Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on June 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

“And so we went down in the water,” he said. “It kept going over my head because the Americans had been bombing the coast line here for about six weeks prior to the invasion and there were a lot of craters under the water, and the one I went into was way over my head. And I had a Browning automatic rifle across my shoulders and bandoleers of ammo, hand grenades and a gas mask, and I had to get rid of all that otherwise I would be drowned.

“When I got on the shore, all I had left was my helmet and my gas mask, no gun.

“I picked up a gun off the beach because there were so many guys that had been killed so the guns were lying on the beach. And a friend of mine who was from Oshkosh, Wis., hollered to me to come over and have shelter from the machine guns,” he said, tears in his eyes.

“Of the 560 of us who landed that day, only 240 of us were alive,” at the end of it, he said.

“Then, when we went home, there was only 120 of us, and now there are only three,” he said, tears covering his face.

“That’s my story.”

***

***


Geroge W Bush on D-Day June 6, 2004 by therightscoop

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

Happy Saturday, Patriots! And, trolls.

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.

Ronald Reagan

My take: The Bergdahl Deal and Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy: How Did We Get Here?


kingsjester
on June 7, 2014 at 8:56 AM

.
One of the BEST all-time great quotes from Ronaldus Magnus …
.
The over-reaction from the journalists was (still is) priceless ! …: )

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

I embrace my abnormal.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

listens2glenn on June 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Thank you. It is one of my favorites, also.

Quite a contrast, huh?

kingsjester on June 7, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Me, too. It’s worked, so far. :)

kingsjester on June 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

HeIIfire. When I’m the only normal one here. You folks have a real problem on your hands. ; )

Bmore on June 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 2:56 AM

Poor John Adams. I read his words first and then went to the article. On first blush I was thinking of international relationships instead of personal relationships, so I had a whole different take. Socially, as an old person, I don’t see a lot of improvement in life for ourselves and our children by becoming more accepting. But when you mix interpersonal relationships in with behaviors you think wrong, it takes a different context. Societal disapproval use to be a strong motivator for beneficial behavior, now only people who think there is beneficial behavior are condemned. I liked being a woman more when I was superior rather than equal.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM

kingsjester on June 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

I think we embrace these things with more gusto in the South.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM

That’s true. We just brush it off and say, “Bless their heart”.

kingsjester on June 7, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Under no circumstances give Oscar Wilde control over any important red button.

Axe on June 7, 2014 at 7:02 AM

That my friend, is without a doubt, one of the most profoundly wise statements anyone will ever read hear at Hot Air.

oscarwilde on June 7, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Fallon on June 7, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting article. The word is never mentioned in the article, but the subject matter of “leadership” is implied throughout. What kind of leadership is President Obama providing for the people of the US?

I can’t help but think of Walesa’s comment earlier this week

Anyway, the causal analogy between those in authority and those under that authority, i.e. a relationship of lead and follow, is definitely one of the points I’ve been considering in how to approach this. And this article, including the closing reference to Nietzsche, reinforce that point.

Thanks again, fallon

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting article. The word is never mentioned in the article, but the subject matter of “leadership” is implied throughout. What kind of leadership is President Obama providing for the people of the US?

I think good leadership is something most intelligent people recognize. People who will follow anybody anywhere because they look good will find themselves in the middle of a swamp and not know how they got there. I freely admit that I am not a leader. I always say nobody would follow me out of a burning building. Unfortunately I’m not much of a follower either.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I liked being a woman more when I was superior rather than equal.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM

If your use of the word “superior” means the semblance of dignity, self-worth, and self-respect that existed in the lives of women before the sexual revolution and all it’s “freedom”, “liberties”, and “equalities” were thrust on us, I agree.

Basic premise is even if that attitude of “equality” is the mindset provided by the society in which we live, should we as women blindly follow that lead? Like Pavlov’s dogs hearing the ringing of a bell? Or do women in American society have a moral and ethical obligation and duty to look beyond that? To ask more of ourselves?

If the latter, how can this be presented in a positive context to those in a younger age group, Cindy?

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Unfortunately I’m not much of a follower either.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:22 AM

That right there proves you to be a woman of good sense and strong character, COL. ;-)

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:25 AM

If the latter, how can this be presented in a positive context to those in a younger age group, Cindy?

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Kids now and probably for the last 50 years have been swamped with this “equality” crap from the socialists. They don’t really want equality. They want sameness and that isn’t possible. The only way I can think of to combat this is with examples. Strong independant women from history and now. People who think for themselves but not destructively. It all starts at home.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Basic premise is even if that attitude of “equality” is the mindset provided by the society in which we live, should we as women blindly follow that lead?

It occurs to me that you are too young to remember a time when we didn’t have the thought police telling us what to think.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:44 AM

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Positive examples from history I can probably find easily enough. Modern times….I can’t think of that many right off hand. If you can think of examples, throw them my way, COL.

The other possibility is to look at the other end of that spectrum…of the lives of women who become consumed in essence by those definitions of “equality, liberty, and freedom” thrust on her by society.

Not to present the woman as a victim, though. Just to acknowledge that a darker side to those so-called freedom and liberties does exist…and that outcomes aren’t as positive as the pro-feminist movement members of society would lead women to believe. To really see what is given up in the exchange.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Not to present the woman as a victim, though. Just to acknowledge that a darker side to those so-called freedom and liberties does exist…and that outcomes aren’t as positive as the pro-feminist movement members of society would lead women to believe. To really see what is given up in the exchange.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Sarah Palin… Fit’s both sides of your criteria, a strong powerful leadership role model, someone whose life was brutally attacked because she refused to follow the Progressive narrative.

oscarwilde on June 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I think the real problem with equality is that instead of attaching it to the task or the treatment, the public is encouraged to mean duplicate of the genders. For some reason equality has promoted the deletion of what is unique (generally speaking) about men and women. Feminist have taken the similarities to absurd lengths and vilified traits in men that they can’t co-opt. I think it is also interesting that the Standard’s on going survey is based almost exclusively on sex. Again, taking the chance that age and gender are speaking here, have we, as a society, maybe misplaced this act in importance?

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I grew up in that time of major conflict between traditional values and the onslaught of those “equalities” being promoted for women. Even more than we’re seeing now. When the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s was still new and traditionalist parents didn’t know what to tell their daughters to guard against.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

oscarwilde on June 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

That’s a good example! Thanks, OW.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Again, taking the chance that age and gender are speaking here, have we, as a society, maybe misplaced this act in importance?

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Just for clarification, are you saying that the subject matter of sex (the act and/or behavior, not the gender) should not be considered that great an influence on our society? Or is your question more in the line of being a rhetorical one?

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 10:48 AM

If I had to put my finger on a big change that feminism has brought to the table that has been detrimental to society it would be the raising of children. In the name of equality and having it all, we outsource this very important job and with poor results. This in turn has also made the prices of nearly everything require two incomes families. Could this be a positive lesson for all the unemployed in our country now? I guess it would depend on how much people are learning to do on their own or if they just become wards of the State.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM

A lot of this I am basing on the American Thinker (misidentified earlier, sorry) survey. Most, if not all, questions are based on sex and the consequences. It makes me wonder what the answers would be to generic wrong doing, lying, stealing, cheating. I just think that the things we think are important have become horribly skewed. And while my kids hate the use of the term, the slippery slope has not benefited anyone who is interested in a better world but has done wonders for those who have the own interests and agendas.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I guess it would depend on how much people are learning to do on their own or if they just become wards of the State.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Agree about families. Parents have to be much more vigilant, and many of them aren’t.

As to your question about becoming wards of the state, I’m inclined to think this is true, particularly for females.

The lead-follow dynamic is one of encouraging dependency on government, not independence from government.

I don’t know how much you are familiar with our welfare system, but once a person gets into the system, it can be very difficult to make the jump out of it.

Lots to work with here. Great ideas. Throw more out there if you think of them. Going to fix a cup of coffee and English muffin. BBL.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM

My knowledge of the welfare system is thankfully minimal. Although not really a part of it, I received unemployment for only the shortest time. One of my co-worker’s has a daughter with three children who is part of the working poor. When she received a $2000 annual “raise” by going from part time to full time, her food stamps were discontinued. We are talking a pay change from $17K to $19K, while the program has expanded to include more and more people. The government, as usual, is doing it wrong.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:21 AM

It makes me wonder what the answers would be to generic wrong doing, lying, stealing, cheating.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I’d love to see data on that one myself. That’s really where it comes back to what John Adams stated about the association between morals and Constitution.

By the same token, what would happen if the mindset of leadership changed to one that supported the moral structure required to preserve our Constitution? Could amoral/immoral behaviors that have been deemed “acceptable” by society be set aside? Or are they simply too engrained in the lives of younger Americans?

Trying to hold to a standard of moral absolutes while the world around them shifts from good vs evil as quickly as the wind changes, with no consideration on the impact of human character or the society in which we live, or how easily is to be deceived by how things seem to be….I honestly don’t know of a lot of young minds who get that one, Cindy. That one usually comes with age, and often learned the hard way at that. I’m not sure how to convey that one.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Oh, yeah, they definitely are that. I’ve worked with young mothers who would turn down hours because it would put them over the income limit and put them at risk of losing benefits. Plus, legally, they’re only allowed to maintain a certain amount in assets, such as savings, and the amount isn’t nearly enough to make the jump from welfare dependent to independence.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:29 AM

O/T and an alert:

I opened my local Lawton OK newspaper this morning and was faced with this headline: Officials (in OK) object to housing youths at Ft Sill.

Rep Cole Sen Inhofe and Gov Fallin are upset that Ft Sill is being asked to house and care for 600 and up to 1200 ILLEGAL children at the army base starting June 10th. This admin FAILED to notify about its plan to use our Mil. facilities to house these ILLEGAL children.

Cole called this approach “de facto amnesty”.

Another interesting piece to go along with this:
Americorps to provide LEGAL aid to these ILLEGALS!!

Atty Gen Holder has created a new arm of Americorps called ‘Justice Americorps’ and has enlisted the help of hundreds of lawyers and paralegals to assist these ILLEGALS once they arrive here. Holder said, and I quote, ” This new program represents a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vunerable members of OUR society.”

These ILLEGALS are NOT memebers of our society!!

The govt estimates that 60k to 90k CHILDREN TRAVELING ALONE could be apprehended at the US-Mexican border this year alone.

How is this happening you may ask?

The SA govts of various countries are running PSA’s on their local tvs, informing people that the US border is open and to send their kids, who will be housed and fed, and then they can follow on later once the kids are settled. Glenn Beck talked about this yesterday.

Wolly has been commenting on what has been happening down in TX, now it is drifting upwards, AZ has these kids flown in!! I guess here also or bussed in.

WTF can we, anyone do about this INVASION!!

I guess it may come down to our southern states individually closing our state borders…

This is INSANITY!!

Rant Off…

Scrumpy on June 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I don’t want the government deciding morals but they do simply on what they financially supplement. I’m pro-Life but at this point I’d be more gratified to see the number of abortions fall by convincing people that it is wrong rather than a government ban. That said, I don’t want the government paying for them. Government should be neutral and it isn’t.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Scrumpy on June 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I saw a chart on the increase of children without parents coming across the border. It was frightening. It’s also very clever. I don’t know why it isn’t getting much attention.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

oscarwilde on June 7, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Just to clarify something I said….the darker side I was referring to is when the normal dignity, self-worth, and self-respect for a female are stripped away to be replaced with a sense of identity that places too much emphasis on sex. The woman becomes nothing more than a means to an end where sex is concerned…an object to serve the purpose. It’s very demeaning, to say the least.

I would daresay that as women have become more aggressive over time, men probably experienced their share of this now, too.

But seeing that God made us as He did, that it is matter of the heart that females associate with the most, I think women expose themselves to a lot of self-inflicted wounds by being too unguarded on this one.

lineholder on June 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM

I saw a chart on the increase of children without parents coming across the border. It was frightening. It’s also very clever. I don’t know why it isn’t getting much attention.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:42 AM

it won’t, just locally, until people become unhinged!!

Scrumpy on June 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Just reading The American Spectator and found this comment:

The 5 should have been hanged as war criminals.Soldiers daily sacrifice their lives.A real president would say you let the prisoner go or we start hanging them one at a time.That is the way to clean out GITMO.And if you kill our soldier we will hang all the GITMO prisoners at one time.And one more thing,Mohammed,watch out for low flying aircraft.

Article by Ben Stein: The Issue is the Taliban Five.

bluefox on June 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

This is INSANITY!!

Rant Off…

Scrumpy on June 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I’m hoping the legal Mexican people will vote against every Democrat in all Primary runoffs and election in Nov/2014. If this Administration thinks that they approve of this illegal invasion, they are reading the wrong tea leaves.

bluefox on June 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

ow if your still out there…
it came to me 20 minutes after I closed my eyes to nap..
I know your faith is great..
your talent is also great..

combined the two…

what great christen rock band couldn’t use a killer axe player..??

going2mars on June 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM

this band rocks.. and got 6+million hits..
(you could play as good as that guy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWRJAHaOrYg

going2mars on June 7, 2014 at 12:28 PM

If I had to put my finger on a big change that feminism has brought to the table that has been detrimental to society it would be the raising of children. In the name of equality and having it all, we outsource this very important job and with poor results. This in turn has also made the prices of nearly everything require two incomes families. Could this be a positive lesson for all the unemployed in our country now? I guess it would depend on how much people are learning to do on their own or if they just become wards of the State.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 11:02 AM

I’m concerned that couples are both working so they can send their children to dancing, singing, gymnastic etc. classes and so they can buy them the latest gadgets. Wouldn’t they be better off with a parent at home than all this stuff. If you both have to work for necessities that’s different.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM

I guess it may come down to our southern states individually closing our state borders…

This is INSANITY!!

Rant Off…

Scrumpy on June 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM

It makes me wonder why the states don’t seem to be interested in stopping this.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM

well ow… there is a few dozen hits..
hope it covers a 6pac of SA for ya…

there goes my reputation ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-b4KQBkzWg&list=UUoRSuGNYZUvXRh_iqpLAkFw&index=24

going2mars on June 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM

I just noticed that Obama’s speech was the longest of the three presidents. Taking longer to say nothing, a real hallmark of this man.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM

The other thing is that now the schools have taken the term loco parentis to ridiculous extremes where they actually act in conflict of parents and their values. At this point their actual lessons would probably conflict with my values.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

The other thing is that now the schools have taken the term loco parentis to ridiculous extremes where they actually act in conflict of parents and their values. At this point their actual lessons would probably conflict with my values.

Cindy Munford on June 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Because of what I already knew about the public schools I said years ago if I had children they would not go there.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I’m coming in late, but I wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion on the impact of the 60s political revolution on the family, children, and morality. A lot of this I’ve said in bit and pieces in various comments over the years around here.

I was in college when Roe v. Wade when down and when Madalyn Murray O’Hare won her case. During my freshman year Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique was required reading. A few years later a required text for an education class was Roles Women Play: Readings In Women’s Liberation. Just to top things off, the feminist essay. “The Personal Is Political,” was written in my hometown. So I’ve seen the before and after.

From “The Personal Is Political.”

One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

The Second Wave Feminist Movement (sexual revolution) of the 60s was bound up in the collectivist thinking of the Left. It was primarily a political movement of the Left.

The Left doesn’t think in terms of personal relationships and personal responsibility. The Left thinks in terms of political power moves as solutions to life. They have no concept of personal relationships and responsibility because that’s not even how they frame the solution. In fact, that’s what they want to obliterate. Statists are absolutely determined to eradicate the family because the family undermines and destroys their goal of creating a Utopian state.

Religion, marriage, family, children are personal. They necessitate morality and personal responsibility in relationships, while at the same time underscoring the importance of each individual and calling for the value of each person to be upheld and demonstrated by shared committed love.

One of the best analyses I’ve read lately on why the Left works to destroy the family is Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution. by Stella Morabito.

The Left’s solutions to everything always comes out of its collectivist thinking. Intrinsic to this thinking is the stamping out of individuality and primary personal relationships. The new primary relationship is to be to the collective. This means stamping out morality, erasure of differences between men and women, and that results in unhappiness for both sexes with destructive consequences for the family.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The Left’s solutions to everything always comes out of its collectivist thinking. Intrinsic to this thinking is the stamping out of individuality and primary personal relationships. The new primary relationship is to be to the collective. This means stamping out morality, erasure of differences between men and women, and that results in unhappiness for both sexes with destructive consequences for the family.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Perfect analysis of the goals of marxists. This should be taught to children in simple terms so they can understand what is being done.

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM

crankyoldlady on June 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I don’t think you were around when Doctor Zero was a commenter here. He later became a Green Room writer, and now works at Human Events under his name, John Hayward. He has also posted at Red State.

He’s one of the best writers and best thinkers HA has ever had. This is something he did last year after he left HA.

Hyper-sexualized, asexual America

…why is the same State that tinkers with restaurant menus, and takes other steps to either warn citizens away from unhealthy meal options or forbid them outright, so intent on facilitating a profoundly unhealthy lifestyle for children?

The answer can be found in the Left’s drive to hunt down and destroy all that remains of traditional sexual morality, because it’s a barrier to the proper relationship they envision between citizens and the State. The result is a hyper-sexualized but asexual world, in which the differences between men and women have been eliminated. This is a huge undertaking, so it’s important to get cracking when citizens are still young and impressionable.

The traditional understanding of sexual relations emphasizes the profound differences between men and women. They are not in any sense interchangeable. They have a unique need for one another, and different needs from society. The union of men and women is not seen as exclusively serving to produce and raise children, but child-rearing is exceedingly difficult without married men and women working together….

Killing off the family requires erasing the distinctions between men and women… and that’s easier to do if you get started when they’re boys and girls. The effort to wipe out the consequences of sex, and the natural understanding of how those consequences are different for the male and female partners, continues. When every man, woman, boy, and girl has the sexual appetites and morality of Sean Connery-era James Bond, the last barriers of family separating American citizens from the benevolent State will have been removed.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 7:47 PM

I can’t even find everything he wrote here which is a real loss.

This is woefully incomplete:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/author/doctor-zero/

More items here, but you have to scroll down to find his byline:

http://hotair.com/?s=Doctor+Zero

This is not listed anywhere, and it’s probably the best post ever written on marriage.

In Defense of Marriage

I have it because I bookmarked it.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Truth be told you can got back to Thomas More’s 1516 book, Utopia. It’s not very long, and you can read it online. Here’s a summary from Wiki. Book II describes this statist fantasy island, and although this work is almost 500 years old, it provides insight into current events of today. for insight into the statist’s mind.

More coined the word Utopia for this imaginary socialist workers’ island paradise. He neatly allocated everyone’s role, responsibilities, and relationships and moved them like pawns to make his system workable, tidying up all the loose ends without consideration for reality. It has an artificial Stepford Wives flavor, as do all Utopias, because people just don’t work that way without being torn asunder.

The children of Utopia are removed from families who have too many and placed with couples who have none. Children who have no aptitude for their father’s trade are placed with another family. Only those children and adults who display “extraordinary capacity and disposition for letters” are allowed to “give themselves entirely up to their studies,” yet the Utopians “esteem those [pleasures] to be most valuable that lie in the mind,” and “They are unwearied pursuers of knowledge.” More treats education as a completely pure institution teaching only wisdom and to which all Utopians are devoted as it trains them in the greatness of their way of life.

Utopians have to abolish the family in order to assert control over individuals and to make the State the primary relationship of all.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 8:00 PM

In Home By Choice Brenda Hunter gave some details of family life for some of the feminist movement leaders. She drew from Marsha Cohen’s book The Sisterhood. I don’t have that book, so I’m using Hunter. The roots of prominent leaders in the Second Wave Feminist Movement were in their traumatic childhoods.

Betty Friedan’s parents evidently fought like cats and dogs. Her sister said their mother had:

“a complete inability to nurture….We really absolutely did not have a mother loving us.” …Betty’s mother was intensely critical of her and made Betty feel both unwanted and ugly…As an adult Betty went into psychoanalysis to work through her rage at her mother.

While Germaine Greer’s father was off fighting in WWII, her mother was home flirting with other servicemen. She felt that her mother never liked her.

According to Cohen, Germaine would come to describe her childhood as filled with pain and humiliation. Not only did her mother beat her viciously on occasion, but she hit Germaine with “passion” and “for no good reason.”

There are other examples of the wholesale rejection Greer felt from her mother. Greer also said in Daddy, We Hardly Knew You that her father “never once” hugged her.

Gloria Steinem’s father abandoned Gloria and her mother when she was eleven several years after her mother had a nervous breakdown.

From then on, Gloria not only coped with her father’s absence, but also cared for her disturbed mother. The two lived in a run-down house overrun with rats.

Hunter commented:

When I reflect on these three feminists’s lives I feel compassion and anger. I feel compassion, particularly for Germaine Greer, who at fifty-one [Hunter’s book is ©1991] has taken an anguished look at her relationship with her father….

Who would not feet sympathy for a woman who has looked at parental rejection with such rigor?

Yet I am angry that these women used their impressive intellects to shape social policy without first examining and understanding their own personal histories. A whole generation of women has marched to their misguided anti-marriage, anti-male, and anti-family music. Yet it is ultimately our own fault to have been so thoroughly influenced by feminist rhetoric without first looking at the origins of this rage.

INC on June 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM

INC on June 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Ya know, INC, I am amazed how much has changed since Reagan’s Pointe du Hoc speech. Apparently, so are you.

Chill. The stones will be flying in another 30 years or so. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

WINNER!!!!!

WryTrvllr on June 7, 2014 at 10:23 PM

INC on June 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM

I just wanted to say thank you for leaving this information here. Particularly references of the feminist movement in the 1960s and 70s.

As to the vision of the state that governs the political left, Axe left some comments by Bakunin on the QOTD 06/07/14 that are good as well. Starts here and moves through the remainder of the thread.

So much intelligence here! Thanks.

lineholder on June 8, 2014 at 12:16 PM

WryTrvllr on June 7, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Even twenty years ago I never would have believed we’d be at this point.

lineholder on June 8, 2014 at 12:16 PM

You’re very welcome!

Thanks! I saw Axe’s second comment on Bakunin, but I missed the first one.

INC on June 8, 2014 at 9:57 PM

What a colossal boondoggle. Losing all those good men while killing our brothers in Europe.

cimbri on June 9, 2014 at 8:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10