KSFO's Rodgers said many "professed leaders of the feminist movement" are "hags" who "couldn't get laid in a men's prison"
On the October 17 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, Rodgers said: "[Y]ou look at many -- perhaps most -- but many of the women who are professed leaders of the feminist movement in this country, and they're a bunch of hags." He added: "They couldn't get laid in a men's prison, let's be honest about it."
Earlier in the segment, Rodgers said that "not only has Sarah Palin achieved what a lot of traditional feminists have always said they wanted -- a woman who can do it all, raise a family, take care of kids, succeed in her chosen career -- yeah, you would think, if they were consistent in their principles, they would be applauding her. She has done what they said they wanted women to be able to do. She's done it." Rodgers went on to assert that "the reason a lot of these women, these liberal women, hate her, is not only because she chose not to have an abortion, went ahead and had her last baby knowing that the child was going to have Down syndrome, and she's 'I don't care.' " Rodgers later added: "[M]ost of all, they resent the fact that she's good-lookin' on top of all of that. She's good-lookin'."
As Media Matters for America has documented, on his September 17 broadcast, Rodgers said: "Look at these ugly skanks, who make up the female leadership of the Democratic Party. ... I mean, my God -- you know, guys sitting around, talking, perhaps in a bar someplace -- they have a way of scoring them. ... I know, it's sexist. It's sexist. It's unfair, and all of that, but they will look over a female who comes in and just make an announcement: How many drinks it would take before you'd jump her bones, you know." Rodgers added: "You look at most of the headline women of the Democratic Party, you're thinking, 'It's gotta be closing time and five drinks, and maybe not even then.' And that's what they're really PO'd about. [Gov.] Sarah Palin's good-looking and they hate that." Later in the same broadcast, Rodgers said: "Democrat [sic] women, admit it: You're nothing but a bunch of phonies. And I think we have to ask: Would you like Sarah Palin better if she got pregnant again and did have an abortion, because it's obvious, with a lot of liberal women, killing babies is the main priority they have. They can BS their way around it all they want, but bottom line: That's it. It's clear. It's obvious."
Additionally, on his September 23 broadcast, Rogers said: "I have -- and I may be overstating for effect here, as I am wont to do from time to time. But I have a deep suspicion that the reason the liberals hate Sarah Palin is that she is a normal person. And they hate that, they just hate it. And I also believe -- and of course, the left-wing bloggers just went nuts when I first said this, but I still believe it, so I'll say it again. I believe that the reason a bunch of puckered-butt Democrat women hate Sarah Palin is because her idea of choice was choosing not to have an abortion."
From the October 17 edition of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show:
RODGERS: As we have discussed before -- and it drove some of the left-wing bloggers crazy, of course -- but not only has Sarah Palin achieved what a lot of traditional feminists have always said they wanted -- a woman who can do it all, raise a family, take care of kids, succeed in her chosen career -- yeah, you would think, if they were consistent in their principles, they would be applauding her. She has done what they said they wanted women to be able to do. She's done it. But, again -- and this is what drove some of the left-wing nuts who torture themselves by listening to this program, drove them crazy -- I pointed out -- and if you have eyes, you can see it as an obvious fact -- the reason a lot of these women, these liberal women, hate her, is not only because she chose not to have an abortion, went ahead and had her last baby knowing that the child was going to have Down syndrome, and she's, "I don't care."
OFFICER VIC (co-host Tom Benner): "He's my baby."
RODGERS: "He is my child, and I'm going to take care of him and raise him as best I can." They resented that. But most of all, they resent the fact that she's good-lookin' on top of all of that. She's good-lookin'. And you look at many -- perhaps most -- but many of the women who are professed leaders of the feminist movement in this country, and they're a bunch of hags. I mean --
OFFICER VIC: Well, yeah.
RODGERS: They couldn't get laid in a men's prison, let's be honest about it. I mean, you talk about a bunch of two-baggers, just look at 'em. God.
OFFICER VIC: And I think the subcategory under that is the fact that she did all of that. She succeeded in doing -- accomplishing all of those feminist goals with a man by her side. A caring --
RODGERS: A regular working guy.
OFFICER VIC: -- good-looking -- exactly. As opposed to, get the man the hell out of here. I'm doing it myself.
RODGERS: Or, unless he's some weenie on a college faculty --
OFFICER VIC: Right.
RODGERS: -- who'll end up doing an impression of Mr. Peepers.
OFFICER VIC: Yeah, with the twirling bowtie thing.
RODGERS: Oh yeah. So, all right, that ought to be good enough to fire up some of the left-wing websites for a while. So, mission accomplished.
OFFICER VIC: And a happy Friday morning to you, too, everybody.
RODGERS: Detestable little weenie bastards.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Does he have children?
The more appropriate question is; did his parents have any kids that lived?
"They couldn't get laid in a men's prison, let's be honest about it."
But I bet Lee Rogers could......
magnolia.....(to your question above)........ No!
Sarah Plain should take a page from one of the greatest feminists of all time, Bella Azbug. Now she had heart, moxy and you had to love her hats:
Beauty is on the inside, Rodgers. I guess he didn't get the memo, although you notice he didn't site any examples. And btw, I think Bella was beautiful, just like her name.
Bella was a wonderful person.
J, thanks for appreciating her. She was a great broad. I love great broads! :-0)
I read this book over the summer, it was a great read
http://www.amazon.com/Bella-Abzug-McCarthy-Battled-Politics/dp/0374299528
Hey, I'll check that out! Thanks. Molly Ivins, another great broad. Are you familiar with her? Hel,l Sarah Palin will never come close to being a great broad at the rate she's going now. Blech.
Molly Ivins was another wonderful lady. Sarah Palin could not even carry Molly Ivins glasses. Not anywhere in the same league.
I did enjoy Molly's writings. She has some great wit. I was sorry to see her go.
think it was Abzug
Sorry, you are right. I get in a hurry when I type, See above :-0)
Azbug, now that's a great name too ;-) Guess what? I just googled Azbug, and got a number of sites using that very spelling for her, as in:
http://www.now.org/nnt/05-98/bella.html
the google page used "azbug" and the article uses both spellings!
Thank you, Mary. I tend to be more of a macro thinker and don't worry too much about these distinctions unless they're central to a concept. And Bella was a concept onto herself. And you're a great broad in the best tradition of the word. :-) Nice to see you btw! It's been a while.
WTF? Why would anyone make a reference to Mr. Peepers in 2008?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Peepers
I have to admit how the way he showed us how gentlemanly he is it was - breathtaking to say the least. What a kind, fine, refined, and otherwise defined, highly outstanding, backslapping, cigar smoking young stud of a southern gentleman he is!
WTF? Why would anyone make a reference to Mr. Peepers in 2008?
A 1954-era "Mr. Peepers" reference is valid for people like Lee Rodgers, whose political phi;losophies are rooted in McCarthyism.
On the topic of references, I find MMfA's inclusion of a wiki link for the "2 bagger" phrase curious.
Surely they realize that their audience is largely made up of guys like myself who are relegated to being less discriminating when it comes to the visual appeal of potential female partners and are already intimately familiar with the term.
Well said, Neon. As a man who has been described as a "three bagger*" by more than one woman, I don't think there's any need to go into detail.
* same as a two bagger, but with the addition of another bag for me to put the money in.
Surely they realize that their audience is largely made up of guys like myself who are relegated to being less discriminating when it comes to the visual appeal of potential female partners and are already intimately familiar with the term.
True, but with increasing interest in the presidential race this year, MMFA is probably attracting many younger people who might not be as familiar with the term as you or I.
"I don't care."
Thanks Lee
That one line sums up Palin's attitude towards her "unborn baby". She was in Texas and showed signs of the birth being imminent. Instead of going to the nearest medical center, she chose to make her flight from Texas to Alaska, with a layover, then have her baby in Alaska.
That shows that her concerns were not about her "unborn baby" but about something else?
"Shelly Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women introduced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin over the weekend in California, speaking not on behalf of NOW but "as an individual, as a woman's rights activist for 30 years who has worked for all those years to see this day."
A "professed leader of the feminist movement?"
Ahh, but if you read the rest of the story, you will see that Ms. Mandell was given quite the tongue lashing by other NOW'ers in charge. Obviously Ms. Mandell strayed from the script here, and her "endorsement" damn well better not get in the way of the prioritized agendas for NOW, which is liberal causes. Women are secondary to that.
Shunned by NOW, but still a professed leader of the feminist movement.
"damn well better not get in the way of the prioritized agendas for NOW, which is liberal causes."
The top six of which I believe liberals would be glad to call their own if the conservatives have indeed relinquished them.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that the "prioritized agendas" for conservatives are:
*To end reproductive freedom
*To end diversity and racial equality
*To end the prevention of violence against women
*To end equal rights to lesbians
*To end Constitutional Equality
*To end Economic Justice
When special interest groups label themselves as promoting a gender, or a race, but are concerned more with political ideology than anything else, then they should change their name, in this case it should be NOLW (L for liberal). NOW is misleading, because not all women support or champion the causes NOW does, nor does NOW support or champion women who don't follow lockstop with their liberal agendas, your example of Ms. Mandell is a textbook example of that.
It's all good, just be more accurate in your claims as to who you speak for.
When special interest groups label themselves as promoting a gender, or a race, but are concerned more with political ideology than anything else, then they should change their name, in this case it should be NOLW (L for liberal). NOW is misleading, because not all women support or champion the causes NOW does, nor does NOW support or champion women who don't follow lockstop with their liberal agendas, your example of Ms. Mandell is a textbook example of that.
It's all good, just be more accurate in your claims as to who you speak for.
But first, Tommy, all the Chambers of Commerce across the USA musty change their names to "Chamber of Republican Commerce" and the NRA has to become the "NRA Division of the Republican Party" - which they pretty much are right now....
Wz,
I specifically said if they have a gender or race in their title, like NOW does.
I do believe that NOW has a diverse range of women who are members, and they do come from all different ideaologies. There is definitely a majority of liberal women in NOW, but doesn't that stand to reason since liberals tend to fight for women's rights a lot more (in a historical sense, and well, now as well) than conservatives?
I will take your word for it, as I am not that familiar with their membership, but women are not a monolithic group, anymore than men are. Importans issues to some women would be low taxes, pro-life, and a host of other issues that NOW either does not fight for, or soundly rejects.
NOW's priority issues concern U.S. domestic policy. These include advancing reproductive freedoms, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping rape and domestic violence, ensuring economic justice, winning lesbian rights, and achieving constitutional equality.
NOW also fights for the rights of women all over the world, the disenfranchised women who are suject to genital mutilation in Africa and elsewhere. They also assist women in fighting the cruelness of the Taliban.
And I'm guessing that Republican women are almost as pro choice as Democratic women. When it gets down to brass tacks, most women still want to be able to get an abortion legally. I'm basing my opinion - and it is just that - on the fact that over 70% of women in general want a safe and legal abortion to remain a fact of life.
I'm not a member of NOW (men also belong btw), but I do belong to a group of business women who promote most of the same ideals and we have Democrats and Republicans n the group.
Feminism has been used as a dirty word for so long that it keeps people from wanting to be affiliated, so that's the main goal with people like Rodgers and his mostly RW crazy ilk. No need to sugar coat that fact. It's a ploy to create fear and politicize the group, who do have a liberal viewpoint for sure. But they help all women. As far as their mission goes, that is, which doesn't encompass everything a woman might be concerned with.
JJ, Nice post. I am not opposed to NOW, or anything they promote. They have every right to advocate for the causes they feel are important. And I don't consider feminism a dirty word at all. My point is it has very different meanings and priorities for many people. Conservative women who call themselves feminists have just as much right to champion the causes they feel are important to them.
As I said, NOW is for the most part ideologically driven to the left, and that is perfectly fine, I just recommend they change their name to more aptly define their missions.
But, hey, if they don't, and I doubt they will, it's all good.
Enjoy your weekend.....
National Organization for Women is the name. There's nothing wrong with it. The goals of stopping rape and domestic violence alone ensure it's for all women. Conservative women have their own groups that cater to mostly ideological concerns that sound very broad based. Why you split hairs about the naming of the group is a mystery. Me thinks you just like to argue. But it's so not an issue except to those that are trying to make it one for ideological reasons of their own. Like this Rodgers fellow.
Tommy split hairs??? There's a shock.
Why you split hairs about the naming of the group is a mystery.
No mystery to me. I've heard the same argument made for renaming NOW, the ACLU, and the NAACP on many right-wing talk shows. What Tommy suggested is nothing new - it's yet another well-worn right-wing talking point.
Conservative women who call themselves feminists have just as much right to champion the causes they feel are important to them.
Then they can join Concerned Women for America and hang out with that useless skank Patricia Heaton.
Wz,
I specifically said if they have a gender or race in their title, like NOW does.
But you can't ignore the fact that many groups out there have a decided conservative slant, Tommy. Like the Chanbers of Commerce and the NRA. You called on NOW to be honest - I'm calling on the Chambers of Commerce and the NRA to do the same. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the NRA - or as I refer to them, "Nuts Ruining America".
Good points wz. The Chamber of Commerce is a special interest group that labels themselves as promoting business, but they are definitely more concerned with a Republican anti-union political ideology.
There are hundreds of thousands of progressive business owners who don't subscribe to the profit over people Republican business model and they deserve politically neutral institutional representation as well.
However, true to Tommy form, he gets cornered and has to squeel, nuh-uh, that's different because I say so. What a cheap rhetorical trickster.
"It's all good, just be more accurate in your claims as to who you speak for."
Fox News: Real Journalism, Fair and Balanced.
Don't expect me to disagree with you on that one.
I remember when Condi Rice was named Secretary of State Neil Boortz went on a jag about how Democrats had to support her because she was a black woman and if they didn't they were racist and sexist.
That was the same reasoning behind Poppy Bush nominating the thorougly unqualified Clarence "Dumber Than Dirt" Thomas to the Supreme Court. He knew that any Dem who objected to his choice would be branded a racist.
Personally, I think Clarent Thomas would be stupid whatever color his skin was.
Lee Rodgers, OTOH, COULD get laid in a men's prison - and probably does on a regular basis.......
By who, Jerry Corsi?
Projecting again, Rodgers?
Detestable little right-wing asshat.
It's a wonder that San Francisco of all places would put up with a dolt like Lee Rodgers. But retro-humans are everywhere...he belongs in the jurassic era.
Jurassic
Mary, the ass part of that word is very on point :-0)
Why thank you, sis...Lee is still upset with liberal women after they rejected his advances while he filmed his short feature "Jurassic Pork." Jeff Christie had a cameo.
LOL! "Jurassic pork" sounds like a perfect porn name for JC, huh?
The Bay area has it's share of conservatives.
Thing about the Bay Area, is that it is always held up as some sort of liberal bastion, but indeed, it has a very diverse cross section of people from all different walks of life, and ideaologies, as far as I can tell.
The question is, could Lee Rodgers get laid in a men's prison?
"Women are secondary to that."
How they responded and your conclusion is one helluva leap. I expected nothing less.
This idiot is exemplary of the kind of thinking that PROOVES that conservatives have no idea, absolutley no clue, when it comes to women in general.
Put aside for the moment that this guy thinks that 'being beautiful' somehow qualifies you for office. (And only external, physical, conventional beauty to boot!)
But this is exactly what's so ridiculous about the Palin pick. These guys honestly thought that EVERY woman in the country would vote for Hillary, just becasue she's a woman. No... but a MAJORITY would have, because they believe in her POLICIES, esp when it comes to women's issues. Conservative woman wouldn't have, but these guys didn't give them any credit for that. So they grab Palin and figure that they'd get the liberal woman's vote, just as Hillary would have gotten the conservative women's vote. (NOT!)
Newsflash guys: WOMEN THINK FOR THEMSELVES. THEY THINK, ON AVERAGE, A BIT MORE THAN MEN DO! AND YOU GUYS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE THINKING!
It just like the blacks and Barack Obama. He's not getting votes just because he's black. If that were the case, why didn't you put Alan Keyes on the ticket? Or CONDI RICE - double demographic whammy! Oh yeah... becasue you figured out that minorties tend to vote DEMOCRATIC because of the party's POLICIES, not just because of race.
You should have given WOMEN at least that much credit, and put Tom Ridge, Joe Liberman or Chuck Hagel (my favorite!) on the ticket instead. If McCain had done that, and kept the tone of hisr campaign poitive, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts this thing would still be a dead heat.
So, you can't manage to post a link, you can't engage in conversation supporting your copy-&-paste crap and you can't paste an image.
What can you do right?
What can you do right?
Auntiesocial seems to have a pretty good capacity for responding to simple emotional triggers and following instructions. Good qualities in a pet.
He sounds like a guy who's not getting laid. Looks like it too.
Nice projection there, dearie. I have no problem with how Sarah looks. It's her policy positions that are ugly and obscene.