Hilary Rosen is just another typical slut feminist, all and every trait of the typical attributes, that the slut feminists have, can be applied to this hypocrite. Be it goggle visioned outlook, refusal to look at the whole picture, blinded by political tunnel vision or demonstrating outright hate and malice towards anyone daring not to follow it's disingenuous, narrow minded, dyslexic mindset that the slut feminists have already demonstrated via copious examples. To state otherwise, would just be denying the nose on your face..

Update.. The DNC accused conservatives of attacking Rosen for being a lesbian. The adoptive mother of two children, Rosen split up with her long-timepartner and co-adoptee Elizabeth Birch in 2006.

Not to be mistaken for Hanna Rosen and "The End of Men"..

This poisonous marxist and professional hypocrite, once again demonstrates that women are their targets as well. That is, any female who has the temerity to think normally and not blindly and obsessively hate everyone, spread the appropriate malice that is. Rosen is the typical example of the slut feminist supporter and enabler, while completely disowning their blatant lie that they are for 'Equality", where in actual fact they just continually push the progressives agenda without considering outcomes, effects or it's destructiveness. Being a typical progressive ensures that those changes must be made for the sake of it and has nothing to do with improvement or practicality. We have already witnessed what women do when they have the necessary allocated power to fulfill their own level of narcissism and achieving their own outcomes, regardless of the lives they destroy while giving no consideration to the damage they cause..

They believe in change for change sake and there are no limitations to that aim..

Here is a statement from Slate's XX's misandry site -

The real problem with what Rosen said is the way it feeds into some voters’ assumptions about daaangerous feminism. It reinforces the conviction Rick Santorum wrote about when he suggested that “[r]espect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by … radical feminism’s misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.” I don’t think Santorum’s is a fair assessment, but I'm also not an undecided voter in a swing state that Barack Obama needs to win over. By pitting working moms against stay-at-homes with divisive language, Rosen feeds Santorum's argument. She makes feminists seem angry instead of inclusive. And she makes Obama's appeal to women of all types that much harder.

We already know that the slut feminist movement hate "stay at home mums", for the single reason being that they want them in the workforce, slaving for the dollar, just like everyone else. They are also very aware of the fact that mothers actually enjoy that well practised method of living and the harmony that it brings. How many times have we witnessed high flying female executives resigning to do just that. How many more times does that have to happen for that hate movement to actually change their misogynistic attitude, which contradicts their entire doctrine and demonstrates clearly what hypocrites they really are. That they are just pushing their own political agenda..

Rosin buying votes..
Stated Rosen: “When I gave $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker, I wanted him to listen to my business proposition. And when I helped organize an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000, you bet I expected their vote.”

About a decade ago, that misogynistic movement tried to mend the fence they trampled down by claiming that they were working for the "SAHM", another lie ofcourse, as they were gathering plenty of flack and they had to adjust their usual hypocrisy to cope, as they normally do. After the storm quietened down, they just went beck to their farcical existence and just recommenced destroying the family unit plus went right back to playing that same game they were before concerning themselves with the SAHM issue. So it is another case of "Rinse, Repeat, Rinse, Repeat". That practice is so far ingrained into that movement as to make it their normally practiced, standard procedure..


Applying the "Carrot before the Donkey" principal.

The other flaw that Rosin demonstrates is that have no apparent ability of seeing exactly "what women want", because if they did, they would leave the SAHMs alone and let sleeping dogs lie. But as they claim to speak for every single female on the planet, not by popular demand or any democratic process. They just demanded and assumed that to be the case. Not too many women have taken the opportunity to state otherwise, sadly, as they continue on their path of partner, sex and societal alienation..

That hate movement have relied on the "look at what we have done for you" argument and thereby demand that anything else they do, should also be supported without question, regardless of it's intentions, aims or goals..

What we do need to see on any recognisable scale is a movement from women that states "Feminists Do Not Speak for ME". That general statement has been continually stated on comments and articles I have come across. Maybe it is about time those women being continually malogned by those misogynists, started to get a little more serious about given that hate movement some opposition, as in reality, they are not for harmony or honour or dignity or equality and that being the case, they need to be removed from the equation..

Update..

Hilary Rosen banked millions destroying Napster

Feeding the endless lies to women is ofcourse a main passion for feminists, as they believe that they are the epicenter of all wisdom and sage advice. One cannot falter to flatter, condone and encourage women more than by recommending and suggesting that the recommended path they have to follow will eventually, somehow, within a particular length of time, will meet with their euphoric predictions. Meanwhile they have waited in vain for decades for it to eventuate but it never appears to arrive. Feminists and women generally, will ofcourse never admit that they are on the wrong road in trying to fulfill their "mommy track with the picket fence", dream. They are of the opinion that regardless of what they do, how they behave or what they promote, everything will eventually come their way automatically..

Cause the feminists said so. They have been lied to for so long that they actually believe the drivel they have been fed. Unfortunately, the facts are not out there to back it up. Those same females are now witnessing that in their daily lives as they continually hide their heads in the sand and live in constant denial. It truly is a sad sight..

What the feminasties do not tell, is that there is actually a preferential scale that men generally follow to find a partner of choice. One would hazard a guess that being attached to a feminist would be missing on that list altogether or be down amongst the crippled and lame as they suffer from the same..

A Man Wants a Wife, Not a “Co-Worker”

Studies and real life has already clearly demonstrated that females want to have kids, want to work part time and be a wife. mother and everything that that entails. But feminists demand the opposite, feminists want women out in the workforce so they can continually keep changing the rules, knowing that they have a lot of women out there who would in most situations, condone their actions. They can also guarantee that some level of that income will come their way and also ensure that funding and privileges will keep flowing while they have politicians by the balls. That has so far worked a dream..

We can always rely on the New York Times to keep pushing the feminist theme as they have for so long.

As Kate Bolick wrote in a much-discussed article in The Atlantic last fall, American women face “a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be ‘marriageable’ men — those who are better educated and earn more than they do.” Educated women worry that they are scaring away potential partners, and pundits claim that those who do marry will end up with unsatisfactory matches. They point to outdated studies suggesting that women with higher earnings than their husbands do more housework to compensate for the threat to their mates’ egos, and that men who earn less than their wives are more likely to experience erectile dysfunction.

Link to the above article in the NYT.. 



This is the typical ego feeding that female journalists are mostly into, especially when they are feeding the feminist agitprop in ooze covered drool. Never cease to feed the ego and don't forget to pat them on the head for being good girls and doing as they are told..

How many times have we witnessed "high flying female exectutives" quit their jobs just to be stay at home moms. What does that tell you ?

Meanwhile, and as we have seen time and time again, it's those women who want to make a different life for themselves who are still marginalised and berated. They have to be seen to be doing the feminist's bidding, even if it is at their own expense and that is what this is all about. As we have witnessed right from the beginning, the feminists have a standard FU response aimed at anyone who dares to think or act differently to their demands and it's this girlthink that is basically causing all the problems. So the ball is in the girls court but they fail to pick it up and run with it, meanwhile feminists are screwing their lives even further into the ground..

It truly is pitiful..