Posted on 02/06/2014 10:43:18 PM PST by Mike Darancette
Feminism is not an idea or a collection of ideas but a collection of appetites wriggling queasily together like a bag of snakes. Feminism has nothing to do with the proposition that women should be considered whole and complete members of the body politic, though it has enjoyed great success marketing itself that way. (Virginia I. Postrel recently denounced me as a “creep” for suggesting that the substance of feminism, if indeed there is any, differs rather radically from its advertising campaigns.) A useful definition is this: “Feminism is the words ‘I Want!’ in the mouths of three or more women, provided they’re the right kind of women.” Feminism must therefore accommodate wildly incompatible propositions — e.g., (1) Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but (2) really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups. Or: (1) Women at Columbia are empowered by pornography but (2) women at Wellesley are victimized by a statue of a man sleepwalking in his Shenanigans. And then there is Fluke’s Law: (1) Women are responsible moral agents with full sexual and economic autonomy who (2) must be given an allowance, like children, when it comes to contraceptives.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.nationalreview.com ...
“Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups”
Ha ha! Love it!
How come they never want rednecks. No fair.
I think there are sprays and powders for that.
Pesticides?
(Virginia I. Postrel recently denounced me as a “creep” for suggesting that the substance of feminism, if indeed there is any, differs rather radically from its advertising campaigns.)
Um, what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks happened to that woman?
lol
I thought it WAS a range of sprays and powders...
I just hope I’m out of range.
Good one.
Somehow, though, “feminism” controls the entire world, if one can believe what one reads here. How does that work?
Basically, because Leftist men who have lots of mistresses throw lots of money around to destroy the institutions upheld by normal men and women, in the name of (snicker) the rights of women.
That’s a reasonable point. However, Rush Limbaugh insists that feminists are ugly. That doesn’t square with rich men (of any political persuasion) choosing them as mistresses.
The biggest beneficiaries of feminism has been predatory males, like Bill Clinton.
The Feminist Mystaque
Don't forget liberal hypocrisy—I know it's hard for a conservative to get their minds around such disrespect for the truth. No rich man gets himself an ugly mistress. But I didn't say that rich (feminist-supporting) men's mistresses are themselves feminists. Rich liberal men have no trouble being hypocrites. And it follows for liberal women. How could a true feminist be the mistress—the bought-and-paid-for plaything—of some man simply because he has the worldly power to buy her stuff and tell her what to do?
So, throw out logical consistency or philosophical integrity and there's no problem.
And Rush is of course engaging in hyperbole. Not all feminists are ugly. But conservative women do tend to be a lot better-looking.
Except for me being completely confused!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.