Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Dirty Hippies and Ugly Feminist Dykes

It's been a good 35 years since the American youth counter-culture resisted the Vietnam War and loudly demanded action on the issue of civil rights, and in all that time, these two lame stereotypes are best conservatives can do. Anti-war types don't bathe, enjoy Phish and Burning Man and smoke lots of weed. (Okay, so that last one is pretty much true...)

And, of course, any woman concerned about her own civil and personal rights, her ability to earn a fair wage and her station in society is a man-hating, uptight, sex-averse, ugly shrew. I mean, there's nothing new to this...It's the same lazy caricature that's always been around...

And it's exactly this lazy crap that provides the focus for National Review editor Kate O'Beirne's latest book. Get ready for this title. Women Who Make the World Worse.

It may be even more stupid than that Bernie Goldberg tome of last year about the people who make the world worse. What is it with conservatives and making Enemies Lists? Why can't they just keep this shit to themselves like a normal goddamn human being? I mean, we all have people we can't stand with whom we must occasionally interact. There are people who come into the video store all the time who I want to punch directly in the face every time I see them, but I don't. And I'm not out writing a book about how much I hate them, either.

Just a blog post. But I don't name names.

So who are these women who make the world worse through their uppity-ness? Let's take a look at the book's cover and see.



Why, look, it's Ruth Bader Ginsberg...A powerful woman rising to a position of great legal authority through the use of her intellect, savvy and perseverence? FUCK THAT BITCH!

And next to her, good old Hillary, drawn to look rabidly demented with teeth like Matt Dillon in Something About Mary. Next to her, is that...is that Jane Fonda? Holy shit, Kate, that was fucking decades ago! She hung out with the VC for like one afternoon! Can we please, for the love of God, and all thing's holy, just get the fuck over this thing? I mean, she was in Klute, right? That's a pretty cool movie. Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

Finally, Carrie from "Sex and the City." Because a young woman who not only enjoys sex, but manages to profit from it somehow, makes the world worse.

Actually, this really surprises me. Carrie, proudly single though she might be, represents the classic conservative archetype for the contemporary urban female. Sure, she's capable of looking strong, attractive and independant, but she's really just looking to settle down with a nice guy who will take care of her. It's not real freedom of destiny Carrie was after, but the freedom to date around until she met just the right wealthy hunk.

Plus, she loves shopping. What's more conservative than that?

And, people, that's just what's odd and offensive about the cover. Check out some of these excerpts, compliments of Daily Kos:

I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement. We live with the destructive feminist agenda because the fathers or husbands of so many of them, including Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Jane Fonda, never failed to fail them. The views of these angry, abandoned women inform the modern women's movement.

I don't know...It's not really fair to use someone's personal, family background against them in an argument in this way. Like, "you're only saying that because your daddy ran out on your family. If you had a nicer dad, you wouldn't care about equal treatment."

I mean, Kate O'Beirne only wrote this book because she's a fucking moron who has no idea what she's talking about, but I try not to use that against her.

The persistent fable that women are denied equal pay for equal work has been a never-empty tank of gas that fuels feminism. A sympathetic public is largely unaware that the claim that women face widespread wage discrimination is a myth aggressively advanced by feminists. Disparities in wages exist between women with children and men and single women. This is not sex discrimination, but if that were better understood feminists would have to get real jobs.

Wait...what? This argument doesn't make any senee at all. Yes, a disparity does exist between women with children and men, and women with children and women without children. That's the whole problem, you fool. She claims the idea that women don't get equal pay is a myth, and then claims that, well, it's true, but they don't get equal pay for very good reasons. You can't have it both ways...can you?

Oh boy. Hillary Clinton is a committed feminist. She's a true believer in the grievance agenda and promotes the myth of stunted progress for women's equality. She would reliably be one of the women who make the world worse by endorsing all of feminism's pet causes -- strict sex quotas for college sports, "girl power" in our schools, the "epidemic" of domestic violence, abortion on demand (despite her phony rhetoric), universal, federally funded day care, enforced "equal pay for equal work" and women in combat.

Holy crap...This woman is making my ears bleed with the sheer power of her cluelessness.

"Grievance agenda"? Is this the new euphamism. Feminists don't have legitimate concerns about protecting their civil rights, they simply have a "grievance agenda"? What's so wrong with that? Everyone have has a grievance has an agenda - to eradicate whatever is causing them grief.

Also, how does "girl power" make the world worse? I'll admit, it's kind of annoying, a term that was always kind of meaningless but is now extremely meaningless because it was so overused for a while there. But did it really make the world worse? I mean, sure, The Spice Girls sucked, but "The Powerpuff Girls" was pretty cool, so doesn't that kind of even things out?

Also, this term..."Abortion on demand." This term is really really stupid. You're either going to have legal abortion or you're not. Regardless, every medically-induced abortion is "on demand". What, you want doctors to show up at your house to abort your unborn fetus randomly? Like in some bizarre Monty Python sketch...

"Evening, mum, we're just here to abort your baby."

"But I don't want an abortion. I want to have my child!"

"Sorry, but your number came up, and we don't have abortion on demand in Britain, so I'm afraid we'll just need to remove that baby post-haste, unless you've completed Form 12-B."

"Form 12-B?"

"Yes, the Abortion Off Demand Don't Abort List."

I could go on like this, but you get the idea...

Also, the quote-unquote epidemic of dmoestic violence...Does The National Review really dispute the notion that there are a lot of battered women in America? Really? Don't most Americans personally know at least one woman who has been involved in an abusive relationship? I know more than one, myself. Is this really the sort of lie you can get away with? Won't everyone who reads this woman on domestic abuse know immediately that she's full of shit?

Anyway, it seems like a lot of liberal bloggers in the past few days have been taking Katie to task for her book, and the National Review Online has hilariously struck back.

They seem to take offense to the idea that Rena over at Daily Kos referred to NRO as a "den of rats." I think that overlooks the clear fact that a number of their contributors - particularly John Derbyshire - are extremely rat-like.

This post itself was really in response to a request from the great political blog firedoglake, which asked for bloggers to provide their own insights into Kate's particular psychosis.

I'll leave you with this thought...As much as conservative nutjobs like Ann Coulter want to screech that feminists are ugly chicks in need of a date to get over their need for equality, which side of the political spectrum is hotter?

Conservatives have the Deep South and some parts of the Midwest. They have farmers and factory workers, NASCAR fans and Wal-Mart shoppers. Liberals have the coasts, and nearly all of the big American cities.

They have Texas, but we have Austin! They (barely) have drunk FSU skanks, but we have UCLA wannabe models and bookish-but-deeply-sensual NYU co-eds.

I mean, you think Angelina Jolie's going to any Heritage Foundation lectures soon? You think Jessica Alba's logging on to Billy O's website for some Factor Gear? Okay, maybe that's not fair...Jessica Alba probably doesn't know how to use a computer. Or, you know...read...

20 comments:

Cory said...

I am with you on the awfulness of the O'Beirne book or whatever her name is, but I have to take you to task for your last few paragraphs. I love how you complain about how Conservatives pigeon-hole the anti-war and feminist movements, then go on to characterize the Conservative movement as consisting of farmers, factory workers, NASCAR fans and Walmart shoppers. Not only is that a narrow view of a large group of people, it's an embarassingly elitist view - are farmers and factory workers somehow not as worthy as people living on the coasts?

Of course, I now realize that this may have been in jest, so please disregard if that's the case.

berns said...

The Spice Girls did not suck. I mean, compared to most pop music? And they were ALL hot.

Lons said...

Cory, yes, that last paragraph is totally in jest. My whole point: comments about feminists being ugly fatties in need of some dick are just as stupid as comments about all conservatives having buck teeth and drinking moonshine.

Cory said...

Lons - I see your point and agree.

Berns - the Spice girls DID suck and only two of three of them were hot. Victoria Beckham is legitimately hot, Baby Spice and Red-Headed Spice or whatever her name was, were hot in a skanky way...the other two were Sporty Spice who was clearly not hot, and Scary Spice - her name is SCARY Spice for a reason. Not hot. This is almost as bad as when you claimed "Toxic" was a fantastic pop song.

Lons said...

Red-Headed Spice? Try Ginger Spice, my friend...And, for the record, I never found her or Baby Spice particularly cute, either.

It's Posh or nothing, I say...

gohlke said...

See, Lons, you really are elitist...can't even appreciate the working-class Spices.

Lons said...

You make an excellent point. Nowhere is the British class hierarchy more evident than in the Spice Girls.

At the top, you have Posh Spice, the monied aristocrat.

Then, you have Ginger and Baby, the poor girls who are adorable enough to be kept around as maids or nannies or, perhaps, mistresses, but would not be approrpriate to marry and endow with land or other finery.

Next, Sporty Spice, an athletic sort, useful for working in a factory or fighting a war.

And finally, at the bottom, the scary African...Scary Spice.

Thank God we live in America, where all you need in order to succeed is talent, a strong work ethic and enough cash to send several Senators on a fun golf-themed Scottish vacation.

Jane Hamsher said...

Okay that's funny. I'll be back.

Lons said...

Hey, Jane, thanks...A significant compliment. Welcome!

Anonymous said...

When are you people going to broach the fact that 9/11 was an inside job??? Details explaining this conclusion were presented on C-SPAN today!!! The show will be repeated tonight & tomorrow!!!
....
Google: 9/11 inside job

Lons said...

Anon -

It would not at all shock me to learn that 9/11 was an "inside job." I don't talk about it all the time because it's at this point only a theory, one that I have no special insight into, and there are other, ongoing tragedies happening in real time to rail against.

But don't mention frequently the very real possibility that our government either blew up the towers or passively allowed them to be blown up as a pretext for endless war as an indication that I don't believe it might be true.

Anonymous said...

My good friends, modern feminism is a vile putrid bunch of junk! It's absolute rubbish that's making the world a very nasty place for men like me.

Anyone remember the old cartoons in the late '80s like Duck Tales, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Ghostbusters? Those were great cartoons because they were free of feminism.

Women aren't aggressive like men and when they try to be and get their rear ends whooped, they cry about it. The problem isn't with women, the problem is the fact that many men want them to be like a man while being exempt from the rules governing men.

Another thing that SUCKS now is TV. TV shows are terribly bad. That CSI, Survivor, and Housewives nonsense needs to go. Every show is catered to women. What the heck happened to heroes???

Commericals on TV are equally bad. Total rubbish, starting from women breaking brick walls with their hands to the man always being a buffoon. The marketing companies are doing this to cater to women. Newsflash: Try making feminine commercials to cater to women, you idiots. But no, they'll use a woman's illogical emotions to the maximal and feed her insecurity so she buys stuff!

Pathetic.

As a man, I'm deeply offended and concerned that I can't put the TV on for a good show anymore or see any decent commercials. Aaaaah for the days of MacGyver! I'd have never thought as a kid when I used to watch MacGyver that I'd pine to see him on TV 10 years later!

Anonymous said...

The hippies didn't campaign for civil rights, MLK, Rosa Parks, NOT BOOMERS either one of them. And chicks, for the most part, hate to appear out of fashion, so they burned their bras and eschewed makeup; now the get botox injections.

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't a woman - or a man for that matter - who chooses to leave her/his job to add more children to this overpopulated planet not have to make some personal sacrifices? Yes, if you have a baby - which most people do for selfish reasons first and foremost (because S/HE wants a family, or S/HE wants to fulfill a need etc.) you will have to drop back a year or two in your career. In that time your company will no doubt be forced to pay you (in the EU anyway) and your colleagues will be doing your work. You can't expect to stroll back in later and be on the same career path. Most worthwhile careers require years of experience and training. So how could it be any other way?

Anonymous said...

You are all lunatics.

Bob said...

Feminists are dykes. Everyone knows that. All Libtards are mostly homo. Everyone knows that.

Anonymous said...

Lons you a man correct? You sound like Rosie O'Donnell with your whining. Why would you defend modern feminism by any stretch of the imagination is beyond me, being an ally of that putrid institution does not show the world how much of a good liberal you are it just shows how weak you are as a man.
Real women like strong willed men to provide and protect them, not ones they can to stomp out in black leather.

I give you some advice: Grow some balls, lose some weight and get a girl, and have some self respect for God sakes.

Anonymous said...

Bob, get a girl? Wtf, are you that much of a weaksack? A real man is independent and doesn't need a woman, and knows what he wants, he is particular, he is able to decide in a split second whether a woman has a chance with him or not. Getting a girl, some girl, any girl, wtf. Have you seen the refuse out there? It's disgusting. You're falling prey to the feminism nonsense, just take the ugly tramp.

And for the record, the Spice Girls were not that attractive. In fact, they're were all rather busted, even the "coveted" Posh. But hey, I guess the blokes out there have a poor sense of aesthetics and are okay with any hag's pussy.

Anonymous said...

you all read like children...eat the rich..greg .england

CaptCluster said...

The book sounds really informative as a warning to unmarried men, I must support it by getting a copy. I shouldn't gloat though, just because I escaped from my western nightmare and married a south-east Asian. Bliss!