<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yes, we are aware of Ms. Magazine cover&#8230;.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:50:21 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Thia, GA</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7879</link>
		<dc:creator>Thia, GA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7879</guid>
		<description>Karen,
I agree.  I would delete that line if I were using her template.  That is the old &quot;litmus test&quot; that kept many women out of feminist organizations.  We TRY to keep that issue out of our discussions as stated in the FAQ, because it has long been used to divide us and keep us from focusing on the things we DO agree on as women.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Karen,<br />
I agree.  I would delete that line if I were using her template.  That is the old &#8220;litmus test&#8221; that kept many women out of feminist organizations.  We TRY to keep that issue out of our discussions as stated in the FAQ, because it has long been used to divide us and keep us from focusing on the things we DO agree on as women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7875</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7875</guid>
		<description>I am a bit late responding about this too... I just reread Anne&#039;s part about a list of anti-feminist decisions Obama has made., one of which is not selecting pro-choice officials.  The implication here is that the selection of pro-life officials is anti-woman.  However, New Agenda&#039;s policy states that pro-life women can be as feminist and empowered as pro-choice women, and that the abortion issue has been used to turn women against each other.  The Obama campaign used the belief that &quot;pro-life = anti-woman&quot; to attract a larger female audience and spew sexism.  The Obama campaign, which is pro-choice, displayed the most horrendous level of sexism anyone has ever seen in decades.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin who is pro-life is a strong and powerful woman.  With that in mind, I do not believe the selection of pro-life officials counts as sexist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a bit late responding about this too&#8230; I just reread Anne&#8217;s part about a list of anti-feminist decisions Obama has made., one of which is not selecting pro-choice officials.  The implication here is that the selection of pro-life officials is anti-woman.  However, New Agenda&#8217;s policy states that pro-life women can be as feminist and empowered as pro-choice women, and that the abortion issue has been used to turn women against each other.  The Obama campaign used the belief that &#8220;pro-life = anti-woman&#8221; to attract a larger female audience and spew sexism.  The Obama campaign, which is pro-choice, displayed the most horrendous level of sexism anyone has ever seen in decades.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin who is pro-life is a strong and powerful woman.  With that in mind, I do not believe the selection of pro-life officials counts as sexist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mamabroad</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7842</link>
		<dc:creator>mamabroad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7842</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a little late responding but I have to say, as offensive as the concept of this cover is, especially considering the cover is on a feminist magazine, I HAD to laugh out loud. Seriously, I laughed out loud. This image is the most ridiculous image I&#039;ve seen in decades, in so many ways. Whoever is in charge of their marketing and whoever approved this cover is a joke.

I&#039;m glad I live overseas so I can be somewhat sheltered from the fact that we are entering bad times in America. This magazine is just a blatant reminder of that fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a little late responding but I have to say, as offensive as the concept of this cover is, especially considering the cover is on a feminist magazine, I HAD to laugh out loud. Seriously, I laughed out loud. This image is the most ridiculous image I&#8217;ve seen in decades, in so many ways. Whoever is in charge of their marketing and whoever approved this cover is a joke.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad I live overseas so I can be somewhat sheltered from the fact that we are entering bad times in America. This magazine is just a blatant reminder of that fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pleasegos</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7797</link>
		<dc:creator>Pleasegos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7797</guid>
		<description>Octogalore, I&#039;m sure you know this, but I think it needs to be pointed out that Clinton won a majority of all working class voters, carrying every demo I&#039;m aware of except the Black working class. So while I&#039;m sure she would have gotten flack for her statement as overbroad, it&#039;s also true that she had Latino working class voters, Asian, every catergory of POC working class except Black working class voters, plus the white working class. The edia would love to erase everyone else, but they&#039;re there.

KendallJ, actually the media and many other Obama supporters DID say that latinos must be racist for supporting Clinton, their rationale being, of course, that they don&#039;t like Clinton so there must not be any reason to support her. They don&#039;t care about policy, it doesn&#039;t affect them, so caring about that must be stupid or a cover.  I can&#039;t tell you how many times I heard &quot;Latinos hate Black people.&quot; I&#039;m a Black working class woman and I have to agree with you 100% that it&#039;s classist and untrue to act like there&#039;s a special amount of racism in the white working class. I can say personally that I&#039;ve experienced more racism from the upper class. Those Democrats in pacific Heights laughed loud when Obama dissed religion blinded rubes, but while they were patting themselves on the back for their superiority, they weren&#039;t examining their own behavior and seems like they hold more power in society, too. 

Kevin, you seem like a nice guy and it&#039;s great that you care about women&#039;s equality, but it&#039;s not really your place to give Obama credit for what he&#039;s doing for women&#039;s equality to a bunch of women any more than it&#039;s some white man or woman&#039;s place to tell you or me that some white pol has a great record on civil rights issues that we just can&#039;t see. We&#039;ll be the judge of that, thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Octogalore, I&#8217;m sure you know this, but I think it needs to be pointed out that Clinton won a majority of all working class voters, carrying every demo I&#8217;m aware of except the Black working class. So while I&#8217;m sure she would have gotten flack for her statement as overbroad, it&#8217;s also true that she had Latino working class voters, Asian, every catergory of POC working class except Black working class voters, plus the white working class. The edia would love to erase everyone else, but they&#8217;re there.</p>
<p>KendallJ, actually the media and many other Obama supporters DID say that latinos must be racist for supporting Clinton, their rationale being, of course, that they don&#8217;t like Clinton so there must not be any reason to support her. They don&#8217;t care about policy, it doesn&#8217;t affect them, so caring about that must be stupid or a cover.  I can&#8217;t tell you how many times I heard &#8220;Latinos hate Black people.&#8221; I&#8217;m a Black working class woman and I have to agree with you 100% that it&#8217;s classist and untrue to act like there&#8217;s a special amount of racism in the white working class. I can say personally that I&#8217;ve experienced more racism from the upper class. Those Democrats in pacific Heights laughed loud when Obama dissed religion blinded rubes, but while they were patting themselves on the back for their superiority, they weren&#8217;t examining their own behavior and seems like they hold more power in society, too. </p>
<p>Kevin, you seem like a nice guy and it&#8217;s great that you care about women&#8217;s equality, but it&#8217;s not really your place to give Obama credit for what he&#8217;s doing for women&#8217;s equality to a bunch of women any more than it&#8217;s some white man or woman&#8217;s place to tell you or me that some white pol has a great record on civil rights issues that we just can&#8217;t see. We&#8217;ll be the judge of that, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: raGing</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7726</link>
		<dc:creator>raGing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7726</guid>
		<description>no surprise with Donna Brazile on the the staff. she&#039;s not making much off &quot;Cookin with Grease&quot; these days.
disgusting what the woman&#039;s movement has degenerated to.
last time I bought MS was in the 70&#039;s &amp; it was out of touch even then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>no surprise with Donna Brazile on the the staff. she&#8217;s not making much off &#8220;Cookin with Grease&#8221; these days.<br />
disgusting what the woman&#8217;s movement has degenerated to.<br />
last time I bought MS was in the 70&#8217;s &amp; it was out of touch even then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7694</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7694</guid>
		<description>KendallJ

&quot;Furthermore, the media didn’t brand men who voted for Obama as sexist, even though clearly some were. &quot;

I agree that this was yet another aspect of lopsided media coverage, though strickly speaking I don&#039;t know if you could say &quot;though clearly some were.&quot; But, given the degree of sexism out there, it seems safe to assume that among the mllions of men who voted for Obama, some percentage were likely of the ilk that they couldn&#039;t vote for a woman. (Not sure if any pollsters had this as a question.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>KendallJ</p>
<p>&#8220;Furthermore, the media didn’t brand men who voted for Obama as sexist, even though clearly some were. &#8221;</p>
<p>I agree that this was yet another aspect of lopsided media coverage, though strickly speaking I don&#8217;t know if you could say &#8220;though clearly some were.&#8221; But, given the degree of sexism out there, it seems safe to assume that among the mllions of men who voted for Obama, some percentage were likely of the ilk that they couldn&#8217;t vote for a woman. (Not sure if any pollsters had this as a question.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7693</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7693</guid>
		<description>Kiuku - Great post!

fsteele - At this point in time the data on campaign staffers salaries is no longer on the site cause it&#039;s no longer a current issue. But I do believe they are a highly credible org and becuase they are non-partisan, they just report the facts as they are. Their sole task is salary reporting for political-types. What was interesting was that earlier in the year Obama&#039;s female staffers were at 83 cents on the dollar and then dropped to 78 cents. The figures the org reports are always about 6 months old due to the delay in research, organizing data, and publishing. But it was disturbing to see Obama&#039;s women paid so much less than men, and then even less! Ch-ching! &quot;Change&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kiuku &#8211; Great post!</p>
<p>fsteele &#8211; At this point in time the data on campaign staffers salaries is no longer on the site cause it&#8217;s no longer a current issue. But I do believe they are a highly credible org and becuase they are non-partisan, they just report the facts as they are. Their sole task is salary reporting for political-types. What was interesting was that earlier in the year Obama&#8217;s female staffers were at 83 cents on the dollar and then dropped to 78 cents. The figures the org reports are always about 6 months old due to the delay in research, organizing data, and publishing. But it was disturbing to see Obama&#8217;s women paid so much less than men, and then even less! Ch-ching! &#8220;Change&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KendallJ</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7660</link>
		<dc:creator>KendallJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7660</guid>
		<description>Kiuku,

You make a very good point!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kiuku,</p>
<p>You make a very good point!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KendallJ</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7659</link>
		<dc:creator>KendallJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7659</guid>
		<description>Sheryl,

The notion that working class whites are any more racist than wealthy whites is billshit. I am sure there were working class whites who are racist and voted for Clinton over Obama because of it, but to brand the whole demographic  and many whole states was outragous. The real racism is primarily within wealthy white male run institutions that have power over poeple, not poor and working class whites who are scraping to get by. Most of them saw that Clinton had a plan to help them, and that is why they voted for her. The media didn&#039;t accuse the latinos of being racist and she was getting their votes by 65%.. The latino&#039;s voted for her for the same reason working class whites did. She gave them a concrete plan of what she would do to help them. 

Furthermore, the media didn&#039;t brand men who voted for Obama as sexist, even though clearly some were.  

Both MSNBC and CNN trashed the working class and  they were obviously wrong, or Obama wouldn&#039;t have won the general election.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sheryl,</p>
<p>The notion that working class whites are any more racist than wealthy whites is billshit. I am sure there were working class whites who are racist and voted for Clinton over Obama because of it, but to brand the whole demographic  and many whole states was outragous. The real racism is primarily within wealthy white male run institutions that have power over poeple, not poor and working class whites who are scraping to get by. Most of them saw that Clinton had a plan to help them, and that is why they voted for her. The media didn&#8217;t accuse the latinos of being racist and she was getting their votes by 65%.. The latino&#8217;s voted for her for the same reason working class whites did. She gave them a concrete plan of what she would do to help them. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the media didn&#8217;t brand men who voted for Obama as sexist, even though clearly some were.  </p>
<p>Both MSNBC and CNN trashed the working class and  they were obviously wrong, or Obama wouldn&#8217;t have won the general election.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheryl Robinson</title>
		<link>http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/09/yes-we-are-aware-of-ms-magazine-cover/comment-page-2/#comment-7654</link>
		<dc:creator>Sheryl Robinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenewagenda.net/?p=3769#comment-7654</guid>
		<description>I thought Hillary&#039;s statements about rural, working-class whites were meant to specifically address the problem of racism in that demographic. That is neither overt nor covert racism. It&#039;s not racist to anticipate that racism would be a factor in the election. I thought the way she brought it up showed real integrity, actually, because she &lt;em&gt;didn&#039;t&lt;/em&gt; do it in a covert manner, when she easily could have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought Hillary&#8217;s statements about rural, working-class whites were meant to specifically address the problem of racism in that demographic. That is neither overt nor covert racism. It&#8217;s not racist to anticipate that racism would be a factor in the election. I thought the way she brought it up showed real integrity, actually, because she <em>didn&#8217;t</em> do it in a covert manner, when she easily could have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
