Skip to comments.The Future is Female. And Republican (Mild Barf Alert)
Posted on 07/26/2010 6:36:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The mama grizzlies, they rear up, and if you thought pitbulls were tough, well, you dont want to mess with the mama grizzlies Sarah Palin
I live and work in Hollywood, the capital of celebrity flameouts Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr, etc. My local Beverly Hills and Malibu courthouse and police stations are stakeouts for paparazzi, snapping well-known actors looking washed-out and hungover as they do the perp walk. As the world knows, the latest crash-dive has been performed by Mel Gibson, whose widely reported (though so far unauthenticated) tirade against his Russian girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva has gone madly viral and even penetrated the inner sanctum of his agency, which fired him on the Bad Samaritan principle of kick a man when hes down and on the grounds that Gibson on tape supposedly screamed the n word, which might have offended the agents valuable African-American clients such as Denzel Washington and Spike Lee.
This being Hollywood, where sexism is the default mode, the agents led by Ari Emanuel, brother of Barack Obamas Iago, Rahm did not bother to cite, or perhaps even think about, Gibsons alleged physical assault against his girlfriend.
Its economics. Male superstars make a heck of a lot more money than female actors. This, plus the historical fact that in the misogynist hearts of many studio executives, women just dont count in life or at the box office (with the possible exception of Angelina Jolie). The time-worn mantra Ive heard so many times is, Women dont open, meaning a female-oriented movie is a money loser in the first two crucial weeks.
But outside the movieland bubble, an upsurging counter-revolution in gender politics means that more and more women, and rightwingers at that, have become a fact of American political life. This is especially true of anti-feminist but gender-proud Republican women who, led by mama grizzly Sarah Palin, are coming on like gangbusters.
This year, there are 239 female candidates running for Congress, rivalling 1992's Year of the Woman. They are spitting mad, motivated by dark psychic energy, typically ultra-reactionary but increasingly effective on the campaign trail. All of last months big primary races were won by women Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman (California), Nikki Haley (South Carolina), the Neanderthal cave woman Sharron Angle (Nevada) and a lone Democrat, Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), who beat off a challenge from a liberal Democrat man.
Traditionally, women Republicans have played an important but backseat role in party politics. We havent yet produced an American Margaret Thatcher but it may happen sooner than you think.
Despite or because of her Snopes-like family dramas (Yes! You heard it here: Bristol and Levi are re-engaged and may get married on a TV reality show!), Sarah Palin has become a serious player, notwithstanding the late-night Letterman/Leno/Colbert/Jon Stewart jokes. Radiating sexy self-confidence, she is behaving imperiously as what she has grown into: a queen- and king-maker in almost every state that has an impending primary or general election. Most recently, that was in South Carolina where her soundbites helped a scandal-plagued, long-shot candidate, Nikki Haley, to the winners circle. Candidates, even mainstream Republicans, vie and die for her Facebook endorsement.
But even if Palin didnt exist, a new breed of essentially anti-feminist feminists is running for office and gunning to occupy the White House. And to be blunt many of them, like Palin herself and Minnesotas congresswoman, wild and wacky Michele Bachmann (who blames swine flu on Obama), are enviably telegenic. Bella Abzug is your mothers feminist; this is a new species entirely groomed, in every sense, for success.
Here in California, two extremely rich conservative corporate women, Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO, and Meg Whitman, of eBay fame, are running against old-style liberals, senator Barbara Boxer and former governor and current attorney general Jerry Moonbeam Brown. Whitman, fourth richest woman in California, has already spent a stunning $91m of her personal fortune to win the Republican primary. She is flooding the state with smart TV ads, as is Fiorina, whose Jobs First! campaign downplays her corporate record of firing workers and outsourcing jobs to China and India. Jerry Brown, meanwhile, is running a lazy laidback campaign, counting on previous name recognition hes also the son of a former popular governor. Boxer has the power (and money) of incumbency, but she is battling for a fourth six-year term at a time when anti-incumbency is the national mood.
This upsurge in Republican feminism of a brutal sort exalts mommyhood but ignores issues that most directly affect women. Were lightyears away from yesteryears GOP womens clubs, the Goldwater and Reagan conservative ladies, who, on occasion, championed the Equal Rights Amendment but then allowed the movement to slip into the hands of theocrats and pistol-packin mamas. The new breed of grizzly is here to stay. And, as I learned from my years in the United Kingdom, watching in horrified admiration as Margaret Thatcher wiped the floor with her male opposition, theres nothing so powerful as a really angry woman.
I believe Maggie followed the biblical admonition to “be angry, and [yet] do not sin.” You never saw Maggie in a rage, but she was quite purposeful in doing away with a lot of evil things.
Speaking of Mrs. Thatcher, have you seen this
If momma's not happy...ain't nobody happy.
The Future is Female. And hyper-inflated by Big Brother and Big Momma.
“Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal often viewed as the genesis of big government really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.”