Avast! Feminist Conspiracy!

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Oscar v. Oscar the Grouch

... or Polish v. Trash

Here's the list of the top movies in 2006, according to box office receipts:

1.) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2.) Cars

3.) X-Men: The Last Stand

4.) The Da Vinci Code

5.) Night at the Museum

6.) Superman Returns

7.) Ice Age: The Meltdown

8.) Happy Feet

9.) Casino Royale (James Bond)

10.) Over the Hedge

Similarities in this list? Family fare. Escapist fun and fantasy. (Anyone else find it odd that Shiny Naked Golden Boy's admirers consider this list so much trash? And don't even get me started on this year's Sundance.) In any case, these are the movies people paid their hard-earned money to go see.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Contempt For Condi

The Ugly Truth Underlying Boxer's Comments

I can't let this go yet, it's one of those rare things in the news that continues to fester instead of healing naturally and I think I've finally figured out why it's still bothering me: No one is saying the truth of what really was going on between Senator Barbara Boxer and Condoleeza Rice. Put simply: Boxer not only doesn't respect Condoleeza Rice, she has contempt for her. That's really what was on display in that exchange. Rice is a black woman who is not a Democrat and that is a problem for Boxer and for liberal feminists. (Apparently it's also a problem for certain black male civil rights leaders. ...)

Show me the tape of Boxer speaking the same way at a Senate hearing to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright when the Clinton administration had air strikes over Kosovo and Iraq. Never happened.

Show me the tape of Boxer telling former Secretary of State Colin Powell that those who were making decisions about the Bush administration's war in Iraq had the least to lose, personally. Never happened.

Not only doesn't Boxer have the same respect for Condoleeza Rice that she had for Rice's Democratic equal, Madeline Albright, Boxer doesn't have the same respect for Rice as she did for Rice's immediate Republican male precedessor, Colin Powell. Oh let's just drop any pretence of political correctness here and now: Boxer and liberal feminists have outright contempt for Condoleeza Rice because she's a black woman who is a Republican and not a Democrat. That's what this is about.

It's not about equal rights for women anymore, it's not about a woman's autonomy to develop herself, her mind, her own political identity, to exercise her free will and have the ability to make her own life choices. Not at all. Feminism in the United States isn't about any of that anymore. All that matters now is that the woman in question be a Democrat if she's visible as a political activist. It's Democratic partisan politics first, feminist ideals second (if then).

The situation is so mucked up that liberal feminists apparently don't realize they immediately would have slapped Condi's face on the cover of Ms. magazine had Condi been the first Black Female CEO of a Fortune 500 company (not knowing and maybe not inquiring about her political views, but assuming they were exactly the same!). Oh how you would have championed her as the First Black Female Astronaut to Venus (as long as the same Republican politics she has now were secondary to her accomplishments). It's only when a woman's ascension is within specifically Republican ranks that she is held in contempt of feminism. What? You wouldn't champion her as a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination if she switched parties tomorrow? Puh-leeza.

These inconsistencies -- on top of the appalling mental gymnastics liberal feminist leaders engaged in during the 1990s to defend Bill and Hillary Clinton -- underscore the extent to which none of liberal feminism is about feminist ideals anymore. The reason that the liberal feminist movement's applications are inconsistent is precisely because it's no longer feminist first in its emphasis. That is, it is only when viewed from a Democratic perspective that one can find any consistency in liberal feminist positions, arguments, actions, and support for individuals.

It's a movement whose time is over, unless liberal feminists prefer being relegated to the status of one of many subsets within only one polical party. (And don't think for one moment that you are anything more than a subset of the Democratic party. Feminist might be synonymous with Democrat these days, my friend, but not vice versa. That is, "Democrat" in not a synonym for "feminist." Or didn't you notice?) And until liberal feminists come to grips with the truth of their politics, they will continue to engage in inexcusable displays of contempt for strong independent women whose only offense is in choosing to support an opposing political party.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The moms v. the nonmoms, again and some more

There’s this stark, sharp division that I see online, and sometimes IRL, between what I’m going to term “moms” and “nonmoms.” With few exceptions, moms seem to think that nonmoms don’t know jack-shit. They don’t know anything about kids, they don’t know anything about prioritizing time, they don’t know anything about how oppressive the patriarchy is and how women are supposed to be a disposable commodity, valued only for their reproductive and nurturing capabilities.

With few exceptions, the nonmoms seems to think that the moms don’t care about anything other than babies and bodily functions. They don’t understand how important activism is, they don’t see how nonparents get the shaft on flex-time in jobs where “singles” are assumed not to have responsibilities and commitments in the same way parents are, they don’t know anything about how oppressive the patriarchy is and how women are supposed to be a disposable commodity, valued only for their reproductive and nurturing capabilities.

I want very badly to be a mom, but until I get there, I’m a nonmom. And I hear it from both sides that the other group just doesn’t get it, doesn’t care, doesn’t value and appreciate the work being done.

How do we talk about this? Where? To what end? Who’s benefiting from the divide? Who’s furthering it and why?

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Ain't Condi a Woman?

Well, women, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter.

These feminists over to the left say women who haven't had babies have no business participating in public policymaking decisions. None of them ever helped lift Condi into her position as national security adviser for the United States, or took interest in her becoming the first black female secretary of state, or praised her as a role model for feminists in any Democratic place. And ain't she a woman? Look at her! Look at her! She helped protect the security of our nation after terrorists attacked our mainland on September 11; we haven't had a terrorist attack here since then. She represents the United States internationally and no male world leader doubts her legitimacy to be among them! And ain't she a woman? She works as much as any man -- or woman -- and is as independent as any of them, yet bears the lash of hypocritical partisan feminists who don't recognize her as the type of woman they would champion if only she weren't a Republican.

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it?

< whisper from the liberal feminist audience: "intellect" >

That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or black rights or Condoleeza Rice? What's intellect got to do with public policymaking of any kind?

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now Laylalola ain't got nothing more to say.