Jun29
Did Global Warming Kill Feminism?
on June 29, 2010 at 9:17 amPosted In: Media Criticism, Political Commentary
Feminism (at last the gender feminism that arose in the seventies) died during the Clinton administration, when Gloria Steinem gave Bill “one free grope,” and the feminists attacked women who were being sexually harassed by the most powerful man in the world, and defended the people who were trashing their reputations, tarring them as “nuts and sluts.” Not to mention when Nina Burleigh offered to given him a blow job, as thanks for maintaining her right to kill her children in the womb.
As I pointed out over there…feminists are nothing more than the ladies auxiliary of the DNC…
when Gloria Steinem gave Bill “one free grope,”
Of someone else I imagine?
Yes, of Kathleen Willey.
Gloria was past her sell-by date when it came to gropability.
I looked that up, just to make sure. She used to be hot though, back when Bill was busy not inhaling.
“Yes, of Kathleen Willey.”
The same day Ms. Willey’s husband was out in the woods committing suicide.
It’s odd how people associated with the Clintons like to go out into the woods and shoot themselves.
It’s odd how people associated with the Clintons like to go out into the woods and shoot themselves.
As opposed to going out hunting with them and shooting them in the face.
Nina Burleigh wrote up her account of her “offer” to give the President a blowjob here: http://www.observer.com/node/40739
I think her account aptly describes the double-standard women have to put up with, a double-standard that is quite in evidence in the comments here.
Oh, and Rand, I meant to add that Nina Burleigh’s account is about something you are interested in — journalistic objectivity, particularly among the Washington-based press. If you read the piece, you’ll see that she explicitly agrees with you.
Fer crying out loud, Rand.
Feminism may have been dormant after Clinton but it’s back with a vengence.
Or maybe you missed the congressional “women in science” hearings, where the congress critters, some of them Republicans, were not only dribblingly servile but slavish in their eagerness to appease the bitter women’s lobby. The result, as has been documented recently, is that while males are not being hired for science and technical jobs right now because it’s high priority to balance the sexes, no matter what the cost.
That doesn’t sound like a dead movement to me, boyo.
“As opposed to going out hunting with them and shooting them in the face. ”
I’ve been on the receiving end of a peppering from a very experienced and competent bird hunter. It happens…without malice or incompetence.
It happens…without malice or incompetence.
Though those certainly help.
Yeah, because this blog would never lay into, for example, the VP for using R-rated language…oh wait…
Rand, tell me you’re anti-abortion so I can put the final nail in the coffin of reading anything non-space on this site again.
Don’t forget Donna Brazile’s statement about her willingness to put on her “Presidential Knee Pads” to thank Bill. Now she’s a “respected” journalist/pundit on CNN.
Bob-1, if there is any double-standard, the feminists are the one’s who have created it. Beyond Clinton’s personal actions in office, at the very same time Bill was playing around in the oval office, he was kow-towing to the demands of feminists in dragging out of retirement an Army General just so he could be court martialed for having an affair with a subordinate. Yet these very same feminists were completely opposed to the idea of Bill being impeached for the very same thing.
Rand, tell me you’re anti-abortion so I can put the final nail in the coffin of reading anything non-space on this site again.
I’m not sure why I should accede to your demand to say such a simplistic thing.
FWIW, abortion isn’t much of a hot-button issue with me. I think that it’s killing an unborn child, that it should be done as rarely as possible, and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved either way. What I’m really anti is hypocritical “feminists.”
Mike Lorrey,
1) I think you are mistaken about Brazile. You’re confusing her with Burleigh most likely — see the link I provided above.
2) So what? If a male journalist says about Palin “I’d do her”, does anyone care?
3) I don’t recall the specifics about the Army general, but I don’t think it could be exactly the same thing: the military is different from civilian life, even civilian life in the White House.
4) There is a tendency on this blog to discuss women (and only women) in politics in terms of their looks in a disrespectful way.
There is a tendency on this blog to discuss women (and only women) in politics in terms of their looks in a disrespectful way.
Not at all. Bob Barr has a face fit for radio. Kennedy was frequently ridiculed for being fat and looking like an alcoholist. Washington is like Hollywood for ugly people.
There is a tendency on this blog to discuss women (and only women) in politics in terms of their looks in a disrespectful way.
There is? Can you point out an example? I might point out that I had a long thread recently on Helen Thomas where her looks (other than her being ugly on the inside) weren’t discussed at all. I might also point out that I make fun of Jim Traficant’s racoon on his head.
I might also point out that I make fun of Jim Traficant’s racoon on his head.
Now that we’re hopelessly off-topic anyway, didn’t you once meet him on the underground? Was he wearing it when you met him?
Well, in person, it seemed more the coloration of a possum.
“Gloria was past her sell-by date when it came to gropability.” — Rand Simberg, above.
People don’t have sell-by dates. You’ve discussed Thomas’s looks before. Also Kagen’s.
I’d be surprised if you aren’t a nice person who has respectful relationships with women, but this blog makes the feminist in me wince from time to time.
this blog makes the feminist in me wince from time to time
Weren’t you chiding Rand for using topologically implausible analogies the other day?
People don’t have sell-by dates
Gropewise they typically do.
People don’t have sell-by dates.
They do for Bill Clinton. Do you think he’d have hit on Gloria Steinem? Not in the seventies, but in the late nineties?
Me, neither. But thanks for allowing the point to whoosh right over your head.
I wouldn’t deny that I have occasionally made comments about the looks of women in politics. I would deny that I have a “tendency” to do it only about women. And you’re no more (and no less) of a “feminist” than I am. But I’m a real feminist, who believes in real womens’ rights, not a seventies gender feminist.
Anyway, I’ve always said that I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.
I have also mocked Trent Lott’s helmet-head hair. Not to mention his afro.
You may have a lot of things to complain about here, but I think this is pretty weak tea, Bob.
Well, I never persuade you of anything, but I can’t resist an opportunity to learn, so I’ve got to ask: what is a “gender feminist”?
Go read some Christina Hoff Summers.
hypocritical “feminists.”
Is there any other kind?
Thanks Rand. Googling Summers led to me to the following link, which I suppose covers it:
“Equity and gender feminism”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_feminism
Using Summers’ terms, I’m an equity feminist. You probably are too, in terms of your philosophy, even if you make a sexist joke here and there.
Getting back to your original post, I think it seems odd to talk about killing feminism, given that “equity feminism” is the default belief for such a large number of men and women (probably the majority of Americans, but I’m not sure, and I’m even less sure about other countries, except that Scandinavia seems like a good candidate for a place with a majority of believers and Sudan does not.)
I just noticed your caveat in parens at the top. Well, by trying to argue with you I learned that I didn’t understand what you were saying, and now maybe I do.
Well, let it not be said that Bob-1 is unwilling to stand corrected. Good on you Bob.
Which is the bigger business, preaching about global warming as a result of human excesses or the current manufacturing conglomerates of the world collectively producing products for human consumption? Then, who has the bigger reason to lie?
Ah, yes. The gleaming moral superiority of the Self-Righteous Left.
And as Clinton did to Feminism, Obama will do to Racialism.
Which is the bigger business, preaching about global warming as a result of human excesses or the current manufacturing conglomerates of the world collectively producing products for human consumption? Then, who has the bigger reason to lie?
The former is potentially bigger, assuming the preaching leads to concrete power and the people who end up in charge will control that “current manufacturing conglomerate”. Second, the “preachers” have more incentive to lie simply because their power is in propaganda and they have less to lose (at least till they get in power). The “manufacturing conglomerates” make stuff that people want. They sell stuff and have a market presence that would be harmed by getting caught lying.
Karl, I’d say it’s even worse than that: power is about concentration and checks. A competitive industrial economy spread power across every individual company in the industry – the actions of a single company cannot lastingly adversely effect the market (almost the definition of a competitive market). In addition, as you say evil companies still need customers, and evil companies get fewer customers than good ones, on the balance.
Government acts, such as the global warming laws suggested, concentrate power to a very small group indeed. The leader of that group decides who gets the endulgences, and is accoutable to no one.