Ooooh, and with an endorsement from Lynn Cheney in the IWF header, I find their forum to be all the more credible a voice for "independent women."

Of course here, "independent" seems to be code for "neo-conservative." Note this post by Charlotte Hays, sarcastically decrying feminist outrage on the career change of Elizabeth Vargas (sorry, has there been outrage on this? Discussion, maybe, but outrage?), first quoting the Washington Post:

“[NOW President] Gandy added that ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., ‘doesn’t look like a very woman-friendly or family-friendly workplace.’"

"No, they should hog-tied Elizabeth to the anchor desk—it could have been a great bring-your-daughter to work opportunity."

Note: The post didn't say "...should have hog-tied Elizabeth to the anchor desk..." - it really did say "should hog tied."*

In fact, the whole blog doesn't just reek of desperate, repetitive neocon cheerleading rants - it stinks of terrible grammar as well.

Either moronic politics or bad writing is difficult enough for me to bear, but both vexations at the same time? While also co-opting feminism in a wild variety of ways? It's downright insulting.

* That's not to say that they won't stumble upon this, correct the error, and then claim that feminists are lying about them. Because, you know, we have nothing better to do.

Since when are neo-conservatives not allowed to be interested in gender issues?

Social liberalism combined with economic conservatism is not unheard of.

Uh, IWF is not socially liberal at all, and it has comparatively very little to say about economic issues... as for the joke that the group or todays GOP claims to speak for what in the mid-20th century was known as "conservatism" Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.

I especially love the fact that many of their posts have to do with celebrities or television shows. I mean, those are *deep* political issues, man!

What's with the comment, "Since when are neo-conservatives not allowed to be interested in gender issues?"

No feminist here (as blog author or commenter) stated or implied that, even remotely. To the contrary, neocons are profoundly interested in gender issues, insofar as that means controlling public discourse on same (not to mention: women's actual bodies).