Miss Dowdy of the Times dishes Sexism under conservative cover, The Times continues to show extreme sex bias in its OpEd section. The Sex Wars brought to you by the Gray Lady herself.

Missy Maureen Dowd is hardly worth a mention these days, what with her compulsive need to flush women down the toilet she’s all but invalidated anything she pens. Yet, I will succumb for a brief moment. Sadly Dowdy’s not lettn’ go of Palin, just as she kept Clinton ground between her nashy teeth until primary-death did they part.

In Dowdy’s recent column, Those Hard-Boiled Eggsheads, (Wed. Oct. 15th 08) Dowd points out that Matthew Dowd, Chistopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker and David Brooks don’t like Palin and think she ought to be dismantled from the Republican Party. She also quotes Parker’s “Secret emails” from the White House, but that is for you to decide if Dowdy went too far in allowing Parker her wrath against that Palin woman.

What Misss Dowdy hopes readers won’t catch is this: Can you, any of you, imagine Hitchens, Dowd, Buckley, Parker or Brooks stumping for ANY women for the White House Ticket. These are sexist figures, with a history of sexism to their names. (fyi: recall that Parker is the author of “Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care”. Also worth noting: Parker has had four stepmothers, so not much psych 101 needed there! I won’t go into Hitchen’s more than to point out that not a single female graces his favorite writers list and it is an extensive list! I won’t go on, but you all get the drift!) Also, each of these anti-feminist folks are clearly worrying the bead of 2012, or perhaps 2016 and beyond. They don’t think 2008 is a winnable election and are putting the house in order to prevent a future Palin run. Men only need apply. If any of these folks stands up and says I want a woman in the WH in 2012 and this is my choice and i will push and push for HER to be elected then I'll eat my words here. As for DOWDY, she can pull feathers from her butt and still no one gives much weight to her anti-feminst words any longer, thus her use of surrogates to dismiss Palin.

Next Item, Times OP/ed page Wed. Oct. 15th, 08. The Times can’t help itself. Once again it has asked 10 folks to proffer questions for the presidential candidates. Once again the Times show a severe sexist bias against women. Of the Ten asked only Two are women. MEMO to the New York Times: Women make up 51% of the population. Perhaps you only want women to read you online? Perhaps you only care about men and show this SO openly by opting for this REPEATED obvious bias!

Next Item:
This from the New York Times editorial of Thursday, October 16, 08 re the previous night’s debate:
----------------------------
“In another astonishing exchange, Mr. McCain acted as though he was the truly aggrieved party, insisting that he had repudiated all of the attacks on Mr. Obama by surrogates and “some fringe people” at rallies. He didn’t mention that his running mate, Sarah Palin, is one of the loudest attackers, and he certainly didn’t repudiate her absurd, repeated charge that Mr. Obama has been “palling around with terrorists.”
----------------------------
Femisex: Why was McCain aggrieved? Hmmmm? The Times say NO reason! Well McCain was rightly outraged that a black Congressman and Obama supporter had compared McCain to the racist George Wallace and that some Obama supporters wore Palin is a Cu*t tee shirts to political events.

What is ASTONISHING is that the New York Times doesn’t give a hang that Palin is treated in a sexist fashion. Nor do they care that anyone who dares to bring up Obama’s unsavory close relations with unrepentant terrorists and racists and sexist clergy is a labeled a racist. (As Obama might say, I’m a “typical white person” who does care that Wright, Pfleger and Ayers exist heartily in Obama’s life or did until he booted them for expedience, who remembers Obama giving Hillary the Finger and calling Palin a pig. This matters to me! For a cherry on Top: Obama has said: “I’m not denouncing the church and I’m not interested in anyone who wants me to denounce the church." This statement stands and it matters to me. I do want him to denounce a church that fuels such vicious sexism! But Obama himself told me he is not interested in me, so there u have it.)

Dear readers, the Times doesn’t care a whit that women are called Cunts MILFs or made into porn stars, especially if they are female governors or Senators and have a will to power, power that “belongs” only to men in this country.
What IS truly astonishing? That the Times is silent on sexism and Hot under the collar, frying hot about racism, real or NOT. Note to the Times: it is not racist to be appalled at sexism, even when it comes from a black church!

Odd rules have been established this election cycle by the Times:
1st: SEXISM is not only something that doesn't count, but something we will propogate with White Bitch Month jokes in our pages!

2nd: Women MUST NEVER attack a man’s reputation! Hillary must not call Obama out on his lies and murky past associations, and Palin not as well. Obama is OK to play Keating Five or lie about his or other's records, but NO Way for Palin to talk Ayres or play politcs with facts in the manner all pols do! Why this visceral reaction to women attacking men’s honor or women being and playing politics? Why must women be flawless and men allowed such lattitude? There are many surmises and I will leave that to you.
The Times says McCain has engaged in Class Warfare. McCain says Obama is engaged in Class Warfare.
Femisex says the New York Times is Knee-deep in Sex Warfare!

The Times is Fueling this Sex Warfare, goadiing it, quietly pushing it! Licking thier lips at the fruits of their labour!
Dismissing misogyny and sexism—that is Sex Warfare with the Times in Full Battle Gear! Refusing to give women an equal voice on its Op/ed pages—SEX warfare ala the New York Times! Refusing to honestly mention the S (sexism) word when the country is Neck-Deep in it! Refusing to purdge it from your pages! Readers, Vote how you will, but Never stand for sexist treatment or it will come back to haunt you!