It is beyond shocking that the women who have claimed for decades that women can and should compete openly in a man’s world, breaking glass ceilings while multi-tasking on a variety of projects they choose . . . have now become knuckle draggers like the men they first claimed oppressed them over 50 years ago. You know, the men who said a woman’s place is in the home, and keeping her barefoot and pregnant would ensure that she stayed there.

Irony of ironies, one of the women who inspired the modern feminist movement was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who, with a handful of other maverick women, fought for abolition and for women’s right to vote. By the way, she also had seven children while fighting that good fight, and no one back then, seemed to suggest she couldn’t do both. And even though she lived over 150 years ago, it was much easier for her to get from town to town, than it is for Gov. Sarah Palin because no cities in Alaska are connected by roads. To travel and govern in the largest state in the union, you either have to go by boat, plane, helicopter or dogsled.

But the reality is that Sarah Palin, who is a true renaissance women, is a culmination of all that the modern feminists “claim” they have been fighting for for years. But we have seen what a fallacy that supposition has been in the past as we saw their complete and total disdain for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. We have seen the duplicity as it relates to leveling the playing field for blacks when they claim to want and celebrate th e success of all blacks, but resort to high tech lynchings if that black or that woman is a conservative or a Republican.

This bi-polar response to women of different political stripes will only serve to be the final nail in the coffin of a political movement that was never about elevating women to the positions of leadership and responsibility. It has been a movement that has worked to redefine women in the basest terms, lowering the bar of excellence to incorporate the worse qualities of man. These self-proclaimed champions of women refer to Sarah Palin as a Barbie Doll, cheerleader, stewardess, etc., denying her amazing accomplishments, while working to redefine successful women as Desperate Housewives, only wanting Sex in the City. The left is happy with that dumbed down assessment of women because they have a desperate need to keep women as pawns of their victimization rhetoric, convincing them that they are less than equal, they are less than qualified, and they need the government and big brother to accomplish anything in life. If women operate outside of that firmly established parameter, they are immediately excoriated, marginalized and condemn ed for making choices the hierarchy did not approve.

That is the battle we are facing in this country today where the forces of individuality, responsibility and integrity are fighting the forces of subservient, indoctrinated revisionism that lies about the history of women, blacks and the role that both parties have played in liberating both. It is fitting that Gov. Sarah Palin is a Republican because that was the party that was founded in 1854 to abolish slavery, and eventually give equal voting rights to all women. Six planks of their first nine-plank platform dealt with abolition, equal rights for liberated slaves, and the right for them to vote. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed unanimously by the Republicans and fought unanimously by the Democrats who, when they gained total control of the House, the Senate and the White House in 1892, totally repealed all two dozen civil rights bills that the Republicans had passed. They instituted Jim Crow laws to keep black REPUBLICANS from voting because at this time, every single black belonged to the party of Lincoln and knew the Democrats, who had proudly formed the KKK, would kill them if they tried to vote for a Republican.

 Frederick Douglas even said, “In all the southern states, the 14th and 15th Amendments are practically of no force or effect. By means of the shotgun and midnight raid, the old master class has triumphed over the newly enfranchised citizen and put the Constitution under their feet . . . The colored people, who largely outnumber the whites and who are Republican in politics, have been banished from the ballot box and robbed of representation in the councils of the nation . . . and the social conditions of the colored people in that section is but little above what it was in the time of slavery.”
By 1900, four years after the Supreme Court ignored the 14th Amendment in their Plessey v. Ferguson decision, a Democrat Senator from South Carolina, Ben Tillman even moved to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments by stating, “We made up our minds that the Amendments were null and void; that the civil rights acts of congress were null and void; that oaths required by such laws were null and void.” And even though Republican Teddy Roosevelt welcomed Booker T. Washington to the White House in 1901, more than 10 years later he was snubbed by Democrat president Woodrow Wilson, who chose instead to show the racist movie, Birth of a Nation, in the White House, making it the very first movie ever20shown there. Wilson, by the way, had only been governor of New Jersey for two years before being elected as president.

That same Democrat party is alive and well today, and we have witnessed an attempted lynching of Gov. Sarah Palin. She is vilified for being a working mom when that has been one of the leading planks in the feminist platform for decades. She is condemned for being feminine and pretty when these same people pump billions of dollars in the fashion, make-up, plastic surgery industry to tell women they are less than a woman if they are not perfectly packaged.

Their very flimsy reason for opposing her, as expressed by key hypocrites like Sally Quinn, is that they care about these children, and it isn’t fair to these children to have a mother who would be a Vice President. That will come as a real shock to millions of working moms who have no choice but to work because they are the primary breadwinner. Her remark that all children need a mom and dad to raise them will be a happy note for the gay community th at has insisted for years that two men can replace a woman at any time, and I don’t recall Sally Quinn, or the other feminists standing up and saying to the gay community that only a woman can raise a child, and that woman should stay home and do it. That would be an interesting story to follow.

It is also very ironic that nothing was said about the bar for president being not only lowered, but removed by a woman . . . Hillary Clinton. This was a woman who enabled her husband to abuse her and other women and she is rewarded with a senate seat from a state she never even lived in, and then arrogantly presumed she is qualified to be president, just because she slept in the White House. No one questioned it, and if a Republican dared to say a thing about her priorities of a political activist over that of being a mom, they would have been laughed out of town. No Republican was allowed to point out that the emperor had no clothes and there was no substance to her claim to achieve higher office. It was accepted with a national shrug, which allowed another totally ill-equipped politician to throw his hat in the ring figuring, heh, if Hillary can do it, pretty much anyone in this country can do it, so why not me?

The only problem is that when Barack Obama did it, he was not a household name and even Democrats were questioning his vitae, not because they couldn’t get behind him if selected as the nominee, but because Hillary was their clear choice and in those days, was seen as the clear winner against any Republican who would run for president.

Back in January of 2007, when Barack had only been in the US Senate for two years and decided to run for president, a USA Today article stated, “Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate, one loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives, one stirring keynote address at a Democratic National Convention, two books. That’s Barack Obama’s political résumé. Is it enough to qualify him to be president?” The responses in the same article were overwhelmingly in support of a total unknown, untested, untried 44-year-old being ready to be president . . . not even vice president. Carol Hood, a Democratic Party chairman in Calhoun County, Iowa said, sure, “Anymore, that might be a good factor,=2 0because he doesn’t have a lot of people he owes things to.” Hmm, and he had already been in the US Senate for two years and owed nothing to anyone? How much less beholden would Governor Palin be who comes from over 3,000 miles outside the Washington, D.C. Beltway.

Compared to her 12 years in public office, Obama has served only 11, if you generously include the last two where he was been running, full time for president, while being paid by the American taxpayers, to do a job he saw immediately, and arrogantly as a launching pad for his political career. Naively, he has actually included his two years as a presidential candidate as being executive experience comparing his 2500 employees to her 50 employees as a mayor, conveniently forgetting that she is a Governor, not a mayor. Wow, talk about desperate. First of all, she is a Governor of the largest state in the nation, who oversees a budget in the billions and he doesn’t run the campaign . . . he is the candidate. That would be like Vivien Leigh saying she produced, directed and handled the financing for Gone With the Wind. No, you are the star, while others keep the machine afloat. And that accounting alone should require the IRS do to an audit of him, his campaign, his office and demand that he repay his salary from the past two years to the taxpayers if he readily admits he has been running for president and not serving as a Senator.

The accusation by Democrats of Governor Palin being too young is funny from the party that idolizes the Kennedy clan, forgetting that JFK was only 43 when he became president. Was he more qualified at 43 than a governor WOMAN who is 44? The suggestion that women are insulted by the Palin nomination because she is what . . . too young, too inexperienced, truly is an insult to all women who worked hard in a man’s world to compete toe to toe with them only to be dissed by their fellow sisters when they finally get there on their own terms. Oh, did I mention that Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he was the VP that took over after President McKinley was shot? Did anyone suggest that at 42 he should not be a part of that ticket because he was too young? But a 44-year-old woman is too young?

What do the political scientists, the experts in politics say about the need for a heavily weighted resume? Dean Spiliotes, of St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. says that “What really matters is your temperament and your ability to make good decisions,” Spiliotes says. “Voters make their decision at a very intuitive, gut level. … They have a mental checklist of what a president looks like, sou nds like and acts like.”

Early on in the Obama campaign, several comparisons were made between him and President Lincoln, also from Illinois. He was a member of the Illinois state legislature before serving in the Congress for a short time before becoming president. There was a sense of desperation in this comparison since Lincoln was a Republican.

Nicole Schilling, chairman of the Democratic Par ty in Greene County, Iowa, says Obama’s lack of a long political record will work to his advantage. “Some people are saying he’s young, he needs to wait,” she says. “I think it’s going to work to his advantage here.” Heh Nicole, does that mean that Gov. Palin’s real experience will also work to her advantage?

Mell Brooks, Democratic Chairman in Littleton, N. H., says he thinks Obama can achieve that goal despite his inexperience. “No doubt 20 years of experience is better than 10,” he says.” For some individuals, it might well be a drawback, but it depends on the intellect, the knowledge and the ability of the candidate,” he says. “For Obama, inexperience is not a big drawback.” How then is it for a woman with experience?

All that said, it is understandable that the Democrat party is going to elevate their candidate and try and destroy the Republican. That is politics; it is a full contact sport. But what is causing the conservative base to solidify in a battalion of hardened warriors, riding to her defense, is the amazing, unabashed, totally unobjective coverage of Gov. Palin b y the media. Their true colors are finally showing and to acknowledge them as professionals would do dishonor and service to that historically wonderful profession. Renaissance Women sent out a press release of our excitement about the selection of Sarah Palin and questioned the immediate spin that she was not as qualified to serve as Barack. Here is just one sample of the many responses we received from editors, publishers and self-proclaimed journalists that will show you just how far off the deep end this profession has fallen. (I did not make a single change in his missive . . . not even correcting this Managing Editor’s misspelled words.)

“Spin it any way you want, but the choice of Palin was a slap in the face to all the Hillary backers: ‘Oh, you like women in high office, here’s one, she’s a beauty queen from the Great White North. A mother of five including a Down’s Syndrome baby and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should be thinking about FAMILY, not the White House…Whatever happened to those ‘Republican’ values that’ve been rammed down our throats for the past eight years. Palin, Limbaugh, Cindy McCain: the hypocacy just kills me. The selection of Palin is a clear sign that John McCain is grasping for straws….The person I want to be a heartbeat away Joe Biden. Not Sarah Palin, who’s against a woman’s right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest, who’s against gay (human) rights and who’s against gun control. We might as well move back to the 19th century.” (John Loesing, Managing Editor of The Acorn Newspapers,

No, here is what is insulting to women: Bullies who pick on a young 17-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and is used as a political pawn by the same people who said that a grown man, serving as president of the United States could molest a teenager in the White House because his sexual life should be private. What is insulting is his enabling wife who is seen as the victim because she stood by for years as he raped and molested women, even allowing these women’s reputations to be destroyed and dragged through the mud being called everything from “trailer trash” to liars.

How are women insulted by a woman who has been able to balance a family and career and was even pregnant during her tenure as Governor? After realizing she was carrying a child with Down Syndrome and all of the extra care that will entail, she opted to do the right thing and give her child a chance at life. She has successfully managed a state that redefines frontier and harsh environment, while carrying a baby and raising her other four children. This is not a woman that other women are insulted by, but are inspired by and if a sycophant pseudo “journalist” chooses to think women are insulted by this type of strength and grace, then he is a pathetic individual who has chosen the wrong line of work.

Modern feminism died in August, 2008, by a self-inflicted shot to the heart of all it claimed to stand for. It has finally been revealed as nothing more than an arm of the Democrat party as it has effectively placed women on a philosophical plantation, that if they try and put on shoes of wisdom and leave the kitchen of indoctrination and revisionism, they are ridiculed and destroyed. The new feminists who will rise out of the ashes of this suicidal display of hypocrisy will be real renaissance women in the mold of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman and other warrior mavericks who bucked a system, caused REAL change and solidified for an eternity, the memory of real women of courage and grit. Governor Sarah Palin is the new standard bearer of that movement and she has already garnered millions of followers, men and women. The Genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Let the games begin!

Originally Posted to

Hollywood is perplexed by the fact that the vast rightwing religious, zealot, homophobic, fanatics haven’t protested the gay sheep-boy movie that the left is gushing over. What’s to protest? Let the marketplace decide whether it wants to see two men play . . . newsflash for Howard Dean . . . the real meaning of “hide the salami.” But besides being anatomically challenged, proving once again that public education does not provide kids with a basic understanding of what functions specific body parts play, what point would a protest make?

All a protest of a very boring and mediocre rooster flick would prove is that stereotypes are easy to ascribe too if all parties play the roles the other parties have defined for them. All conservatives and Christians . . .according to the left, are automatically, de facto, homophobic, once again illustrating the grand failure of the public schools to appropriately equip their little minions with even the correct pejoratives to sling at anyone who doesn’t embrace their agendas. Homo (latin) . . . as in homo sapien . . . means “man” . . . phobic . . . is “fear of.” No one is afraid of “man” unless this man is perhaps saying “believe in my god or you lose your head.” So we could start saying homoislamophobic, but then the same open-minded liberals who condemn anyone for not embracing their ideologies would complain about anyone being called homoislamophobic, which means fear of an extremist Islamic fundamentalist man, who would cut off your head for not believing in his form of compassionate theology, is being intolerant and mean-spirited. But somehow . . .calling someone just plain old, homophobic, is not being intolerant and mean-spirited.

But all that is so tedious and hard to massage into a palatable, 20-second sound bite for a populace educated in public schools. (Yes, this is a duel-themed commentary, the second added as a minor irritant.) So let me simplify the logical origin of a complaint about the sheep boy movie that ironically will not be dispensed by the usual suspects from the vast right wing lineup, but should be by the feminists.

Let’s break it down. The feminists have claimed for decades that there is a good old boys network that excludes women, reduces them to irrelevant props in a world drama of ideas controlled and dominated by men. Women are second-class, redundant, and unnecessary for anything other than child bearing. They are to be seen and not heard, remain shoeless in a masculine world and pregnant with the agenda of a male dominated society that does not even regard women as worthy of intimate relations.

The sheep boy movie is a mockery of any relationship where woman is a principal partner and shows that truly, the good old boy network can not only function economically, politically and socially without women . . .but does not regard their intimate relations as a necessary element of culture, and nature. Their most intimate part of their body . . .their vagina . . . is equated to an anus and the functions are determined by this elite group of misogynists, as being interchangeable. And the term “oral” has morphed from meaningful conversation to momentary pleasure paired with simultaneous degradation. Ask Oprah for the details. Their clothes, dress, style and demeanor is further mocked and distorted by men who strut in satins and preen in panties. Women have become the bottom feeders in society as their very existence is mocked ridiculed, reviled and demeaned.

So . . .where are the feminists to revolt against this chauvinistic, misogynist demagoguery? They have become so irrelevant and ridiculous that it is no wonder the men have pleasure at their expense. They have been reduced to caricatures of themselves as they struggle like the proverbial elephant dung cleaner to keep up with the mess that they have created, and their offspring, female-hating men, have produced.

They are the mothers of the misogynist sheep boys who detest the anti-nurturing ways of women who wanted to be men and sacrificed their very virtue on the alter of equality. They are the spawn of vanity and egotism that claimed they could have it all without the tethered burden of a man to bring her down. She could give birth to the child, raise him alone with a day care center full of countless souls searching for the one person they could love unconditionally. They were irrelevant then, and are today.

Feminists have successfully etched themselves off the totem of life, the monolith of society. They are not only a dying breed, but a mocked group of soulless, pitiful beings who gave their whole lives denying their existence, rejecting their femininity, striving to be like men, only to have the very group they emulated, denounce them as irrelevant anus-like beings who have nothing that a man could possibly want . . .except to bear him a child that he can remake into his own image . . . the image of man without the need of a woman to love.

Sheep boys “one” . . . feminists “zero.”

I was beginning to worry that the usually vocal feminist movement, that suffered with acute laryngitis during the reigning years of the Clinton White House, may never again see a chauvinist they didn’t like. Thank goodness, Arnold has shaken them from their stupor and motivated them to protest his bad-boy past, expressing shock and outrage that a Hollywood star and body builder could possibly have had a checkered past, dabbling in dalliances with willing women.

OK, everyone, shhhhh… In all the screaming about his being a womanizer, do we hear the voice of one woman coming forward claiming he raped them, dropped his pants in front of them, had her “perform” sex acts on him in a taxpayer funded building, or groped her, against her will in that same office? Hmm . .. just as I suspected. Silence, except from some women dressed in pink. What?

It is quite honorable for these very concerned feminists to be outraged by the “potential” of sexual abuse even though no clear claims against Arnold have surfaced. But what point are these women in pink trying to make other than letting us know they are clueless that the color pink is so out, unless you are Capitol Barbie in Legally Blonde Two? They are basically saying that it is not sexual harassment they care about since they were totally silent during the years that Bill cut a swath of testosterone and boorishness through the psyche of the female voter too enraptured with his charm and charisma to know he was a loser, a womanizer, an unfaithful husband and philandering father.

It is selective persecution relegated to those who may have the potential, by the very nature of their profession, and party affiliation, to sexually harass women. It is the same philosophy the 9th Circuit just took in insuring that Arnold and California wait until March, well after the eighty day legal requirement for a recount election, for the election to take place. They said because there is the “possibility” that people may be disenfranchised, we can’t hold this election now. The feminists are saying, because there is the “possibility” that Arnold, by the very nature of the fact that he embodies conservative genes, lives in Hollywood, and is a babe magnet, that surely, he must have employed these elements to sexually harass, rape, pillage and maim women in his wake.

No proof, no accusations of women victims, just the assumption that he could do these same crimes that their hero Bill Clinton was guilty of. Its sort of like assuming that Trent Lott was a racist because a past Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert Byrd was an unrepentant member of the KKK. It is like assuming that republicans are the party of the rich when the largest donation amounts go to the Democrat party which is comprised of almost every multimillionaire Hollywood star, media pundit, rock star, athlete, etc.

But let’s say Arnold is a womanizer and a misogynist sexist. So what? What he does in his private life is his own business… isn’t it? Why are we suddenly told we should care about a Republican’s private life, when the private life of a sitting president was none of our business. Why is it that when feminists and liberals think a Republican is less than pure they don’t mind protesting, but when a Democrat is caught red-handed, indicted, impeached and disbarred, then somehow, it is a conspiracy by the vast right wing?

If the Democrats continue to count on the collective stupidity of the American people to muscle their way into power, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised. Sure, there are still the sycophants who would vote for Saddam if he ran as a Democrat. Ironically, their opposition to Bush, our military in Iraq, and shame at American on the world stage makes you think they are supporting him. But that aside… if all the feminists in America have is duplicitous standards for sexual harassment, then they really have sold their souls for political power and influence. They have squandered their credibility and have become a laughing stock among real women who have always rejected their monolithic claim that they speak for all of us. Pink as a color… and a movement… is SO out.

While online I came across a little box that asked, “Will you raise your daughter to be a feminist . . . take our poll.”

I was shocked to see the results of the poll. The site was a feminist site celebrating women’s history and all that entails. Of the 73,000 votes that had been registered on the site . . . 60% said they would NOT raise their daughter to be a feminist. But what was very interesting, and actually quite humorous, was the disclaimer they had attached to the outcome of the poll.

They said, “Take the above results with a grain of salt. Unlike the scientifically designed and implemented polls that you see on the evening news, open web polls such as this are notoriously unscientific. We use them as a fun and interactive way of generating discussion.”

Well . . .discuss this . . . why is it that when polls don’t reflect the views of the one asking the question, they are called unscientific, therefore “notoriously” wrong”?

Why shouldn’t we assume then that the other polls are wrong? Because with disclaimers like that, we can only assume that all polls should be taken with “a grain of salt.” This is Nina May, agreeing with feminists for the first time in my life.

Hillary Clinton has finally made it official. She will be running for the U.S. Senate from New York.

Many people think she is qualified, even though she has never lived in New York, but was raised in Illinois. They think that even though she has never held an elected office, just being a lawyer qualifies her. They feel that because she is an advocate for women and children and has a respected voice in the nation, written books, traveled the world, that she is qualified. They think that because she is recognized as a courageous advocate and activist against injustice, that she is qualified to run for U.S. Senate from a state she has never lived in.

That is actually wonderful news. That means that these same people have just declared that Phyllis Schlafly should be the next Senator from New York. She shares exactly the same credentials as Hillary . . .with one exception. She earned her notoriety and position in American politics . . . she didn’t use her husband and his position to establish herself politically.

Ironically . . . Phyllis is the real feminist of the two. I wonder if they would vote for her?

Who you would vote for the Senate. . . Hillary Clinton or Phyllis Schlafly?

A friend of mine was one of the first young men to attend Vassar. He said he knew there were a lot of feminists there, but he and his roommate decided to make the best of things as some of the only men attending.

As young freshmen do, they decorated their dorm room with posters and reminders of home. One of the posters was of Farrah Fawcett in a bathing suit. Many of you remember the photo . . .mostly hair, but strategic body parts covered.

One day they returned to their dorm room to find the poster defaced and feminist graffiti scrawled all over the room declaring these two to be sexist pigs. These intelligent intruders signed their names. The men went to their room to confront them about their vandalism. When the women opened the door the two men were stunned. Not as much by the room plastered with playboy centerfolds of women . .. but by the hypocrisy of these women claiming that the men were the sexist pigs.

I only tell you this story because I have been asked many times why I think the feminists do nothing to stop degrading pornography against women. Are there any more questions?

“Everyone is looking for a ‘man’,” I heard a preacher say the other day. “Give us a man who isn’t afraid to preach the truth.”

I would add, “Give us a man who has the courage of his convictions, knows right from wrong, and who has the guts to express it. Give us a man who is a leader, not a follower, a winner, not a whiner.

That is such a contrast to the search for a man in the book of Genesis when the Sodomites surrounded Lot’s house because they had seen the angels enter there. They gathered outside yelling for Lot to “give them a man” . . . so they might know him sexually. Give them a man, so they might defile him. They were seeing man as a receptacle, for their own selfish desires and passions.

The man the preacher and I speak of is a man that God sees as a receptacle for His love and passion. A Bud Lite billboard spotted in England sums up the cultural redefining of men everywhere. A beautiful woman is saying, “I like men, I just hate their guts.” That is a subtle P.R. spin designed to further defile and demean men . . . much as the Sodomites wanted to do to the angels in Lot’s house.

This is Nina May challenging men to have guts to seek God’s purpose for them.

It is almost amusing that the “National Organization for a handful of Women” are just NOW hoping to raise awareness about the rapes and sexual harassment at Woodstock ‘99.

This is after they turned their backs on Paula Jones and her right to her day in court. It’s after they rejected Juanita Broderick’s claim to have been raped, when they never once questioned the dubious testimony of Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas. It’s after they continue to ignore an ever-expanding multi-billion dollar porn industry that has women and children as the victims. It’s after they reject the theory of common decency and respect when it comes to the portraying of women as sex objects in museums.

So suddenly they are shocked when women, running around nude, with drunk and rowdy men are sexually harassed? What did these women really think was going to happen? What does NOW really think was going to happen to them?

They should know. They have turned our adolescent men into predators, our old men into voyeurs, and our little boys into victims. And now they scream for justice? Where were they when these women really needed them?

It is interesting to see feminists who want to remake society in their image and it is up to each of us daily to know what mood they are in.

For example, they have traditionally protected pornography and feel that to prohibit the use of it would violate First Amendment rights. They are offended when a connection is drawn between rape and pornography and claim it can’t be proved. They don’t seem to have a problem that women are victims of horrendous crimes at the hands of users who admit pornography is their instruction manual for abuse.

They were strangely silent on the recent case in Florida of the little 9 year old girl murdered by a teenage boy just ten minutes after he viewed hardcore pornography.

But do you know what will really, really, really gets feminists upset? Just call them an endearing name like Babe and they will throw the book at you.

In fact, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals said that no female attorney may be called “Babe” in a Maryland courtroom.

It’s just too bad these victimized feminist lawyers don’t have something more important to do, like try and save the lives of innocent women and children who are the real victims of their selfishness.

The Center for Gender Equality, a liberal think-tank, conducted a poll of 1000 women to determine where they stood on certain issues.

Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood hoped the poll would serve as a “wake-up” call to liberals. But she was surprised and disturbed by what she learned. 53% of the women said that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or for the life of the mother. 75% said that religion is important in their lives and almost half said that the Christian Coalition agenda would improve their lives.

Faye was right, it did serve as a wake-up call, not to the women polled, but to the feminists who have spoken for women for so long, they have never taken the time to hear them speak. And they couldn’t believe that women were actually thinking for themselves, setting their own agendas, and rejecting their social agenda.

It could be that many of these women have found themselves as victims of failed feminism, or it could be that women are finally having the courage to challenge status quo. This is Nina May encouraging you to join them in this challenge.