Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Women can be vicious. Just ask men. Better yet, ask other women. If they’re honest, they’ll tell you. Women can be harsh to their own kind, especially liberal women. That’s what makes feminist campaigns like the “Women’s March” a bit of a joke. It’s not about women sticking up for one another. It’s about liberal women advancing their own liberal agenda, and if you’re not on board, you’re attacked, viciously."
I've been fascinated by the left's vitriol for Ivanka Trump. Here she is, a strong successful woman that you would think feminists would celebrate, but because of her last name she is scorned and ridiculed.
I suspect Hillary is the closest women are going to come to a female president for a couple more generations.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Ivanka as a woman, it has everything to do with an administration attempting to use the office of the President to shill for his daughter's business.
I'd give you a "nice try" but it really wasn't even that.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Ivanka as a woman, it has everything to do with an administration attempting to use the office of the President to shill for his daughter's business.
I'd give you a "nice try" but it really wasn't even that.
The problem is that, if the shoe was on the other foot, leftists would make it about the "woman." Just like they made basic criticism of HRC about the "woman." That's the hypocrisy the article calls out.
Here she is, a strong successful woman that you would think feminists would celebrate, but because of her last name she is scorned and ridiculed.
you're trying to make it about gender but then point out that this is specifically based on her last name/relative. the same boycott also encompasses "trump organization" ( owned by donald and theoretically currently run by jr and eric ) and "trump wine" ( exclusively owned by eric ).
This has absolutely nothing to do with Ivanka as a woman, it has everything to do with an administration attempting to use the office of the President to shill for his daughter's business.
I'd give you a "nice try" but it really wasn't even that.
I'd give it a 'feeble attempt'. Their desperation is showing.
Most of us could care less about shoes or who sells them or how much they are selling; etc.
Trump, however, cares a LOT despite the fact that he should be busy doing the people's business, and both he and Ivanka supposedly distanced themselves from this business.
"Women can be vicious. Just ask men. Better yet, ask other women. If they’re honest, they’ll tell you. Women can be harsh to their own kind, especially liberal women. That’s what makes feminist campaigns like the “Women’s March” a bit of a joke. It’s not about women sticking up for one another. It’s about liberal women advancing their own liberal agenda, and if you’re not on board, you’re attacked, viciously."
I've been fascinated by the left's vitriol for Ivanka Trump. Here she is, a strong successful woman that you would think feminists would celebrate, but because of her last name she is scorned and ridiculed.
I suspect Hillary is the closest women are going to come to a female president for a couple more generations.
Faulty logic. Very faulty. Kim Kardashian is also a strong successful woman by your definition.
BTW, what have women done against her? They don't support the right to have her fashion line promoted by WH employees and the president? Don't support Conway's right to breach ethics rules?
This is one of the most ridiculous things I ever read.
Using your logic, I guess men hate women too, as they are not rushing to Ivanka's defense?
The problem is that, if the shoe was on the other foot, leftists would make it about the "woman." Just like they made basic criticism of HRC about the "woman." That's the hypocrisy the article calls out.
Oh, please. This from the side who continually referred to Hillary not as Senator Clinton or Secretary Clinton but as "Bill Clinton's wife" or Shillary or Cankles, routinely, right here on C-D? Are those the people you are trying to tell us stand up for women?
This has absolutely nothing to do with Ivanka as a woman, it has everything to do with an administration attempting to use the office of the President to shill for his daughter's business.
I'd give you a "nice try" but it really wasn't even that.
I suppose you will tell us that it is meaningless that his statements were in response to an attack on his daughters business line by liberal democrats, and all the negative press spun by the fake news outlets. It's not like he addressed her clothing line out of thin air. You are going to tell us that it doesn't make any difference because...
I suppose you will tell us that it is meaningless that his statements were in response to an attack on his daughters business line by liberal democrats, and all the negative press spun by the fake news outlets. It's not like he addressed her clothing line out of thin air. You are going to tell us that it doesn't make any difference because...
What "attack" on Ivanka's line would that be? Nordstroms saying they were no longer going to carry the line because it wasn't profitable? You mean that "attack"?
Why do you hate capitalism?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
