative woman meme.

    I have to wonder if you were an editor at any time during the last 50 years, because if you were it's rather stunning that you are unaware that words like "emasculator" are now used in a gender-neutral fashion. In fact "emasculatrix" doesn't appear in any of the on-line dictionaries. Seems it is you and not the "misogynistic" reporters (both of whom are women - "reportrices" in your world perhaps?), who are lacking in education.

  9. I have to wonder if you were an editor at any time during the last 50 years, because if you were it's rather stunning that you are unaware that words like "emasculator" are now used in a gender-neutral fashion. In fact "emasculatrix" doesn't appear in any of the on-line dictionaries. Seems it is you and not the "misogynistic" reporters (both of whom are women - "reportrices" in your world perhaps?), who are lacking in education.

    I am in fact an editor, and yes, I do know that nobody really uses the Latin feminine endings on "or" words anymore. I was just having a little fun with the language. To carry your suggestion a little further, the masculine "reporter" ends in "er," not "or," so the feminine plural would be reportresses. Since the newsroom I work in is mostly female, I think I may toss the word out and see if I get blank looks or murderous ones. (Given the recent crop of J-school graduates, I'm betting on blank.) :)

    I was revolted by the treatment Hillary received among conservative pundits, and said so at the time. However, none of the publications that vilified her are what you would call mainstream media. Slate, as an extension of MSNBC, is. And can you seriously imagine Slate categorizing female candidates that way if they represented a leftward shift rather than a rightward one?

  10. So, Joel, as an editor, don't you have any comments on the appalling lack of fact checking shown by Politico in running Ms Brown's factually incorrect piece? Don't you have any comments about Gary Randall's decision to run extensive excerpts from said piece and present the factually incorrect information again, without bothering to do the least amount of due diligence (it took me all of 10 seconds on Google to find the truth and refute the lies) before passing it on? Or do your editorial instincts only kick in when it suits your partisan needs?


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.