Cooking, Cleaning, Child Bearing, And Silence: The Only Things Women Are Good For
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[image courtesy Victorian Servants]
It is unacceptable for women to be involved in their husband's lives nowadays beyond attending to their physical needs according to the Washington Post. You either deliver and care for a man's children, feed him when he's bothered to be home, and do his laundry...while keeping your mouth firmly clamped closed unless spoken to...or you will hear about it by friends, neighbors, and the media.
If you DARE to be a little younger or a little older than your husband, prepare for an especially harsh vilification - these things are just not done! If you are RE married, prepare for the stocks and stakes you richly deserve.
This is the 21st century after all and women (like children) are second-class and second tier to men. They are to be seen and not heard, and are only here to entertain men.
Wait-this isn't Plymouth? hmm...Musta missed something I guess...
If Jeri Thompson is HALF what this punk journalist suggests, she absolutely MUST be the next First Lady...
More below the fold...
It's no surprise, really, that John Solomon over at WaPo would take such cheap shots at Jeri Thompson. After all, his Liberal credentials precede him fairly well. In skimming his "work" it is not too difficult to glean his disdain for Thompson. He appears to be one of those girly-man "journalists" we see more and more these days, taking the shots he can against anyone he doesn't have to look in the eyes before he takes a swing.
What's that? I'm taking a shot at him in the same way?
Yep. But, let him do this to and about MY wife, and he gets a punch in the mouth next time we cross paths. Thompson (the man), for his part, is above this of course...I, on the other hand, am not.
So let us gander at what Solomon finds so unsettling about a woman behaving just the way she is supposed to given all the advances women have made over the last several generations; evolving from Victorian handmaiden to equal citizen, complete with a healthy dose of her own opinion and fully competent equity with the man-beast, women have LONG gone beyond the reproach this "reporter" dishes out at Jeri in particular, and Republican women in general. And yes...I call foul-and I call "him" a pathetic excuse for a man.
30 words in to the opening paragraph, we get the cheap shot about a Valentino gown at the wedding of Fred and Jeri:
On a hot Saturday in June 2002, Fred D. Thompson married his second wife, Jeri Kehn, in an unventilated Congregational church in her home town of Naperville, Ill. Kehn, in a Valentino gown, was a 35-year-old media consultant for a Washington law firm; Thompson, a 59-year-old U.S. senator from Tennessee.
"I think he will be a calming influence, and she will be good for him," Kehn's mother, Vicki Keller, said at the time.
And THEN, Solomon gets about the business of tearing right in:
It was a triumphal return for Kehn, who had left Naperville for college and spent much of her 20s biding her time in Nashville without a clear career path, living with a boyfriend whose main claim to fame was getting arrested in Red Square for unfurling a pizza-parlor banner in the last days of the Cold War. Kehn left three court judgments behind her in Nashville, one of which remains unpaid today, and a court twice garnished her wages.
But after meeting Fred Thompson, Kehn began establishing herself in Washington Republican circles, and marriage more than consolidated her place in the city.
So, let's summarize shall we?
Jeri is, in this loser's mind, is an un-ambitious, shacking-up, protestor-loving, wage-garnished gold-digging opportunist.
Isn't that nice?
But he couldn't stop there. All at once he allows the NYT's hit piece about her being nothing more than a trophy wife stand, and somehow manages to make her out to be the Cruella DeVille of the 2008 Presidential campaign...across the whole of the GOP field...all at the same time. Solomon chooses NOT, of course to take any shots at Elizabeth "I'm a cancer victim so please vote for MY husband" Edwards, OR Michele "I'm an independent career woman super-Mom so please vote for my husband" Obama, OR Bill "I want to be the first 'First Man' so I can do all the girls-only stuff so please vote for my wife" Clinton.
THAT'S fair...
Solomon continues, giving us ALL the juicy morsels and tidbits of Jeri's "sordid" past. Shacking up with a guy, losing civil suits, and having wages garnished. He makes sure we "get it" about the idea that she is some sort of two or three time loser, yet he goes on to make her out to be some super sinister evil creature, scaring the help, MAKING Fred run, defining his strategy, managing his schedule, and setting the ground rulse for who can do what...and when and where they can do it...including the man SHE is shaping into her own image of the next President of the United States.
Not bad for a person Solomon asserts is a nobody from nowhere.
Don't forget about that...GASP...website scandal, and we absolutely need to be reminded that she is (apparently in Solomon's mind) unskilled, inexperienced, and where she is today because of WHO she knows, not WHAT she is capable of doing:
Despite the unglamorous nature of her first job in Washington, Jeri Thompson's supporters today describe her as a powerful political operative. Whether that label fits her roughly five years of full-time work here is hard to determine, given the relatively low profile she kept at her various jobs.
[...]
According to two people who have worked for Burson-Marsteller, one currently and another formerly, Kehn got the job at the behest of Kenneth Rietz, the head of the firm's Washington office at the time, as a favor to Rietz's friend Fred Thompson. (Rietz, now retired from the firm, is a Thompson campaign adviser.)
Solomon is a scumbag. All of these so-called journalists who aspire to be the next President-busting Woodward and Bernstein are scumbags. It sure would be nice to get back to a little more reporting on NEWS and a little less reporting on faux scandal and personality-smearing innuendo.
As for advice for these loser self-described journalists, I offer this...howzabout we get them IN office before we start looking for scandalous reasons to chase them out of office in shame.
Oh, and you MIGHT want to concentrate on the candidate and not the spouse...and the woman-slamming thing is a REALLY bad idea-YOU want one for President after all-SHE may actually go through with punching you in the mouth.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hey, Let's Beat Up On Their Wives — Comments (14) »
Cooking, Cleaning, Child Bearing, And Silence: The Only Things Women Are Good For 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
of trying to find every speck of dirt... I think it is interesting they spend so much time interviewing old boyfriends.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Not-So-Hidden Power
She wields tremendous influence over her husband's would-be presidential campaign. But who is Jeri Thompson—and why won't the campaign discuss her?
I am surprised that even though the MSM's numbers fall and fall and fall, they do not change their tactics - like the ones mentioned in my rather long posting below.
the media. Many years ago before I was politically aware, I used to read two newspapers a day as well as watching the news. I liked being informed. Then I began to notice a peculiar thing: I would hear or read something in one place and that same topic or idea would be everywhere; in the newspaper, on the news, in popluar drama, in magazines and books. I'm not just talking about major headline stuff, I mean kind of obscure things, which is how I noticed it. There would be a reference to something on TV news, then something in the paper but a slightly different angle, on Sunday you would see something related to that in the Arts section. I noticed it so often it started to freak me out. It felt so orchestrated I knew I was being manipulated. I couldn't put my finger on it, but it made me uncomfortable enough to stop reading the paper and watching TV news shows. I nearly got fitted for a tin hat. Now that I am older and more politically aware I get it. But before I understood anything about conservatism or liberalism I wasn't sure what was being pushed, but I definitely felt an attempt at mind control. I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories (if ONLY we were that organized!), but it was a truly creepy feeling - because I was not aware enough to recognize where it was coming from and what the agenda was.
All the "journalist" and entertainers in New York and Hollywood have the same worldview and the same set of friends, and so they all provide the same info.
And if confronted with facts -- they become totally indignant -- how DARE you suggest that they are all in collusion with each other!
came gardually in the 90s as I would watch congress and live events on c-span, watch the msm broadcats and read newspapers and then listen to Rush. i noticed that the msm and papers would not cover some evenst I deemed newsworthy and leave out essential facts, whereas Rush would fully report all sides. He wasn't afraid of the libs points whereas the msm seemed to want to hide the conservative points.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I remember watching Newt speaking on c-span, and listening to exactly what he said, then finding myself AMAZED later when the MSM told me what he had said.
There was a CLEART disconnect between what he said, and what the MSM heard!
I was a right-leaning, Bush-the-Elder supporter in middle school, so I was already wary of the media before I got into college in the 80's. None the less, there I experienced a few seminal events that forever etched in my mind how biased they are.
The most visible would be a debate about terrorism featuring G. Gordon Liddy on one side, and a ne'er-do-well from one of those PLO supporting organizations on the other. The PLO guy hid behind the podium and barely spoke into the microphone. Libby siezed the microphone, pulled it from its clip and moved to the front of the podium and commanded the attention of the room.
Now whether you trust Liddy or not (and I for one am happier with him on the radio than in government) there was no doubt about Liddy winning the debate in the standing room only auditorium with 3,000+ college students cheering him on. Yet when the school newspaper ran its article about the debate on the front page, it started off about how the beuracratic functionary had won the debate.
so little time to knock the taste out of'em.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and the sincerity of Hollywood."
liberals or progressives or whatever they are calling themselves these days "picking" on Republican women Republican blacks Republican jews you name the minority group and if they have an R in front of their name they are fair game....the only way the Democratic party is progressing is to the 1800's and they want to take the rest of us with them to "the village".