If the stiletto fits.
Walsh needs to "man up" (NB Those are not the two words for Walsh )
before I get to be called a misogynist rightist woman hater I picked up the above quotation from an article at 'The New York Post' by Andrea Peyser who sees things differently from Walsh:
Ears, nose or wherever — are women so in need of male protection that we can’t take a remark that may (or may not) rip into our delicate sensibilities?Please. Don’t worry about women. We can take anything Trump dishes out. When judging Trump, I would suggest we all man up. Look at his record of hiring, and firing, females. I’ve not heard of him called out for underpaying, overworking, failing to promote or laying hands on women in his employ."
The rest of Walsh rant, for that is what it is, a rather unhinged one at that in my opinion with sad references to her personal life, as if that had any bearing on anything and which, for all anyone knows may be true, again not it that matters.
I’ve had righties bray I’m not marriageable and that it’s my “time of the month."
The statement about "rightist sexist hypocrisy" is the one that needs addressing not Walsh's possible marital attractiveness or lack of. The short reply can be made, in utter finality, in two words;
"Sarah Palin." How any woman, even a far left ranter, can deny that Palin has been the subject of the most gross, violent, idiotic, destructive, hateful, lying filthy misogyny is beyond comprehension.
What the left has thrown at Palin, in near utter silence from "feminists" and women's groups like 'NOW ' since 2008, is beyond comprehension and rational understanding. Any leftist woman who states that it is the right which is hypocritical on women is either a blind partisan or an abject liar.
Now I have had the response to this statement from leftist women who advised that "both are wrong" when, in response to their "right misogynists" I mention Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and the hate on Palin.
Yes of course both types of misogyny are wrong but there is a difference. It is the left who are the utter hypocrites by not only commencing the Palin hate but for doing it in the certain knowledge they will get away with it because leftist women will, by and large, allow it to pass uncondemned (unremarked on is too weak and an easy out.)
If Walsh can produce an article where she condemned Andrew Sullivan for his relentless "Trig Trutherism"
where she can show that Hillary has been subjected to having her daughter called not her own and the result of incest. When a rightist reporter rents a house next to hers to write a hatchet-job scandal book whilst the media chortles. If Walsh can produce the equivalent of those examples, and literally hundreds of others as bad or worse, then she can complain of "rightist sexist misogyny"
With what the left have done to Palin in relentless hate to a woman, unparalleled in American history, has forever disbarred them from calling anyone else "sexist" If Walsh is not convinced she might consider how she would react if these T-shirts bore the name "Megyn Kelly' or Joan Walsh: