arndt@lymph.DEC (01/11/85)
Or: Encountering 'Reality' at the check-out counter!
[Whenever I want a sanity check of the cosmos I always step into the
longest line at the check-out counter at the local mart. It is there
that I can peruse the latest tabloids and feel the pulse beat, so
to speak, of the great moronic masses. One must hunker down at the
trough every so often if only not to be caught off guard by the latest
devolutionary event. I mean where else can one absorb news of; "MAN GIVES
BIRTH TO FROG, SEA CREATURES TELL OF LOST WORLD, RICH ROSEN EXPLAINS
HIS WORLDVIEW." ]
One should not miss the current issues of NOW Times (the 'official journal
of the National Organization for Woman) and Ms. Magazine. Just a few rags
over on the shelf check out the Good Housekeeping Magazine as well.
"Put'em together and what have you got? Bippity boppity boo!!!"
NOW Times contains an election report in which Judy Goldsmith (NOW President)
explains the recent election to the faithful by saying, "During his reelection
campaign, Ronald Reagan was less than candid with American woman. Reagan did
not campaign to outlaw abortion. He did not campaign against pay equality.
He did not compaign against equal rights for women." You see, women voted
FOR Reagan because they didn't understand what his positions were on these
issues!!!! Of course Judy and her gang of geese spent the last four years
TELLING the women of America how naughty Reagan was for them. Either women
are politically naive, in the extreme, or they don't listen to Judy and
friends.
It is hard to imagine a sentient being in the U.S.of A. NOT knowing the
President's position on ERA and abortion (he wrote a book against it!).
But NOW wants us to believe women didn't realize he was against 'women's
rights'.
Anyway, the real story printed here is that NOW has no electoral clout or
appeal with women. That has been DEMONSTRATED!!!!!!! Reagan WON the
women's vote. There WAS no gender gap. Blacks lost also, by the way,
along with homosexuals and Unions and the rest of the Mondale Morons.
(That is THEIR analysis as well and now, hopefully, we'll see the Republican
party start to make an appeal to Blacks - forget the rest!)
Of about 12 million new voters signed up; (by the two Rev's largely) they went
for Reagan 61 to 32. More than the national averages.
But back to 'reality in the check-out counter'. Ms. Magazine has a wonderfully
funny "Women of the Year" piece in it's January issue. I wonder who???
But you can guess, can't you. Gerry what's her name, and it goes downhill
from there. Now look across the shelf to Good Housekeeping - doesn't the
name just make their blood boil? They run their 16th annual "Most Admired
Women" readers poll. (I'm starting to giggle!) Guess who is in the first
four places?
1) Nancy Reagan
2) Mother Teresa
3) Jeane Kirkpatrick
4) and PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY!!!!
Gerry what's her name is in the top ten, but after Margaret Thatcher and
PAT NIXON!!! Don't you just love it? In discussing their subscribers'
choices, the magazine noted that "time and time again readers made state-
ments such as 'She makes me proud to be a woman.'"
It seems the gals of the '80s venerate a pro-life nun, an anti-ERA crusader
and a foreign policy hard-liner!!! The only thing the radical 'Feminists'
have in common with most women is ovulation!
The real women's movement DOES have a concern for 'rights' for women and
does have a voice and a program, however much ignored by the ideologues
in the media. They stopped ERA dead! And they're not done yet!
Now of course there are 'radicals' on the right in the women's movement.
But if anything is clear now it is that NOW and co. have nowhere to go but
further out to sea. (With a nod to: The Boston Herald, Don Feder column,
Wed., Jan.9,1985.)
Bye, Bye.
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndt
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (01/17/85)
Oh Ken, I had so missed your rantings in net.motss, I'm glad you've found a new place to vent your spleen. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh