Our thanks to Martin for this piece in the New York Post.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Our thanks to Martin for this piece in the New York Post.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
A quote from this article;
“When women were genuinely oppressed — before they could “, etc. etc.
Thus I see this author still subscribes to the false re-written history about women’s one time ‘oppression’ though…
LikeLike
Hard to believe that a feminist could possibly describe a stay at home mother, fully supported by a working husband, as oppressed. Only a deranged mind could think of something like that.
Regarding the article, great to see that the voters (enough of them anyways) recognized the lack of substance in Hillary’s campaign and would not vote for her when her main message was electing the first female president, regardless of vision or sound public policy proposals.
LikeLike
“When women were genuinely oppressed” When was that then? What she means is when women didn’t have contraception or fridges or vacuum cleaners so life was hard just like it was for men. Men were expected to provide for women and be held legally responsible for their crimes, their debts and their general well being. It doesn’t sound like oppression to me
LikeLike