More Information About the ‘We Like Women’ Party Platform

(Editor’s Note: There has been an unprecedented clamor by California’s Capitol viewers to learn more about the We Like Women political party, which is attempting to qualify for a place on California’s ballot and was the subject of a March 10 post.

While the same can’t be said of the chief correspondent of California’s Capitol, this site’s management is both conscientious and responsive to the concerns of readers, particularly those who pay to advertise.

To that end, here is a link to the We Like Women website which solicits political activists – particularly those willing to cough up $2 each month – to join.)

Among the elements of the We Like Women platform is the following:

“We will demand classes that will use neuroscience and psychology to make men like women better in all public and private schools from grades K-12 and a requirement class in universities that will make men like women.

(Presumably the clause beginning with “in all public and private schools” is misplaced and is intended to follow the word “classes” rather than limit the liking of women to grade school and institutions of higher learning.)


“These classes will be focused on making boys like girls and making boys have the psychological attitude of: ‘I Like Women! When I grow up, I want to fall in love with a woman, marry a woman, have children with a woman and I want to make her very happy forever and ever until we depart.’ “

The dictionary definition of neuroscience is the “scientific disciplines concerned with the development, structure, function, chemistry, pharmacology, clinical assessments and pathology of the nervous system.”

Among some of the party’s other platform planks:

“Superhealthy and supersexy exercise laws! We will pass laws that will require that every one of us must work out for at least two hours a day!”

According to the We Like Women party, doing so will reduce drug and alcohol use by 90 percent because “because if every one is consciously focused on working out than they are worried about being healthy and are much more likely to not want to take drugs or alcohol.”

In addition, the party would no longer tax the rich – what constitutes rich is not defined – “because the rich and wealthy are the ones that give us jobs!”

In contrast to a number of other Californians, the We Like Women party also likes lawyers.

“And we like legal organizations like the ACLU, the ACLJ, and Amnesty International!,” the party says.

Besides lawyers and the rich, the party also likes police officers, the military, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, talk radio hosts and newspaper reporters, among other.

On foreign affairs, the party takes a rigid stance on trade with China:

“Stop dogs and cats from being eaten in China — massive movements to ban or put tariffs on Chinese products until they ban dog-eating and cat-eating in their territory!”

It is unlikely apartment owners thicken the ranks of the We Like Women party because “everyone must own large homes with property!”

The party is also staunchly in pro-innovation:

“Every woman must live in extreme wealth in (sic) robotic servants!”


Flying Cars and flying personal vehicles shall be legalized and available to everyone.”


Filed under: Politics


  1. Likem too but not as much…

    Comment by R. Ashburn — 3.12.2010 @ 7:00 am

  2. Greg; This is about the best thing you’ve discovered this year (I know, I know, the year is still young). These cats are funny, and smart. Seinfeld couldn’t do it better. Wait, Jerry Seinfeld did put this together.

    Comment by Let it Bleed — 3.12.2010 @ 8:07 am

  3. Wait a minute! Flying cars piloted by cell-talking, cell-texting, make-up applying, cd-loading persons? Not until Simitian adds that category to his law. They’re bad enuf on roads and highways–ponder one randomly dropping in from above.

    Comment by lotuslover — 3.12.2010 @ 11:51 am

  4. Do Republicans really outright hate women? As a rule, I don\’t think so. But did Freud hate women? No, he treated them with great regularity and was not necessarily blatantly cruel — but he still believed them morally inferior to men and, despite his brilliance, did significant psychological harm to some (if not many) of his female clients by attributing their problems to the general instability and natural mental/physical deficiencies of the female sex. Did ancient/older (and do modern) cultures which place(d) strict/harsh regulations on the behavior of women and prevented them from exercising control over their own bodies, minds, or rights (which were often basically nonexistent) truly hate women? I doubt it, but they still consider(ed) them inferior and lesser and oppress(ed) them, much to women\’s overall detriment.

    Comment by M.Hunter — 9.07.2010 @ 4:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment