Women’s Issues Are Still an Issue

An Interview with Kate Karpilow

Monday, February 24, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Kate Karpilow has been in the forefront of California’s feminist movement for many years, working with and leading groups focused on health, children, family, and election issues. She is the founder and director of the Women’s Policy Summit and serves as executive director of the California Center for Research on Women and Families (CCRWF).

On Friday, March 7, the Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee will hold its 13th Annual Presidents’ Circle Luncheon featuring Karpilow as the keynote speaker. In the following interview, she talks about her work and how to build a stronger women’s movement.

What do you aim to accomplish with CCRWF’s Women’s Policy Summit?

Kate Karpilow
Click to enlarge photo


Kate Karpilow

Several years ago, I became quite concerned about the status of “the women’s movement.” While there were and are shining examples of success — like EMILY’s List and here in Santa Barbara the Women’s Political Committee — there seemed to be organizations elsewhere that were lumbering along like dinosaurs, or others that were on point but underfunded.

I set out to learn what was happening and conducted nearly two dozen interviews. That led to the launching of the Women’s Policy Summit. We took the model of partner-based policy development that we had developed for the Working Families Summit but sharpened our focus to promote policies and programs that “advance the health, wealth, and power” of women and girls.

This year’s Summit was attended by nearly 600 women, including me. What issues were the focus of the workshops?

What makes the Women’s Policy Summit distinct is our focus on many issues — child care, poverty, workforce development, women in politics, Title IX, health care, and more.

Another key feature of the Summit is our focus on action. We use the months leading up to the conference to provide technical assistance and support to advocates to help them prepare their priority recommendations for the legislative session. Because of this approach, conversations at the Summit aren’t academic or solely educational — they are about what we can do now to advance women’s health, wealth, and power.

Do you foresee any of these issues moving to legislation, and if so, who will carry the bills?

Absolutely. There’s a major bill to reduce the backlog of rape kits. Another aims to remove the “maximum family cap” provision in our state’s welfare program. Another effort we launched through the Summit is the California Title IX Coalition, a group of statewide women’s organizations that will work with local leaders, parents, and students to assess high schools’ compliance with Title IX — as it relates to athletics, sexual harassment, and pregnant teens. I should mention that our legislative partner for the Title IX project is none other than Santa Barbara’s State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. She’s an amazing champion.

This year, CCRWF started a mentoring process called Pathways to Policy, which over 60 young women attended. Why did you organize it, and what is next for them?

Mentoring was one of the top priorities that women leaders identified when I conducted my two dozen interviews about the state of the women’s movement. The message was clear: We need to do more to educate young women and empower their leadership.

That’s what led us to design our mentoring initiative, Pathways to Policy.

It was a magical experience for everyone involved — tapping into the interests and ambitions of young women to learn more about public policy and connecting them with women who have deep experience working in and around the State Capitol and in local government.

What made our mentoring initiative unique was that we paired it with participation in the Women’s Policy Summit, so the young women not only saw women leaders in action, they also learned more about policies and programs to advance women’s health, wealth, and power.

The effort was designed with our Mentoring Advisory Committee — and we are working with them on next steps, including round two at the 2015 Women’s Policy Summit.

You founded the CCRWF 13 years ago. What was the need for it, and how has it evolved over these years?

CCRWF was founded with two projects — Linkages and the Working Families Policy Summit. Linkages was a major foundation-funded and 13-county effort to help at-risk families caught between two bureaucratic systems — child welfare and welfare.

We helped design an approach to cut red tape and increase services. Linkages became a national model and is now under the leadership of the Child and Family Policy Institute of California.

At CCRWF, we also organized and hosted the Working Families Policy Summit for over a decade. The goal of the Working Families Policy Summit was twofold — to promote policies and programs to support low-income families and to bring more attention and legislative action on workplace policies that all families need — like paid family leave, paid sick days, health insurance, child care.

How did you first get involved with women’s issues?

In college I worked for the Women’s Resource Center, first as a peer counselor and then as the coordinator for peer counseling services. It was the mid ‘70s, when the women’s movement was taking off, defining itself. Everyone and their mother (quite literally) was learning that the personal was political.

It’s still rings true — issues like reproductive rights and justice, child care, pay equity, and sexual harassment can all be diminished as “personal issues” but are fundamentally critical to address as policy issues because they affect the resources, programs and opportunities available to all women.

You spent eight years as head of the California Elected Women’s Association for Education and Research (CEWAER), now known as California Women Lead. What programs did you develop while you were there?

Before I joined CEWAER (which I am proud to say I did not name!), I had founded the California Board and Commission Project, researching the representation of women and state and local boards and commissions. It wasn’t a pretty picture at that time.

At CEWAER, we took this research project the next step — and partnered with local leaders, pushing for more appointments of women, particularly on what we called the “power boards,” those commissions that were responsible for major resources and often seen as stepping stones to elected office.

It was through the Board and Commission Project that you and I first met! I recall working with you in both the City of Los Angeles and here in Santa Barbara.

At CEWAER, we also launched the California Women’s Health Project, the first time ever — unbelievably — that anyone had compiled statistical profiles on the status of women’s health. Admittedly, it was really wonky stuff, but it provided important benchmark information for advocates. Our recommendations led to the creation of California’s Office of Women’s Health (which, sadly, was recently closed.)

We were also relentless in tracking how the numbers of elected women in state offices were climbing. Unfortunately — and an issue of great concern, these numbers have recently declined in a rather dramatic fashion.

Can you give us a preview of your speech for the annual SBWPC Presidents’ Circle Luncheon?

I plan to start my speech with some distressing statistics, so five minutes in I hope that at least half the audience are thinking: “Wow, this woman’s a real downer.”

By the end of the speech, I hope that all of us will feel uplifted, and see a roadmap to revitalize the women’s movement — and how we can work together to advance women’s health, wealth, and power.

For more information on Karpilow’s talk on Friday, March 7, or to make a reservation, call (805) 564-6876 or visit

Susan Rose is a founding member of the Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee. She served two terms on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, is cochair of the Santa Barbara Human Rights Watch Committee, and serves on the Board of Trustees of the McCune Foundation and Antioch University Santa Barbara.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Not a single, solitary thing about what this woman or her organization does is for women.

She works and advocates only for liberal democrat women. This is 100% pure and unabashed left wing gender politics and NOT about women... Only liberal women.

The last time Ms. Rose advocated for anything other than more welfare benefits (vs self reliance), equality of outcome (vs opportunity) and abortion rights (vs pro-life) was.... Never.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2014 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not a single, solitary thing about what this woman or her organization does is for women."

Who cares about womyn?...what about us dolphins?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2014 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

realitycheck, are you a woman?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a "maximum family cap" on welfare benefits?
And she wants to get rid of it!
It should be modified to 1 subsidized baby per household.Any additional benefits would be in the form of daycare and job training.This would help women become independent but the left would call it discriminatory and the right would call it govt overreach.

garfish (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The women's movement accomplished a virtually complete abdication of any rights for women. No wonder it is finally dying out. Women won the righst to kill their offspring, parent alone, live in poverty, and become wholly dependent upon federal handouts. Great progress, ladies.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

foo likes to yank the gals' chain...ignore his crud

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When Foo is challenged by facts he jumps to another thread. Then he / she lays a turd like the last comment. Classic troll behavior.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Classic progressive rebuttal: when devoid of issues, resort to ad hominum. Otherwise known as the politics of personal destruction.

Hersh, you need to get a little more seasoned in the art of public debate. Your head need not implode when confronted with alternate thinking. I know you can do better. Here is your chance.

America is still the land of opportunity, Hersh. Put that excellent public education to work for you and get back to the debate of ideas.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What would women do if men just quit?? Since men are the backbone of society.. we work more, die early, work longer and harder than women until we retire and die.. then our wives live off the money we made. So we should have a day when all men just dont go to work.. call it a "day without men" and lets watch it all screech a stop.. no plumbers, no welders, no trash pickup, no building, no cops, etc etc.. Why dont women ever think about the sacrifices men make?? Being a housewife was a luxury!! to be able to be at home with the kids and take care of them..and then people make that sound like its slavery!! the real slave is the guy that goes to work every day with no thank you at all.. working hard so he pays more tax to the govt..only to have it redistributed to women that want to have children by themselves..priceless!!

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The women's lib movement was funded by the Rockefellers who wished to double the tax base.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Generalizing about anything is scientifically inaccurate, and very biased.

--What would women do if men just quit?
..Firstly, why are there so many single-parent homes headed by females? Because the partners quit in the sense that they were unwilling to support the family. Dead-beat dads is the term. Secondly, many women had to go to work because there was not enough money from one paycheck. The number of working men and women is roughly equal. Lastly, that question could only be directed at women who are not working and expect to be supported. For those women, who do work, it is a meaningless question.

-- Since men are the backbone of society.. we work more,
..Women are the backbone of society as well. Many studies have shown that working women work much harder, not only because they have a day job, but they do most of the work at home. So that supposition is only true when women are stay at home, otherwise it is patently false.

- die early, work longer and harder than women until we retire and die..
..For the most part, men do not look after themselves as well as women do. They drink more and smoke more, and do more risky things. As more and more women smoked the difference in death ages grew smaller. So I would claim it is an issue of personal responsibility - do not look after your health, and expect to die earlier.

- then our wives live off the money we made.
..If a wife dies earlier, then a husband lives off any money she made. I have also encountered many marriages where the woman makes more than the husband, and in some cases supports the husband. So generalizations are incorrect.

--So we should have a day when all men just dont go to work.. call it a "day without men" and lets watch it all screech a stop.. no plumbers, no welders, no trash pickup, no building, no cops, etc etc..
..So we should have a day when all women don't work --- watch homes screech to a halt. No breakfast, lunch, dinner - nobody to take kids to and from school, nobody to look after kids when they are home, put them to bed, do their washing, etc, etc. No teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc. And many women do "men's" jobs, too.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

continued ....

--Why dont women ever think about the sacrifices men make?? Being a housewife was a luxury!! to be able to be at home with the kids and take care of them..and then people make that sound like its slavery!!
..Yes, for some being a stay-at-home was a luxury for those who were lucky enough to be able to do that. But you are arguing both for it and against it. Women should stay at home and enjoy the luxury while men do all the work, but boo hoo men do all the work, therefore that system (hardly found today) is bad.

--the real slave is the guy that goes to work every day with no thank you at all.. working hard so he pays more tax to the govt..only to have it redistributed to women that want to have children by themselves..priceless!!
..No woman can have a child by herself naturally - they find themselves in that situation because of men who don't want to stick around. And since the workforce is approximately 50% men and 50% women, women are also paying for those who need support. And how about the case of the stay-at-home-mom with large families? They get tax deductions for each of the children, when responsible adults who have no children or few children have to subsidize large families where both parents profit because of deductions paid by others.

Everyday, I thank my lucky stars that I can go to work where I feel I make the best use of my abilities, and then after work I am free to do whatever I wish paid for by my own work, and nobody else's. That is, I would hate to live in any country where women have no rights, and there are many of them.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha AND Foo actually sum it up. (Yes, both are correct, and ultimately say the same thing)

At the core is the deadbeat dad syndrome. The attitude today is meet a woman, have sex with her (whether or not you're married) and when you get bored, trade her in for a newer model. I actually felt out-of-place (but in a good way) when I moved out to California and realized I was one of the few kids I knew who had both parents in the house. (And fast forwarding, how nice that when our mom died, dad was right by her side and her fear of dying alone didn't happen)

Look at the celebrity world: What do Tom Cruise, Michael Douglas and Donald Trump all have in common?...Answer: They all become even MORE famous--and disturbingly--more popular--because they dumped their wives (with whom they all had children) and traded them in for younger women. (And look how successful those second and third marriages are--sarcasim intended) Just to finish this part of my post, I remember after Tom dumped Nicole how Oprah Winfrey (Anointed One of the progressive women's movement) had Tom and his new girlfriend on her show and everyone got upset because Cruise was jumping around on the couch acting look a fool but not one word against his having left his (second) wife and their two kids. Yep, two-faced celebrity popular left-wing culture: Talk about how women are discriminated against, but support the walk-out-on-your-family culture that is the root of why so many women are angry at men.

Yes, although Foo is about as popular here as a power failure during The Super Bowl, I will side with him/her about how the "women's movement" has encouraged the irresponsible behavior of men. Seriously ladies, who would you rather have at your side: Some feminized divoreced man with kids he doesn't see because "I had to pursue my dreams" or someone like the John Walton? Paul McCartney or Rod Stewart?

Susan Rose loves to make generalized statements about how women are getting the short shrift, but when will she finally admit that perhaps the Free Love feel-good and of course "do whatever feels right" attitude of the 60's was a double edged sword that had some very good points, but went too far?

One more thing: My parents were true liberals who hated racism, sexism, and the idea of people being homeless and the "walked the walk" long before it was fashionable, but they also believed in the supposedly antiquated idea of honoring your committment to your spouse and family.

As for the woman Rose features in the article: What is she actually doing to make life better for ALL people?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bill, I would just say I dunno if I agree that deadbeat dad syndrome is confined to a problem that only men have. Certainly both sides have some blame.

First of all, let's look at the fact that when a male and female consensually engage in sex, if the woman becomes pregnant the man has no say in the matter and if she ends up having the kid then he is labelled a dead-beat dad. Now I know that there's nothing I can do to convince you that this is 'ok' behavior, but the fact of the matter is that both parties are responsible and if the woman doesn't want to have a kid she can have an abortion. Would it not be fair then if all women who have had abortions be labelled 'dead-beat moms'? In that case I'll bet there are a lot more dead-beat moms than dead-beat dads out there. I guess my point is I'm not sure how it is fair to place all the blame on men when there are a lot of women who essentially do the same thing yet have greater control over their destiny.

When a woman chooses to have un-protected sex with a man she should not assume that he is going to stick around and raise a kid with her, even if he says he is going to. Now obviously if he says he is going to, he has the means to do so and puts forth many actions in that direction and still leaves then that argument has some merit. But a woman should not assume that the person having sex with her is going to raise a kid if she has one.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "dead-beat dad" syndrome has nothing to do with the women's movement. Men have been walking out on women with children since Adam and Eve. In the good ole days the single parent woman was left with virtually no options save for finding another man to marry, putting the child up for adoption, or relying on family help.
Contrary to Foo's blather, the woman's movement has helped women enter the work force, vote, own property, sign contracts, inherit property, and the right to control their reporduction. The woman's movement has a long history and a long way to go. Our society has been greatly enriched by it. BTW why are some posters so obsessed with the sexual aspects of women's rights? This article has very little to do with that issue.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If one day all oppression of women suddenly disappeared, these dorks would still find something to bitch about.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well actually Herschel the "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" approach IS part of the problem. You see, (and maybe it's just too much to stomach) when it becomes acceptable to make babies with people who have no intention of being around to help when the kid grows up, you have this problem.

Did you read the part in my post about "double edged sword"? Yes, the 60's (and I think any cursory look at American sociology will show that the 60's was the decade of the biggest paradigm social shift) brought a lot of much-needed change with regard to race and gender issues, but human nature took over and the "traditional" family did start to change and as politically incorrect as it is to say it's clear that when kids grow up in stable homes with a good family/social structure, (since after all, this is all about "The Children") they do better not just economically, but socially.

Let's also add that our Progressive Paradise of California has made itself unaffordabe to the average working-class person, but sometimes what's right in front of us is so obvious it can't be seen.

The divorce rates have skyrocketed in the last 50-or-so years, and if you can't see a connection between the change in social mores of the last half century and all the single mothers then you can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe America can figure it out, find the happy medium, and get it right. I can hope, can't I?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershal, in your fondly remembered good old days women stayed virgins until duly contracted into marriage that secured their economic rights, did not give sexual privileges away "for free", and later "control their reproduction" by killing the baby in the womb. Imagine that.

Tabatha, what countries can you verify where women "have no rights".

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

clausen. what do you mean fish dont need bicycles?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have three.

garfish (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, what is the deal with you and sex? This article is an interview with Ms. Karpilow who is working to revitalize the women's movement. You do know that there is more to a woman than their ability to make babies, right? You have a very bizarre conception of sexual mores during the "good old days. " Other commentators should weigh in on the absurdity of your comments.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As previously pointed out, men gained a lot more from the women's movement than did women. Nice work, ladies.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There would be no "dead beat dads" if women wouldnt have sex with dead beat men..or do they just instantly become dead beat men when the baby is born??
Women have all the cards here and they still screw it up.. they alone control a pregnancy.. you have the right to abort or not.
Men should be able opt out of being a father because women can opt out of being a mom anytime they want.. totally agaisnt the mans wishes even if he wants to keep the child and raise it
Women can also surrender children.. which they do..or adopt out and they can do this without ever informing the man

Remember "my body my choice" well there you go:)

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Women have been trapping men with pregnancy for a long time.. but there another thing women are good at.. never calling another woman out!
have you ever noticed how reluctant women are to criticize another woman?? I notice this all the time..

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

audi, you were lamenting about women marrying convicts when there are lots of nice guys like you around.....

your most recent comments here about women should bring them running.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK fess up, which one of you is this?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lawdy this article on "Modern Romance" will help explain how the system of attraction has been broken and why so many men and women develop bitter attitudes towards each other, for example, the author of this article and men like audidriver2010:

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"foo likes to yank the gals' chain...ignore his crud", like absurd sh!t like "Women won the righst [sic] to kill their offspring, parent alone, live in poverty, and become wholly dependent "

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most men I know shiver in fear at the thought of telling their's or any woman what they really feel about them or women in general... to live in fear like that is to be a slave and thats what most men are to every woman you meet.. so have fun!!

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes audidude, you know what they say, it's a woman's world. I think James Brown wrote a song about it.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Men have been creating pregnancies for an even longer time. Men impregnate women. Women do not trap men with pregnancies. Pregnancies are always a risk, and perhaps even the entire point, of the act of impregnation.

Do people here need a lesson in the birds and the bees? Sound like it.

Men, watch what you do with your sperm. Protect it carefully if you don't want to accept the consequences of its irresponsible scattering. Potent stuff, but I thought you already knew that.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo that was an excellent ode to Onan.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2014 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Dr. Foo: I DO protect my sperm...I keep it in a sperm bank. After five years, the sperm will increase in amount as the interest on the sperm is 5% annually. At that point I will withdraw the sperm, and I will impregnate the world by proxy.

As for Onan, I think of the words of Jean Paul Sarte describing the terrible masturbater Jean Genet: (He) "prefers his own caresses, since the pleasure given coincides with the pleasure received".

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 27, 2014 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, as I sit and ponder your ode to sperm, I thought it apropos to post this educational 1 minute video.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 27, 2014 at 4:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)


So when a woman gets pregnant..its only the mans fault?? and the woman is just some innocent vessel?? that doesnt make sense. I know enough about the birds and the bees.. but if a woman gets pregnant from a brief encounter/hookup/nsa/fwb.. does she really expect the man to be "happy" about being a father when it was only a fling??

Let me put t this way:

Women steal sperm from condoms
Women lie about being on birth control
Women lie about paternity
Women will screw another womans man just because
Women think they are better parents because they give birth
Women want it all but dont want the responsibility
A woman will walk drunk down a dark alley and get assaulted and wonders why.. a man walks drunk down the same alley and gets assaulted and knows why
A drunk woman drives she gets a dui..a drunk woman has sex.. shes been raped

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 27, 2014 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most married men I know arent husbands they are hostages:)

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 27, 2014 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, women need so much help to unleash their power and potential.

** Women live longer than men and have healthier lives.

** Spending on women specific health issues (vs. men specific) is 230% higher than men in the U.S.

** Women graduate from college now at higher rates than men.

** Women commit fewer crimes and are less incarcerated than men.

** Women unemployment during the Great Recession held steady while men, especially middle-aged men, declined precipitously.

** Fundraising for breast cancer research is 11x what it is for prostate cancer and yet men die from prostate cancer almost as much as women do.

** Women can legal abort a living human son or daughter of a man without any requirement to get that soon to be fathers' permission, even if the father wants to raise the child.

** Women are paid about $0.97 for each $1.00 a man makes when you normalize for leaving (or moving to part time) the workforce (often repeatedly over a career) to raise children *by choice*.

** Women have access to many more welfare programs and benefit from them more than men.

** Women are considered a minority for government grants and contracts because they choose not to start as many businesses as men - but enjoy subsidies, at the expense of men for this self-created status.

** Culturally, men are expected to go to work full time for 40 years and during that time, come home and do additional work even if there is a full time homemaker spouse... and yet *no one* is supposed to point out that the spouse is not helping out at the man's job at his office/work.

** Women can invent complete lies of themselves to attract men: make-up, stockings, high heels, girdles, hair color, etc. and that is perfectly fine.

** Women can have babies without men via sperm donations. Men do not have this choice nearly as easily or cost effectively or socially acceptably.

** There are taxpayer funded womens' studies departments all over the world - where are the "mens studies departments"?

So yes Ms. Rose, women need lots and lots of your support and advocacy and more taxpayer funding for programs and more exceptions, distortions of equity and other things to help them vs. men.


realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
February 27, 2014 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)


women are exempt from the draft but still get to vote and send men to war..nice!!

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
February 28, 2014 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's so infuriating about The INDEPENDENT is that it features feminist gender bigot propaganda exclusively, but never brings in scientific, anti-feminist, Men's Human Rights Movement, free speech, or biological perspectives in it's coverage of sex and (genuine) gender issues. That kind of coverage is a recipe for Stalinist tyranny. Of course, we continue to see that kind of tyranny from our bigoted local politicians because they know they can sell pink Kool-aid to a totally brainwashed population.

Sealion (anonymous profile)
February 28, 2014 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: