Full Frontal Stalinism: Deciding Who Counts as a Feminist

I haven’t seen it in years, but it was on every second car when I lived in Northampton, Massachusetts, back in the mid-1990s. The slogans one found on the backs of Volvos and pasted on community message boards throughout the Pioneer Valley, those chalked on the pavement at Smith College, were always reductionist—I’ve visualized world peace, now what?—but none bothered me more than the ubiquitous sticker proclaiming that “feminism is the radical notion the women are people.” It came to mind today when reading Kathleen Parker’s column in today’s Washington Post, in which she weighs the pointless question of whether women like Sarah Palin—pro-life and right-wing—can be considered feminists.

Jessica Valenti, founder of the website Feministing, is baffled, having recently “seen articles desperate to paint anti-choice policies as somehow pro-woman.” To suggest that those on the right, those with a more skeptical view of government’s ability to level playing fields or those not entirely convinced that sexism is the greatest problem facing civilization, are people “who makes their career trying to roll back women’s rights" and to suggest otherwise is "fucking insulting."

In the consistently terrible San Francisco Chronicle, an overwriting yoga studio-owner named Mark Morford first denounces the "woman-hating Republican homophobes in titanic SUVs" (haha!) and then dictates not only who counts as a feminist but as a woman. A sample, if you can claw through the grating prose style:

Witness, won't you, the zeitgeist's nightmare trifecta of largely insufferable women, the Sarah Palin/Carly Fiorina/Michele Bachmann hydra-headed hellbeast of pseudo-women (emphasis adeed), one part huge cash reserves, one part evil grammar-abusing ditzball psychopath, one part sassy misinformed moxie, overlaid with wonky ideas of motherhood, love of guns and ignorance of sex and reproductive rights.

According to Morford, gender scholar and Raoul Wallenberg of America’s suffering women, "third-wave feminism's cornerstone values—abortion rights, humanitarianism, anti-racism, don't kill stuff—are being violently, stupidly co-opted, inverted, perverted, repackaged, skinned like a moose and shot from a helicopter like a wolf skittering across the Alaskan tundra.” Strip it of its lame humor and we are left with gender studies Stalinism; feminism is the radical idea that women are people—with political views identical to my own. If you like to "kill stuff"—and I assume, with the Palin hunting reference, that also means animals—one cannot claim the feminist mantle. Do real feminists offer indulgences for those in remote parts of the world, where access to Whole Foods and Trader Joe's is limited and killing stuff is normal? What about impoverished and oppressed women in, say, Afghanistan who haven't the time for weekly meetings on anti-racism and criticism/self-criticism sessions on how to be a Bay Area humanitarian?

To Morford, saying you are “‘pro-life and pro-feminist’… is a bit like saying you're ‘pro-oil spill and pro-environment’”—a line he thought so clever that it deserved tweeting.

With all of this Republican "pseudo-women" winning primaries, CBS anchor Kate Couric (a real woman, incidentally) wheeled out the feminist fossil Gloria Steinem, asking her to set the record straight on just who can join the club of Politically Acceptable Women. According the Ms. Magazine founder, "you can't be a feminist who says other women can't" have an abortion, though she rather generously "defend[s] their right to be wrong.” The unbending ideology of people like Gloria Steinem secures them a place in the history books, but not, thank god, a prominent position in the current debate.

So back to the bumper sticker. Like Parker, I have very libertarian views on abortion (though my opinion on the issue is irrelevant) but take a rather dim view of those attempting to enforce ideological orthodoxy. And from my very first gender studies class, my very first encounter with the unreadable Bell Hooks, I knew that the feminism of Mary Daly, Catharine Mackinnon, Valenti and Steinem—which should be differentiated from the feminism of, say, Wendy McElroy—was most certainly not the radical idea that women are people (that’s classical liberalism), but the radical idea that women should all adhere to political radicalism. They know what is best for women and any ideological difference is, as the radical left used to say, deviationism. So if that is an accurate reflection of what the feminist politburo considers the politics of feminism, then count me out.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • skr||

    Witness, won't you, the zeitgeist's nightmare trifecta of largely insufferable women, the Sarah Palin/Carly Fiorina/Michele Bachmann hydra-headed hellbeast of pseudo-women (emphasis adeed), one part huge cash reserves, one part evil grammar-abusing ditzball psychopath, one part sassy misinformed moxie, overlaid with wonky ideas of motherhood, love of guns and ignorance of sex and reproductive rights.

    I'm guessing periods are oppressive.

  • Maya Angelou||

    Damn. Wish I'd penned that.

  • ||

    You did, Maya. You did.

  • ||

    that was your fetal mistake

  • ||

    And editors.

  • Suki||

    A colon or two would do.

    Feministing without a SugarFree ref and a broken link? If VP were still here, or if The Jacket were awake . . .

  • gs||

    And no link to the Morford piece (which can be reached, twenty-one lines after the original mention, via the next paragraph's link to his tweet).

    I miss VP too.

  • Jeff P||

    Potentially menstrual humor while commenting about feminists. Very brave my friend.

  • Inkblots||

    Ha, ha. Women!

  • ||

    Nahh! He's just a shitty writer.

    Tortured prose, jerking off over the thesaurus, and abysmal punctuation are what passes for erudition and keen insight as to the countries social condition in SF.

    Mark Morford is the reason that newspapers have to die.

    Useless fuck!

  • Dello||

    I admit that I'm a lousy writer. The difference is that I'm EMBARRASSED by it.

  • Suki||

    Denelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    Did I do that right?

  • ||

    Morford is the tool who wrote about Obama being a "light bringer."

    Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

  • ||

    Stubby,

    You shouldn't dare people to read it. You should tell people that the OWE IT TO THEMSELVES TO READ IT!

    This dickhead always rates in the top five most read on SFGate.com. They really should strip Californians of the franchise. Read the article and learn why!

  • ||

    Wait, aren't all the bible-thumpers calling him Lucifer, too?

    -jcr

  • ||

    an overwriting yoga studio-owner named Mark Morford first denounces the "woman-hating Republican homophobes in titanic SUVs" (haha!) and then dictates not only who counts as a feminist but as a woman.

    This doesn't surprise me. Flaming fags in the media mystifyingly persist in defining womanhood for us. Look at who designs our clothes. There are at least three mincing and snotting around any given "makeover" segment on TV for just that reason. Morford's no exception. It doesn't take a degree in psychology to figure out that it's really latent hatred and jealousy.

    A woman who's not 10 lbs underweight, and who doesn't wear stilettos and cocktail frocks everywhere she goes isn't a woman either. Morford would know best because he wants to be one.

  • ||

    +1000

  • cynical||

    Wait, is that why so many female models look suspiciously like adolescent males?

  • ||

    As noted by Camille Paglia, among others.

  • ||

    Looks like it's all too easy to bring out the homo-hatred in the more full-figured women. I'm sure you consider yourself pro-gay...of course that is until some gay media dude calls some woman fat.

  • Suki||

    -1

  • objector||

    Nah, he's not a fag. I wish he were. If he were gay, it would bother me far less that he's insanely handsome, yet loathsome.

  • jusgottabeme||

    "insanely handsome"? I guess 'eye of the beholder'.

  • ||

    It doesn't take a degree in psychology to figure out that it's really latent hatred and jealousy.

    In fact, knowledge of actual psychology probably prevents one from figuring this out. What is needed is a mind free from self-doubt and skepticism, so that it can be better planted with pop psych and Hollywood mumbo jumbo.

  • objector||

    Well said.

  • Banjos Kick Ass!||

    Or maybe, just maybe fashion models are skinny because that is what sells clothes, just like lingerie models are busty because that is what sells bras. This is not a conspiracy from the Gay Mafia, just good old fashioned marketing.

  • ||

    You and Episiarch missed my point. I have nothing against skinny models, it's their job to be skinny. What I do have something against is men (and especially elitist, far-left cocksmokers like Morford) promoting themselves as the arbiters of what womanhood should be.

  • strat||

    Did anyone else feel like this should be a "match the person to the screed" game?

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    "I don't trust anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die"

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Funny world we live in, where a mother of five is assumed to live "in ignorance of sex." Let me tell you something, it's hard to have five kids if you don't know a thing or two about what to do in the sack.

  • SIV||

    I have very libertarian views on abortion

    That the murder of innocents violates the non-aggression principle?

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Well said!

  • Suki||

  • jj||

    "I have very libertarian views on abortion"

    Touche. An article denouncing the exclusivism of feminism succeeds in excluding pro-lifers from being "real" libertarians.

    Pro-life and, dare I claim?, libertarian.

  • lunchstealer||

    This is precisely why I reject Moynihan's premise. Ideological concepts can mean the rejection of certain contradictory precepts. One cannot be libertarian and pro-USA-PATRIOT (no matter how many signatures Donderrooooo collected). And I'm very very suspicious of pro-life libertarians.

    Others would certainly argue that one cannot be libertarian and support environmental regulation.

    Either way, Sara Palin is no true Scotsman!

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    And others would argue that one cannot be libertarian and be uncomfortable with any part of *For a New Liberty.* Ideological purity, ho!

  • SIV||

    Moynihan didn't say what his views were...
    Pro-life or Pro-baby-killing, surely we all agree the only "libertarian view" on abortion is along the lines of what I stated above. Unless you are one of those wacky progressive science-denying types who doesn't believe an unborn child is a human being.

  • lunchstealer||

    We don't, because science doesn't use the term 'human being' the same way the non-aggression principle does. It probably doesn't really use the term 'human being' so much as 'human organism'. There's no doubt that a recently fertilized egg is an organism of the species 'homo sapiens'. That's a very different thing than saying it's a full-blown human being, because 'human being' is not a term that science can answer. Science can tell you what is a differentiated organism, but 'human being' is a moral definition. We can ask science to determine if, say, an African is of the same species as a European. Then we state that all members of the human species are 'people' as soon as they're born. On this we all agree. More or less.

    The issue of 'brain death' and a 'persistent vegetative state' are equally tricky. Surely anyone would agree that a person who was unconscious after an injury who had massive lung damage and required a respirator to breathe, but was expected to fully recover is a person. To unplug that person's respirator would be murder. But what of a person who had suffered severe brain damage? That is an organism that is of the human species. It is alive by the scientific definition just as a 6-week-old fetus is. However, we would think nothing of pulling the plug on a Terri Schaivo, despite the fact that she was technically alive.

    So we make judgements about the definition of 'human being' that are not strictly based on narrow scientific definitions of 'living specimen of Homo sapiens'.

    So while I would argue that it is possible, if one is careful, to be a pro-life libertarian, but to extend that to approve initiating aggression against a doctor who performs a surgical procedure on a woman with her consent, or worse, against the woman for giving that consent, is stepping to the fringes of libertarianism.

  • SIV||

    However, we would think nothing of pulling the plug on a Terri Schaivo, despite the fact that she was technically alive.

    No, no moral controversy there at all.

  • lunchstealer||

    Unless you are one of those wacky progressive-life science-denying types who doesn't believe an unborn child brain scan showing that the ENTIRE CEREBRAL CORTEX had not just atrophied but completely disintegrated leaving nothing but white matter in her brain cavity is a human being functional brain.

    No, there shouldn't have been any controversy.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Read Rothbard. "True" libertarians think nothing of deciding not to feed your children, as long as you let them run away. Of course, if they're not old enough to walk yet, too bad for them!

  • ||

    So while I would argue that it is possible, if one is careful, to be a pro-life libertarian, but to extend that to approve initiating aggression against a doctor who performs a surgical procedure on a woman with her consent, or worse, against the woman for giving that consent, is stepping to the fringes of libertarianism.

    How can one be pro-life but not "extend that" in the way you describe? Pro life people consider the surgical procedure you describe to be an initiation of force against a third party who is not able to consent.

    Unless you believe that the birth process transforms a non-person into a person, you have to be dissatisfied with the current state of abortion/parenting law one way or the other, as the rights of persons are being blatantly violated. If a newborn is not a person, then the parents should be allowed to kill it. Forcing them to provide food and shelter for a lump of cells is violating their human rights.

  • lunchstealer||

    I consider it a way to settle the argument. Women who can walk and talk and may have to have the procedure to save her life has absolute rights. To get the government involved in her medical decisions is not the least intrusive method of dealing with the situation. I'd rather a woman be able to murder her unborn children and get away with it than have some grandstanding fucking prosecutor come in and second-guess her medical decisions or her doctor's opinions.

    Sometimes individuals do bad things. I don't feel comfortable getting the government involved.

    Like I say, it's not impossible, but you've got to be careful not to wander over into statism.

  • ||

    "I'd rather a woman be able to murder her unborn children and get away with it than have some grandstanding fucking prosecutor come in and second-guess her medical decisions or her doctor's opinions."

    Your opinion reminds me of a friend of mine who is against child abuse but doesn't think that the laws should actually be enforced because they necessarily involve intruding on the family's privacy and family decisions.

    (My friend has some sort of psychological hangup with authority that prevents him from using common sense.)

    So you'd also be OK with a mother killing her 3-year old if we termed it a "medical decision" and said nasty things about prosecutors?

    What's that? You say it's different?

    Why? We still called it medicine and the prosecutor is still a grandstanding em-effer.

  • lunchstealer||

    If the mother has a surgical procedure performed on herself by a doctor, and that results in the death of a three year old, that would present an interesting ethical quandary.

    But abortion is qualitatively different from child abuse or medical neglect, or even thinly veiled murder, because none of those deal with the woman's medical choices about herself.

    The one that's most problematic would be a pair of conjoined twins, for whom one could live independently, but the other cannot, and the former deciding to have detachment surgery from the latter. I don't have an answer there.

  • ||

    Of course this "threat to the life of the mother" factor occurs in a miniscule number of abortions, unless you subscribe to the liberal view that her emotional issues count. With that argument and post partum whackjob could skewer the crib occupant.

  • Zeb||

    Well said, lunchstealer.

  • ||

    There's no doubt that a recently fertilized egg is an organism of the species 'homo sapiens'. That's a very different thing than saying it's a full-blown human being, because 'human being' is not a term that science can answer.

    The question of whether or when a fetus obtains its rights is a red herring in the abortion debate. If another fully-grown human being depends on a continuous blood transfusion to stay alive, that doesn't create a duty on anyone else to provide it.

    An abortion is regrettable, but I'm not going to sanction the state overruling a woman's decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

    -jcr

  • ||

    If the little web fingered swimmers aren't human, why the fuck are we doing heart, eye and brain surgery on them in the womb?

  • lunchstealer||

    That's easy. If the adult human who is carrying the fetus wants that fetus to survive and become their child, and be healthy when they are born, then they can contract with a medical professional to have that surgery performed.

    But that surgery is only performed with the consent of the mother. So again, the decision lies with the mother. Would you sanction doctors forcing women to undergo surgery to save a fetus? Does that really fit with the libertarian ethos?

  • ||

    To me the main libertarian aspect of this is that since abortion isn't in the Constitution, Roe was a travesty. At that time about a third of the population lived in states that already had legal abortion, and I resent the feds usurping the power to decide the issue in either direction. While I'd describe myself as queasily pro-choice, I think I see both sides and think it's enough of an edge case that it should be left up to the states. That way the majority of voters in every state get what they want, and Planned Parenthood can still get their way, though at the added cost of some bus or airline tickets.

  • Suki||

    If it is not in the Constitution, the government does not have the legal power to kill human DNA, which is reserved to the states and the people.

  • lunchstealer||

    I like the idea of leaving it not to the states, but to the people. Let the majority of the people carrying any given baby vote. That way pro-choice people even in liberal states get what they want, and nobody has to buy bus tickets.

  • lunchstealer||

    Sorry, pro-life people in liberal states get what they want. They aren't forced to make a choice if they don't want to.

  • ||

    Um, no. They don't get what they want.

    Abolitionists didn't get what they wanted by simply not owning slaves, did they?

    You suggest that only people carrying babies get to vote. I note that only people who have already been born do vote. In a Rawlsian view, people should have to vote on the legality of abortion before they know whether they will be aborted. That would change the law -- and your view, I suspect -- as well.

  • lunchstealer||

    I don't think I'd vote for myself to be aborted now, considering that I'm in my late 30s and pose almost zero burden on my mother. But if she were to somehow have the option to make a medical decision about herself that could somehow unavoidably end my life, she'd be her own moral agent on that one.

    Certainly, I don't think I could force her to donate bone marrow to save my life, nor would I want a prosecutor going after her or her doctor for any reason.

    But I am comfortable in the hypothetical with my mother having chosen to terminate her pregnancy while she was carrying me. That I would never have existed doesn't bother me.

    I don't think that I or anyone else has a say in her own medical decisions.

  • ||

    Depends. You might have had something to say, however unintelligible. When one considers the obvious infanticide, late term abortion, I'm told the little nippers actually cry out when the scissors pierce the back of their head. Go figure human tissue.

  • NeonCat||

    That the enslavement of women to their wombs is wrong?

  • shrike||

    Hold on, Moynihan. How did you make the leap from "women are people" to Palin-bots who are "feminists"? (I saw your out of "can be" -very tidy!)

    Call me crazy, but aborto-freaks like Palin are not doing libertarian women any favors.

    Remember- the last remaining remnants of libertarianism are fighting the same culture wars Fox News blowhard Andrew Nappolitanno is waging against us secular motherfuckers.

  • PIRS||

    "the same culture wars Fox News blowhard Andrew Nappolitanno"

    So I take it you have never actually watched his show?

  • shrike||

    I have. Search the archives here at Reason.com.

    Napolitano wants to imprison for life doctors and women who abort disfigured and dying embryos.

    He is a sick motherfucker who does not value freedom.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Shriek is hereby certified irony-proof.

  • PIRS||

    As poobah asks below
    "And if one considers fetuses to be humans, how is it not libertarian to consider their demise murder?"

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Because Rothbard defines what libertarianism is. It's an orthodoxy, not a philosophy. That's why the true-believing libertarians get zero political traction and fly into a rage that the heterodox get all the attention.

  • shrike||

    Reason: You said abortion is murder. Should it be regulated by the state or should it be prohibited by the state?

    Napolitano: Absolutely it should be prohibited, just the way all unjust killings are prohibited.

    Reason: Should doctors go to prison as murderers?

    Napolitano: Yes.

    Reason: First-degree murder?

    Napolitano: Yes

  • poobah||

    And if one considers fetuses to be humans, how is it not libertarian to consider their demise murder?

  • shrike||

    Fetuses are not considered human.

    They are fetuses.

  • Niggers and Juden||

    Now where have we heard this before...?

  • shrike||

    Cut the shit. You're a Palin-bot Aborto-Freak Fascist.

    Eat shit and die on your own and never tell another person what to do with their body.

  • PIRS||

    Shrike,

    Whether or not you agree with the point of view you should at least be able to empathize with it. Are you saying that you cannot at least empathize with someone who considers a fetus human? I am not a vegan but I can at least empathize with the point of view of people who say "meat is murder". Again, I do not agree but I can understand it. can't you?

  • shrike||

    Well said and sure I do.

    But liberty has a foundation of personal freedom.

    I am male and I would NEVER EVER let another dictate contraception decisions to me.

    And I am just a male! Women have a greatr burden.

    So no. I have no compassion for Aborto-Freaks. Women should choose.

  • PIRS||

    "So no. I have no compassion for Aborto-Freaks."

    OK,

    Thought experiment here. Let us replace the issue of abortion with animal cruelty. Let us suppose a certain farming practice were deemed cruel by animal rights groups. For example, sawing the beaks off of chickens. Let us suppose that PETA lobbies to have this practice banned.

    How would you react to a farmer who says "These are MY chickens and you have no right to tell me what to do with my chickens!" Suppose this person calls PETA a bunch of animal-rights-freaks and says he has no compassion for them. How do you respond?

  • shrike||

    Very effective argument, PIRS.

    What made you suspect that would stop me in this case?

    Seriously, you hit my one soft spot in a Kantian Universal Imperative.

    Good job. You're a top-notch thinker.

  • shrike||

    I'm out for now.

    PIRS, I will get back to you.

    You have my pinned for now.

  • PIRS||

    Thank you Shrike.

    I had seen you on these boards enough that I suspected you would be sympathetic to animals.

  • lunchstealer||

    Umm. If there's a chicken lodged in the farmer's abdomen and removing it would kill the chicken, I'd say that the farmer has the right to have the chicken removed.

  • cmanh2o||

    Bleh shrike I can't belief you gave up here. First of all, we have to consider the fact that humans and chickens are not the same; if they were (which PIRS' case requires), farming would probably not be an allowable practice at all.

    Also, all the science agrees that fetus brain development is not far enough to actually feel pain before (at the most conservative estimates) 20 weeks. So again, the fact that we are hurting the chickens cannot be linked to abortion in any way.

    Finally, lets compare vegetarian viewpoints to abortion ones. True, there are some extremist vegetarians who would try to force laws on others, but most people denounce them. The average non meat eater accepts that others have a different viewpoint than them and that both can coexist. Similarly, pro-life activists should accept that they won't get abortions, but that others should have the option.

    But good job at finding another person's ideological weakness and using it in an illogical way to win your case PIRS.

  • ||

    "I am male and I would NEVER EVER let another dictate contraception decisions to me."

    Ok fine your contraception decisions are your own.

    What about the right to life of a human conceived? Have these persons have no say?

    I feel bad for you as your anger represents a much deeper pain, manner I get the feeling you are man who has faced a number of your children aborted.

    I am a woman and I can understand how this issue must affect you; you are half of life's equation yet you are not equally recognized.

  • ||

    Doesn't the computer lab at the stgate institution where shrike lives shut down at 9 pm? How is he still on here?

  • Suki||

    He is outside a Starbucks now on his phone.

  • Jeffersonian||

    That's not related to whether the fetus is human or not.

  • shrike||

    But PIRS has me confounded on a bigger point. No matter.

  • SIV||

    There's no debate over whether a fetus unborn child is human.
    "The science is settled"

  • ||

    With all due respect, I think you've just basically ceded the argument to the "Palin-bot Aborto-Freak Fascist".

  • jj||

    Human fetuses are human. Chimpanzee fetuses are chimpanzee.

  • Suki||

    Shrike, you fucking genocidal moron, a human fetus has human DNA. Yes, I know, this is a surprise to you.

    That DNA is not that only of the mother, so removing "the clump of cells" is not the same as slicing her finger off, you moronic fucking bastard asshole.

    It is a HUMAN BABY you fucking idiot.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    My snot has human DNA. Are you saying boogers are murder?

  • lunchstealer||

    Not only that, but if you put your snot on a respirator, you can't pull the plug without the governor getting involved.

  • Zeb||

    Suki. You are just defining words in a way that suits you (and being ridiculously hyperbolic). The question of whether any particular clump of cells has the moral status of a human being is not one that can be answered by biology.

  • shrike||

    Or alternatively "Feti" as in plural.

    Or, since you have demonstrated great ignorance they are "fetid".

    Are you happy now, dipshit?

  • skr||

    actually if we are going by the latin root, the plural of fetus is fetae. ae in latin is prononced "i". whereas i is pronounced "e".

  • aenarch||

    ae in latin is prononced "i"

    If I were militantly a pro-choice libertarian, I'd submit that:

    Classical Latin [in which ae is pronounced as in high]
    :
    Ecclesiastical Latin [in which ae is pronounced as in they]
    ::
    Foetus
    :
    Homo sapiens sapiens,

    but I'm only legally, not culturally, pro-choice.

  • ||

    Are you really confident of that? I thought that nobody knows for sure what Classical Latin pronunciation was like, and that medieval scholarly Latin had widely variable regional accents.

  • ||

    It's what's generally considered to be. It's how I was taught to say it as well...and "oe" is pronounced OY.

  • ||

    "the last remaining remnants of libertarianism"

    Oh believe me, I'm only 24 and me and my friends aren't going anywhere.

  • shrike||

    I hope you have a better outcome than my shitty generation.

    Among the 2% of the US that claims to be "libertarian" we split about 50/50 along the same Aborto-Freak lines.

    So fuck you guys - we won't give in.

  • Jeffersonian||

    You won't have to, your own application of your principles will do that all on its own.

  • Suki||

    Too bad you survived Roe vs. Wade

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    The younger generation is just waiting for the grumpy old hippies to die out. Ayn Rand might have been a crank, but she was right about one thing--the "libertarians" of her day were little more than right-wing hippies.

  • cynical||

    Remember kids: Women are defined solely by their uterus. Their liberation begins and ends there.

  • Suki||

    You are crazy.

  • Rush Limbaugh||

    I love the women's movement, especially when walking behind it.

  • ||

    That's why you're supposed to hold the door and let her go first.

  • ||

    woman-hating Republican homophobes in titanic SUVs

    I need a new vehicle.

    If I make a homophobic, anti-feminist remark and join the Republican party, can I have a titanic SUV with my membership?

  • ||

    Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
    Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five. . . .

    Canyonero! Canyonero!

    Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
    It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

    Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
    [Krusty:] Hey Hey

    The Federal Highway Commission has ruled the
    Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

    Canyonero!

    12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
    65 tons of American Pride!

    Canyonero! Canyonero!

    Top of the line in utility sports,
    Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

    Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

    She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
    She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

    Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

    Drive Canyonero!

    Woah Canyonero!

    Woah!

  • lunchstealer||

    Don-der-OOOOOOOO! hee-yah!

  • AA||

    +100

  • ||

    this goes way back. denying the womanhood of those women who disagree with the gender feminists (to distinguish them from equity feminists) reminds me of those on the political left who denied the womanhood of margaret thatcher, albright, etc. one article i read referred to them as "without uterus". conservative/libertarian blacks have suffered the same slings and arrows, being called "not authentically black" and far worse.

  • Jeffersonian||

    No True Scotswoman!

  • ||

    i have a friend (a woman) who does highland games - kilt, heavy stuff thrown for distance etc.

    but i agree. until she stops wearing panties under her kilt, she is no true scotswoman!

  • Jeff P||

    As long as the sporran matches the sash...

  • Skirting the issue...||

    ...and vice-versa: No true scot-free-woman!

  • Tman||

    I thought that feminism was about "empowering" women to become equals with men in terms of job opportunities, paychecks, voting rights, etc. This I can get behind and believe in in terms of libertarianism because I believe every person should have the same rights under the constitution.

    It's been interesting to watch feminists go from the bra-burning war protesting unshorn wildebeasts of the 70's in to the man-hating abortion worshipping anti-anything-not-uber-liberal shrill harpies over at femifisting.

    And they wonder why there's been a backlash against feminists.

  • ||

    i remember back when the duke case accusations first came out, i was posting at feministing and pointing out all the indications that the accused were most likely innocent, like for example their VOLUNTEERING to provide DNA samples and their attorney stating outright that the DNA samples would help exonerate them (here's a hint. defense attorney dont make such predictions and don't volunteer their clients for searches unless they are 100% convinced their client is INNOCENT).

    the cognitive dissonance there was so thick you could cut it with a ladle.

    there was no way that white-privileged-heterosexist-patriarchal-capitalist-jock-fratish-collegestudents (tm) could possibly be innocent or that underprivileged-womanofcolor(tm)-singlemother-sexindustryworker(tm) could POSSIBLY be lying.

    it was amazing.

    these are hArdcore ideologues and arguing facts with them was like arguing evolution with a creationist. a waste of time

  • Tman||

    The worst part of that story is that those joyless gloryholes at Femifisting are STILL convinced that them Duke boys deserved what happened to them and were probably guilty anyways.

    I don't see a huge difference between whiny pansy-assed latte-sipping liberal manchilds and modern day feminists. They can have each other, and evolution will eventually cull them from the herd since they will refuse to procreate since PENIS=TEH EVIL.

  • ||

    and of course all (heterosexual) sex = rape

  • ||

    And, of course, until the mid-'90s we were all taught about how unspeakably terrible all sexual harassment was, until Bill Clinton got caught doing it several times, and then suddenly there's a "one free grope" rule (from Gloria Steinem!), underlings are now "consenting adults," and by the way a bunch of those women are just lying trailer-trash sluts anyway.

  • Xmas||

    They were guilty because they hired strippers in the first place. They were exploiting the poor woman by using their white male privilege.

    On the flip side, if they didn't hire strippers, there would be no way for that woman-of-color to earn anywhere near the same amount of money. And it's perfectly alright for her to use her body for whatever purposes she wants.

    So, to summarize: Men paying for sexual titillation is bad. Women using their bodies to earn money by way of sexual titillation is good, sometimes.

  • ||

    I thought that feminism was about "empowering" women to become equals with men in terms of job opportunities, paychecks, voting rights, etc.

    Job opportunities and paychecks are not controlled by the Constitution, thankfully.

  • ||

    New Bumper Sticker (though probably to long to be catchy): "Women can be aborted to, support women's rights by being pro-life"

  • Jeffersonian||

    Camille Paglia had these twats pegged years ago. Movement feminists like Steinem, Valenti and Marcotte are just the gyno-amen corner of the Hard Left. Their commitment to women extends only as far as it advances that agenda.

  • ||

    Camille Paglia, now there's a real feminist. I love what she said about the manufactured victimhoodfest that was "The Vagina Monologues." I wish more women had the courage to call contemporary feminism the self-indulgent, infantilizing crap that it is.

    Steinem, MacKinnon, Roiphe, et al hijacked a movement that, in its purposeful infancy, was about simply making sure women can have the same choices men do. They turned it into an insufferable, shrill, fearmongering, self-obsessed, infantilizing, victimhood-wallow. Old-school feminism was about making sure women had equal choices. New-school feminism is about making sure women can have everything they want, change their minds and at will, and feel no opportunity cost or responsibility for anything. To sum up:

    Old school: I can study whatever I want, serve in politics if I want, work at any job for which I'm qualified, and earn the same as a man for the same work. I own my body and am responsible for it and what happens inside it.

    New school: I can study or work at whatever I want, but I can drop out at any time to have babies, get my employer/the taxpayers to suck up the burden of that choice, and the fact that post-babies, I commit no more than 10 hours a week to my employer or education should not reduce my pay or advancement whatsoever. I can also go to parties and drink like Lindsay F'ing Lohan locked in the barrel room of Jack Daniel's, but if I wake up in some guy's bed the next morning and don't remember everything, I was raped. Basically you either cushion me from responsibility for anything I choose to do, or you're an evil misogynist. And oh yeah: all men are stupid, primitive knuckledraggers who can't be trusted to do anything right, but that doesn't stop me from wanting one to buy me a ginormous diamond ring and a hugh-jass trophy house, and tell me that he'll start minting money so I don't have to work.

  • Amanda Marcotte||

    Oh my, that post has given me the vapors! Quickly, a fainting couch!!

  • ||

    Old-school feminism was about making sure women had equal choices.

    I'm not sure how "old" your old school is, but in my lifetime (born in the 60's) feminism has been concerned with equal outcomes, not choices. There was only one choice that was allowed to be made. The rest was dictated down from high above.

  • ||

    It happens to every civil rights movement. Look at the NAACP and SPLC.

    When your business is stirring up outrage over injustice, you can't stop when the injustice subsides. You just invent more of it.

  • GILMORE||

    Michael, you took a gender studies class?

    Did you want your money back afterward?

  • skr||

    He was forced to as part of the sensitivity re-education after he.....

  • ||

    "And from my very first gender studies class..."

    You mean there was a second?

  • skr||

    nice catch

  • jester||

    How long? How long must we sing this song? How long? How lo-o-o-ng?

    Tampon, bloody tampon.
    Tampon, bloody tampon.

  • NavinK||

    -1

  • Masculist||

    If those exclusionary bitches are what passes for authentic feminists, consider me a masculist.

    Now shut up and get me a chicken pot pie!

  • ||

    are people “who makes their career

    The San Francisco yogi isn't the only one taking liberties with the English language, Mr. Moynihan. That said, I fully support your decision to capitalize bell hooks.

  • ||

    Joez law in action, and a sharp dagger through Mr. Moynihan's journalistic heart. Nicely played, Dagny.

  • Yonemoto||

    "but take a rather dim view of those attempting to enforce ideological orthodoxy"

    Thank god we let Dan T and Chony comment over here, or else we'd be hytterites.

  • that guy||

    Northampton, Mass. is its own world

  • Jeff P||

    Let'em eat Smithies.

    Was just at Bluebonnet Diner last weekend.

  • ||

    Besides political views deviating from the party line, another thing movement feminists hate is when young women say we aren't feminists, and that no such ideology is necessary. Getting riled up about an imagined patriarchal conspiracy seems so retro, and I note with pleasure that it doesn't seem to resonate with most women my age, regardless of their politics.

    My lack of identification as a feminist is as simple as: I care about the rights of individuals, regardless of their gender, and I do not care about seeing more plus size models in magazines.

  • Bill Clinton||

    I do not care about seeing more plus size models in magazines.

    I do . . .

  • ||

    You won't think patriarchy is retro when you experience it. I'm guessing you're in your early twenties. I give you about 2 years before you realize that your boss doesn't value your contributions the way he does your male colleagues. Or you notice that the job suggestions you get while hunting are significantly less serious than a man would receive. Why is it ok for a woman to start a career answering phones but a man needs to be given a substantial job? How many male staff assistants are there on the Hill and how many are expected to make coffee? Now count the females... Now that, dear, is truly retro.

  • ||

    I bet Dagny, considering the intelligence she exhibits in her posts I here, never has any of the problems you think she does. And as for you, I would advise you stop working for grab ass Congress critters and get a real job.

  • skr||

    my gf has never had any problems like that because she is fuckin great at her jb.

  • skr||

    damn stiff asus keboards

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Not sure if serious...

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    @greenae, not John.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Then, by my reckonging, all it will take is a red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist greed-head to hire all these rejected women at eighty cents on the dollar and he'll be putting the man-only company out of business in a matter of weeks.

  • Astrid||

    greenae, please take your worn out and overused victimology and shove it.

  • ||

    How many male staff assistants are there on the Hill and how many are expected to make coffee? Now count the females... Now that, dear, is truly retro.

    I agree. Let's boycott Congress to let them know we won't stand for this.

  • zoltan||

    Greenae, you probably suck more at the real jobs than you suck at making coffee.

  • ||

    You won't think patriarchy is retro when you experience it. I'm guessing you're in your early twenties. I give you about 2 years before you realize that your boss doesn't value your contributions the way he does your male colleagues. Or you notice that the job suggestions you get while hunting are significantly less serious than a man would receive. Why is it ok for a woman to start a career answering phones but a man needs to be given a substantial job? How many male staff assistants are there on the Hill and how many are expected to make coffee? Now count the females... Now that, dear, is truly retro.

  • ||

    Double posting...now that's fucking retro!

  • Warty||

    “feminism is the radical notion the women are people.”

    Moynihan, don't you know that well-behaved women seldom make history?

  • Sudden||

    As though "making history" was some good in and of itself. I mean, Hitler made history, but outside of a few "DEATH TO TEH JEWS" Islamists, I doubt too many people condone of said history-making.

  • ||

    Warty, your day wouldn't be complete without making someone, somewhere *barf*, would it?

    The only way that bumper sticker could portend a worse driver is if it were on a forest green Subaru with Oregon plates.

  • Warty||

    Around here, you see lots of those stickers next to stickers that say "I DO YOGA AT ATMA CENTER". Both confuse the hell out of me.

  • ||

    The latter is obviously an anagram for "A Daycare Mate Tooting." Spooky.

  • Warty||

    I figured they were trying to tell me something about A Adamant Coyote Tiger.

    Anagram fact: if you do a google search for "anagram", it asks you if you meant to search for "nag a ram". LOLOLOLOl

  • ||

    Google search Easter egg threadjack: Google "recursion". Go on, I'll wait.

  • Astrid||

    The only way that bumper sticker could portend a worse driver is if it were on a forest green Subaru with Oregon plates.

    I'm assuming you've never driven in Boston then.

  • ||

    There they are on Volvos up there.

  • Astrid||

    There's a fuck-ton of Subaru's there as well. It's the car for people who can't drive in snow.

  • ||

    True. And are not the Subaru ads nausia inducing? I would never own one for no other reason than I wouldn't want to be associated with people like those in the commercial.

    The Kia rapping hamster commercial in contrast, makes me want to own a minivan for no other reason than rapping hamsters are awsome.

  • Astrid||

    Yeah, the Subaru ads are awful, even by car commercial standards. And rapping hamsters do amuse me greatly, though I don't really want or need a minivan.

  • Zeb||

    I own a Subaru and think they are marvelous cars, but god those ads are stupid. What the fuck does love have to do with making a good car? Fortunately, I don't get TV anymore, so I am not subjected to much of that. I also hate the rapping hamsters. Why can't cars just be sold on their merits as cars?

  • ||

    I so want to fucking shoot my television when those goddamned cloying Snobaru commercials come on.

    The I remember just how much I loooove my tee-vee and change the channel.

  • ||

    I kept my cars registered in Oregon because I don't have to get them emission tested that way, originally being from outside the Portland metro area. They'll pry my catalitic converter bypasses from my cold dead hands!

  • Atanarjuat||

    "Women are natural leaders -- you're following one now*" is more common 'round these parts.

    *ugh.

  • Sudden||

    That's usually when I speed up and pass them.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Personally, I thought the "Women who strive for equality lack ambition" sticker was clever, however abhorrent the the ideology that led to its production.

  • Herostratus||

    I hear that sister.

  • Yonemoto||

    Moynihan, don't you know that well-behaved women seldom make history?

    Uhm, isn't that true for men, too?

  • objector||

    "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" is another popular bumper sticker slogan. Living in SF, I see it, and hate on, frequently.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I am concerned for the welfare of SugarFree. This thread is curiously lacking his commenting insight. Perhaps someone should go to his place and make sure his worthless pancreas hasn't gone rogue and stabbed him or something.

    At least there is no link to SF

  • ||

    It's a night thread. He only works H&R in the daytime. Man's gotta go out and bite some unknowing victims sometime.

  • SIV||

    Haha! Has someone already posted the latest adventures of David Weigel? His fellow lefties on Journolist leaked his comments.

    "This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."

  • Esoteric||

    "It's all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn't get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV."

    I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but damn, Weigel...you can be such a condescending prat sometimes.

    Also, note the fact that Weigel is even allowed ONTO JournoList, which is a list explicitly created by Ezra Klein as a means of coordinating left-wing reaction on the important stories of the day.

    What does that tell us, exactly?

  • SIV||

    That he's a shill for the Dems, as noted during his tenure at Reason.

  • ||

    Bingo.

  • ||

    This. There was a time I felt bad for piling on him, when it was only a few people calling him out as the shill he is. Now, he can just set himself on fire.

  • Warty||

    I apologize to Matt Drudge for this -- I was incredibly frustrated with the amount of hate mail I was getting and lashed out. If he wants to link to this post with some headline accusing me of wishing death on him, I suppose he can do so. But I don't wish that. I was tired, angry, and hyperbolic, and I'm sorry.

    The little porker can't handle much, can he?

  • Astrid||

    I'm sure he'll feel better once his mommy heats up his TV dinner for him.

  • SIV||

    - "Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there -- nor in DC at all."

    I stand by this -- I was offended by the way that item was written. I do apologize for reacting like this against the entire Washington Examiner, as my gripe was with one reporter, and the person who gave them this item was apologizing to me.

    He has a girlfriend, she lives in Alaska...

  • ||

    Not just Alaska, but Unalaska, Alaska!

  • zoltan||

    Her name is Alberta, she lives in Vancouver.

  • ||

    He was on here whining about how every one hates him a couple of weeks ago. He is really pathetic.

  • Oswald Acted Alone||

    Yeah, that was pretty sad.

  • kf||

    I love that the defense to writing this is basically "I was having emotional problems."

  • Esoteric||

    I've heard more than a few whispers that his editors are extremely displeased with him right now. He may be hanging on a very thin string now.

    According to my sources (which are actually awesomely-placed for this), they're getting fed up at him NOT because of his politics, but because he has continued to make himself 'part of the story' over and over again during the last several months.

  • Warty||

    Seriously, what an unprofessional little twat. Have some dignity, Weigel.

  • Esoteric||

    Exactly. In fact, "lack of professionalism" were the exact words that were used.

    I can't pretend that I'm not *sort of* satisfied at all this, since I thought Weigel's hiring was a bit of intentional malice on the part of the WaPo (he was recommended for the job by Ezra Klein, and he's a participant on JournoList, which doesn't allow either libertarians or conservatives to participate, which tells you all you need to know). But I'm also saddened by it, because nobody likes seeing someone piss their pants in public, so to speak. Weigel was given a plum position, and so far he hasn't been able to handle himself.

    I'll say it again: it's not too late for him. He has the potential to be a great reporter, but it's draining away day by day as he sinks further into defensive bitterness and the shielding "bubble" of places like JournoList.

  • Oswald Acted Alone||

    Warty, you're just jealous.

  • Sudden||

    Now that he toes the left's lion, emotional problems are the cause of and reaction to all of lifes problems, usually enforced through gov't fiat, so it really only makes sense.

  • SIV||

    toes = FAIL

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Ah ha, Sudden slipped up and got it right!

  • ||

    Toeing a lion sounds kinky. And dangerous.

  • ||

    Probably something you'd only do once.

  • Astrid||

    "This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge David Weigel decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."

    FIFY Dave.

  • ||

    I love you Astrid.

  • ||

    He's been flaming for a while now.

  • ||

    It's not by Byron York, but is this the dancing at Suderman/McArdle's wedding piece that got his panties in a bunch?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    He was dancing to "Bizzare Love Triangle". Good choice.

  • Esoteric||

    Certainly can't fault him for that. I'd be dancing like a sweaty goofball too.

  • Oswald Acted Alone||

    Wait what I thought he was gay.

  • Tony||

    Or maybe you teabaggers are paranoid freaks who don't tolerate the slightest amount of dissent? The world would be a better place if Republican propagandist Matt Drudge killed himself, but it's not nice to wish death on someone, so he apologized. When are you nuts gonna apologize to him for terrorizing him for not being a Republican brownshirt?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Terrorizing?

    Get a bag and breathe into it, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Threatening mail and death threats are way up, and it's all from paranoid teabaggers who lap up Glenn Beck bullshit.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Someone threatened David Weigel with death? Tell us more, asswipe.

  • ||

    Yeah death threats are pretty bad. So I guess you are really angry about lefties making death threats to the judge in the drilling moritorium case?

    http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/.....threatened

    Threatening a judge is a lot worse than threatening some douche reporter.

  • kf||

    I thought we established that teabaggers were responsible for all the death threats made to the rabbi who recorded Helen Thomas.

  • ||

    You know, Tony, you really don't want to start a discussion of whether it's the left or right (or libertarians) who are most prone to political violence, because the left has been #1 there for a long time.

  • ||

    I'm totally confused because, sadly, I arrived to Reason late. This guy used to write here? How and why?

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    Reason hired him to cover the 2008 campaign. I really didn't have much of a problem with him back then. No he just seems whiny & on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

  • Matt Welch||

    Dave was a staff writer from spring 2006 to winter 2008, focusing on political reporting.

  • ¢||

    Moynihan, don't you know that well-behaved women seldom make history?

    Some of them make sandwich history.

    Bell Hooks

    Even sammich-joke guy knows that's not capitalized, and someone's gonna get angry-about-the-penis about it. That'll be funny.

  • ||

    Is there any difference between the exclusionary tactics of rigid feminist ideologs and rigid libertarian purists?

  • ||

    For one thing, the feminists have much more influence in government and academia.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Turn in your decoder ring for asking such a question.

  • ||

    GET HIM

  • Brett L||

    Libs read out more straight men.

  • ||

    The former look better in skirts while making my coffee.

  • GP||

    Mark Morford wears a skirt while making your coffee???

  • jester||

    Yoshimi vs. the Pink Robots. That is feminism. Today.

  • ||

    feminism is the radical idea that women are people—with political views identical to my own

    When was it ever otherwise? Ideological conformity with Marxism has always been a feminist value. The only difference between 1965 and today is that feminists are in power today, so they feel they can be more honest about their real views and goals.

  • LarryA||

    love of guns

    I ran into four women last year with the proper “feminist” fear of firearms, who wanted to get over it. It took about four hours each. The end result varied from “That wasn’t hard at all.” to “Is there any more ammo?”

    This is the feminist orthodoxy that puzzles me the most. How do you empower a person by making her depend on others to protect her? It’s the same attitude I see in liberal jews preaching “we can ban guns because the police will protect us from the next holocaust.”

    Of course these are the same folks who co-opted “oreo” to describe gun-owners with dark skin, African ancestors, and slave forefathers as “not Black.”

    “Party of diversity?” Not. Have to stay inside those stereotypes.

    But I can see why feminists are furious. They’ve been Blind Sided. Leigh Anne Tuohy rules!

  • Warty||

    That perfect moment when a person who formerly afraid of guns realizes that guns are fucking awesome is a wonder to behold.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And guns are fucking awesome!

  • strat||

    I have had mixed feelings about this ever since I saw my wife shoot a tighter group than I did one day.

  • zoltan||

    "Guys love it when you can show them you're better than they are at something they love."

    Parks & Recreation character Leslie Knope is the perfect example of the bumbling, moronic feminist (a different breed from the fangs-bared, man-hating feminist).

  • ||

  • ||

    Warfare 101: Creating the Enemy. It's easier to attack a woman if you take the womanhood from here. She's not a woman, she is a pseudo-woman. Hitler did the same thing with the Jews. They are not human. They are rats, thieves, etc... The oversea's wars, we are not fighting human resistance. We are fight Terrorist zealots.

  • ||

    "third-wave feminism's cornerstone values—abortion rights, humanitarianism, anti-racism, don't kill stuff

    I am impressed that of those four corners of the feminist polygon only 1 has anything to do with being female, and tendentiously at best.

  • SIV||

    and that contradicts the last of the four

  • ||

    Bingo!

  • Apple||

    Ha!

  • cynical||

    No, that was a trap to get pro-lifers to admit that a fetus is just "stuff".

  • thoreau||

    So, during my absence from commenting here I hung out at DramaBlogs, aka ScienceBlogs. (Not as "thoreau", of course. Different moniker.) And there's a lot lefty ideology being thrown around, and a lot of wacky stuff of a feminist bent. I've had my share of fun making tweaking Isis and Zuska.

    But, you know, you can only shoot into the barrel full of fish for so long before it becomes boring. And, truthfully, there are a few diamonds in the rough, especially in relation to "privilege". (Although I hasten to add that "privilege" is a useless concept if it only means "I win teh debate because I called you out on ur PRIVLEJ!!11!" or "The person with the thinnest skin gets to call the shots in this discussion.") More importantly, seeing a bunch of guys pile on just isn't fun. I mean, it's one thing to go after Zuska for way, way, WAY over-analyzing a commercial, we all need to have some fun taking potshots at a wackjob now and then. But a bunch of guys piling on feminists just becomes a bit boring at the same time.

    Let's get Kerry Howley in here to say something interesting about feminism, instead of firing off yet another volley at those who deny the existence of Sarah Palin's X chromosomes or those who were objectively wrong on the Duke Lacrosse case.

    Going after straw-women gets old. I say it as one who's gone after a few myself.

  • ||

    Good point. The problem is that the fish in a barrell stuff is so ubiquitous that you have to respond to it. This kind of crap passes for thought in many places. And sadly, there is a real need to call it out for the crap it is.

  • Brian E||

    Well, look who's decided to return to shoot into the barrel full of shit that is H&R.

  • ||

    I bow to your boring fuddy-duddiness.

  • thoreau||

    MP says:

    Is there any difference between the exclusionary tactics of rigid feminist ideologs and rigid libertarian purists?

    The rigid feminist ideologues probably don't play as much D&D.

  • Warty||

    The rigid feminist ideologues probably don't play as much D&D.

    My character was baffling: a druid wizard halfling

  • thoreau||

    I ran into four women last year with the proper “feminist” fear of firearms, who wanted to get over it. It took about four hours each. The end result varied from “That wasn’t hard at all.” to “Is there any more ammo?”

    This one time, in grad school, I suggested (only half jokingly) that men should be banned from owning or using guns, but every woman should carry a pistol. The female students were not amused.

    I tried to disarm the patriarchy and all I got was this lousy lecture on privilege.

  • skr||

    rotfl. that's awesome

  • Brett L||

    Much easier to get them to sign petitions ending womens' suffrage.

  • Brett L||

    petitions in favor of. To the best of my knowledge the 19th Amendment is still in effect.

  • armchair evol. psychologist||

    Evolution, dude.

    Ancient prehistory: You're a guy, some other prehistoric dudes are up on your turf startin shit.

    Option A - Fight back: You live and drive them off. Or, maybe you die and your whole tribe is slaughtered. Or, maybe you die but your tribe wins and your offspring are cared for by other villages in honor of your sacrifice.

    Option B - Surrender: They kill you and your male offspring and take your wives and daughters and all your shit. That's what you get for being a pussy.

    Wait, let's trying that again as a woman:
    Option A - Fight back: You live, or maybe you die. If your side loses, see below. Otherwise, your offspring survive and are cared for by other villagers.

    Option B - Surrender: Your male offspring are killed, you and your daughters are the property of a new set of males. While that sucks, you probably weren't treated any better before, so eh.

    Men get rewarded by nature for fighting back, women get rewarded by nature for submission. Granted, that's speculative (maybe tribal warfare wasn't always as lethal to males, maybe it was more lethal to females), and the dynamics start to change after agriculture, when men also become valuable as captives for slave labor. But it's a theory.

  • SusanM||

    Thank you Dr. Norman

  • LarryA||

    Option B - Surrender: Your male offspring are killed, you and your daughters are the property of a new set of males. While that sucks, you probably weren't treated any better before, so eh.

    Except that if you live in a society where women are trained and equipped to fight back, you’re probably treated with a lot more respect than women who are subservient.

  • ||

    My friend J and I have it all mapped out. When we rule the world, all women will undergo firearms training at puberty, and will be issued a pistol with a fingerprint lock so that only they can use it. The usual laws regarding homicide will apply, and one will be added - any male found in possession of a woman's gun will face a life sentence.

    Sure, there are bugs to be worked out. But I figure it'll cut down on catty female bullying as well as sexual assault and domestic violence, and that's always a plus.

  • Pol Mordreth||

    Completely wrong and dumb. DV now is about 70% comitted by women, and will only go up in your scenario.

    Sexist fuckwit.

  • Greg N.||

    bell hooks isn't unreadable; her "Feminism is For Everybody" is actually quite good.

  • Abdul||

    Is it stalinist to suggest you might not really be a man?

  • alan||

    Witness, won't you, the zeitgeist's nightmare trifecta of largely insufferable women, the Sarah Palin/Carly Fiorina/Michele Bachmann hydra-headed hellbeast of pseudo-women (emphasis adeed), one part huge cash reserves, one part evil grammar-abusing ditzball psychopath, one part sassy misinformed moxie, overlaid with wonky ideas of motherhood, love of guns and ignorance of sex and reproductive rights.

    I may have to change my position on the death penalty. If he admits to writing that ear bleeder shitscreed he should adeed be put to death. Note, even if he were a libertarian doing that instead of a communist twit, death would be deserved.

  • ||

    that actually makes a lot of sense dude.

    Lou
    www.anon-vpn.at.tc

  • AA||

    Thats the Lou I know. Not that other guy who was commenting on what the article actually said.

  • jester||

    unite. you have nothing to lose but your gains.

  • objector||

    I once wrote hate mail to Mark Morford, and he wrote me back. He accused me of being juvenile.

    It disturbs me that he is insanely handsome. Green eyes to die for, great body. But also an idiot, asshole, narcissist, and truly god-awful writer. Didn't need to point out that last bit, of course.

  • zoltan||

    He's not that great-looking. Too old and he's got that pretty-boy faggy look to him.

  • ||

    I'm with zoltan. He's got too much hair on his chest, no pecs, not enough muscular definition, and trailer trash chinline facial hair. He has redeeming features, but is far from insanely handsome.

    However, attractiveness is highly subjective, and everyone has their preferences.

  • objector||

    Well, a friend of mine is his Facebook friend, and he allows friends of friends to see his pics. So I've seen quite a few. Those amazing green eyes count for a lot. He's not a young man, but I'm not a young woman and my tastes have adjusted themselves accordingly. I actually find "age appropriate" men attractive. (Amazing how that happens. I knew I was middle-aged when I started finding the models in the Land's End catalogue attractive.) As for the "pretty-boy faggy look," surely you know that lots of women dig it.

    He is still loathsome and reprehensible though.

  • Max||

    How about the pseudo-fucking-journalists who write libertarian agitprop for this mindless rag?

  • objector||

    Why are you here?

  • AA||

    Why do you hate yourself?

  • Jeffersonian||

    He's self-aware.

  • ||

    Mock Tuna Salad

    INGREDIENTS:

    * 1(15 oz.) can chick-peas, drained (or 1.5 c. cooked)

    * 1/4 cup vegan mayonnaise (the original would call for in-excess of 1/4 c., but 1/4 c. is WAY more than enough--I think I even used only 1/4 c. on a double-batch of this, and it was *still* magnifique, so if you're looking for lower-fat and calories, just add a wee bit at a time)

    * 1/3 cup minced celery

    * 2.5 T. minced dill pickle (about 1 pickle-slice, give or take)

    * 1/2 T. nutritional yeast

    * 1 green onion, chopped

    * 1 t. soy sauce

    * 1/2 t. kelp powder (optional--i didn't use, b/c who the hell keeps kelp powder handy?)

    * pepper, to taste

    DIRECTIONS
    In a medium bowl, mash the chick-peas coarsely with a fork. Mix in the remaining ingredients. Use on sandwiches or on a bed of salad greens.

    (Original recipe from Compassionate Action for Animals)

  • Abdul||

    shorter recipie:

    Eat a tuna. Mock it for getting caught. Feed salad to rabbit. Eat rabbit.

  • NK||

    +1

  • alan||

    +1

  • ||

    As far as abortion goes, I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I want to ask if libertarians here are really comfortable with the broad powers states would need to effectively enforce a comprehensive ban - a federally enforced ban is a non-starter here unless you are really willing to put one principle over another.

  • ||

    I can usually tell who's writing a HnR post w/o looking at the byline, and more often than not I can make the call based on the subject matter. But I always knew a Weigel post - ALWAYS - no matter the subject. He was the clever but obnoxious teenager who kept interrupting the grown ups' discussions. Whoever coined the term "juicebox mafia" for Klein and the other kids was spot on.

    you think Ben Bradlee ever looks at a Klein or Weigel post and wonders what the fuck happened to that paper?

    Then again, he married Sally Quinn so no, probably not.

  • ||

    So what did we learn today?

  • ||

    If you like to "kill stuff"—and I assume, with the Palin hunting reference, that also means animals—one cannot claim the feminist mantle.

    Unless, of course, you're talking about killing your own child growing inside you, in which case denouncing that ALSO means you can't claim the feminist mantle.

  • Abdul||

    Wow! When did HnR become so strongly pro-life?

    Mad Max, your work here is done. You can ask the pope for your next mission.

  • ||

    I think science is slowly making the case for being pro life. As babies become viable outside the womb earlier and science allows us to do more treatments before birth the case that life begins as conception gets stronger and stronger.

  • Abdul||

    Preachin' to the choir, John.

    But as a pro-lifer from back when we were just out to deny choice to chicks, I remember most abortion threads on H&R being decidedly pro-choice. Somedays, it really was Mad Max alone against the baby-killin' hordes.

  • SIV||

    Mad Max did a fine job handling it all by himself.

  • ||

    I have always been pro life on here.

  • NoVAHockey||

    22 weeks. granted, very intensive care afterward. but it's possible.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea.....-home.html

  • Old Man with Candy||

    Organized neural activity: human being

    No organized neural activity: clump of cells or hunk of meat (depending on the mass)

  • Zeb||

    You are not a human being until you can carry on an intelligent conversation.

  • jtuf||

    So Morford starts by calling his opponents homophobes, and then claims that they are transgender in an attempt to insult them. The guy is a hypocritical biggot.

  • Butts Wagner||

    No warning about the background pic on morford's twitter account? What the fuck was that anyways?!

  • Thom||

    Funny. I had a band in high school called "Woman-Hating Republican Homophobes in Titanic SUVs"

  • ||

    SF Chronicle's Morford is a left wing "KKK" style commentary, in his treatment of "the other" as subhuman.

  • ||

    “feminism is the radical notion the women are people.”

    The truth is, feminism is the radical notion that men are NOT people.

  • ||

    Rad 'The Misandry Bubble' here.

    Feminism is a supremacist ideology that is extremely hypocritical and anti-male. Actual equality is the last thing they want.

  • ||

    I thought that feminism was about "empowering" women to become equals with men in terms of job opportunities, paychecks, voting rights, etc.

    Nope. Feminism is about jailing and abusing men, while taking their money under threat of imprisonment.

    Any man dumb enough to think that feminists ever wanted real equality is a fool

    Read it :
    http://www.the-spearhead.com

  • ||

    Feminism these days is the radical idea that only some adult women (and maybe some men who engage in homosexual acts) are fully human. Prior to some developmental milestone, no humanity. Get past the developmental milestone of recognizing that intergenerational genocide is evil, no humanity either.

  • ||

    Well, gee, there is no shortage of Womens' Studies professors to provide case-specific applications of the all-purpose Party Line trump card.

    You see, everything bad (or at least non-leftist) in the world is caused by the Oppressive Patriarchal Hegemony.

    Nuclear weapons? The Patriarchy- feminists must support disarmament. Gun rights? Israel? The Patriarchy at work. School vouchers? A villainous Patriarchal plot. Opposed to welfare, speech codes, state-subsidized windmills or postmodernist literary theory? Then the Patriarchy owns you, bitch, and you're no feminist.

    See how easy? You, too, can sentence any woman you (dis)like to the intellectual Gulag!

  • Ray||

    I thought Morford went back to his home planet on Supergay 14 upon Obama's election?

  • ||

    A woman cannot be a feminist without supporting autonomy over our own personal bodies. Reproductive choice.
    Palin, Bachman, Haley, Firoina, Angle are not feminists.....they are life-size blowup stepford barbies that support chattel slavery of women.
    That is the sad thing about conservatives.
    Even their smart people are retards.

  • ||

    I take it, to be a feminist, it's not okay to "kill stuff", like polar bears and cute puppies, but it's perfectly okay to "kill stuff" like the unborn!
    As typical of liberals, these on this list are so very concerned about the right to do with their own bodies as they see fit, but could give a crap about the millions of other women's bodies they have destroyed through abortion. What a bunch of hypocrites. And you all have the gall to call Palin, et al, stupid.

  • ||

    Palin is stupid.
    and you are stupid to swallow her bs.

  • GP||

    I know, right?

    I bet she can't even
    - name all 57 states
    - name her favorite baseball stadium
    - deliver a speech without a teleprompter
    - properly bribe a governor or senator wannabes
    - limp-wrist a baseball ten feet
    - screw up the response to this countries worst ecological disaster in history.

    She's minor league for sure. I'm sure glad I don't have a piker like her as head of my party.

  • ||

    nah she just tried for a fundie abortion and you retards are all stupid enough to swallow her spin. Shes never had an open presser or a debate with follow-on questions and she's not a MILF......shes a GILF an thass just icky.
    she has to run in 2012 cuz she'll be postmenopausal in 2016. shes done, lawl.

  • JohnJ||

    I hereby decree, with the same authority as Gloria Steinam, that you cannot be both a feminist and support making women (along with everyone else) dependent on big government.

  • JohnJ||

    "A woman cannot be a feminist without supporting autonomy over our own personal bodies."

    What about supporting an unborn female's autonomy over her own body?

  • ||

    Citizen rights trump semi-differentiated cell clump rights, sowwy.
    Abortion is legal in America.
    And you dopes have already lost. it will be at least 10 years before you get a run at changing the Supremes, and by that time the japanese will be selling us fullterm ectogenisis.
    Abortion is a nonissue except for old white christian ppl.....and they are an endangered species.

  • GP||

    Ask one of your liberal friends to take you to an 8- or 12- week ultrasound next time she gets pregnant and make damn sure for yourself that you're right before advocating a death sentence for that clump of cells. Because if you're wrong you're advocating murder.

  • GP||

    So where's the threshold after conception where it becomes human and not just 'semi-differentiated'? What scientific metrics are you using?

    I put it at no later than 8 weeks, but that's just me, having been through multiple pregnancies and numerous ultra-sounds. (I realize first-hand experience doesn't count for much to some big thinkers.)

  • ||

    Doesn't matter.
    abortion is legal and roe v wade is goin' now where.
    nah nah hey hey roe v wade is here to stay.
    it don't matter what they say, as long as they don't vote that way.
    flaming hypocrite......if you think abortion is murder seek to prosecute women who murder their fetuses, or adopt one of the 400,000 fertility therapy byproducts doomed to terminal cryostasis.

  • GP||

    Isn't it time we jettison paleofeminism and it's idealogues like Steinem along with their hatemongering? The infanticide these so-called 'Feminists' waged against the most vulnerable of us is a stain on humanity.

    So, twist the knife on these old fools and start calling Palin/Bachmann/Fiorina/etc neofeminists as they're not mired in the old '60's groupthink of stoned hippies.

  • ||

    but they aren't feminists......they are blow-up stepford barbies that support chattel slavery of women.

  • ||

    Humorous cartoon on this topic titled "What Liberal Feminists Didn't Learn in Kindergarten" at http://drawfortruth.wordpress......rah-palin/

  • ||

    I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have someone like Gloria Steinem for a member. I am free from Stalinism, Feminism, Sexlessism and Bitterism.

  • ||

    but are you free from birtherism, creationism, and retardism?

  • ||

    Didn't Russ have it right all along...these women are Feminazis.

  • ||

    Stalin's Feminists broke the glass then became the ceiling.

    Gloria Steinem burned our bras then left legacy of sagging sized-DDD brests worn on anorexic, skeletal bodies with botox-stiffen-like-Pelosi faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's dis-ease va-jay-jay.

    Collective nightmare: we're all Equalized Chauvinist Pigs NOW equally.

    I am woman hear me roar, keep Stalin's Feminists away from my door!

    Go Fiorina, Palin, Bachmann and all who have no use for broken-glass tyrants!

  • ||

    nah, not pigs, just teatards.
    like i said, nothing you can do about it.
    you can t change the supreme court composition for 10 years, and
    in 10 years we'll be buying bene tleilax host wombs from the japanese and you won't be able to flame up the low-information conservative base over a non issue.
    you lost already, but the tiny little second brains in your dinosaur hips don't know it yet.

  • CJ||

    A very well written article Michael. I have had too many of these double standard encounters with far left leaning friends. They have railed against my conservative views and tried to tell me just WHAT a feminist REALLY is, and that I didn't know what I was doing. What?!!!
    Thanks for bringing this very real issue out into the sanitizing sunlight.

  • ||

    Perhaps if homosexuals and Stalin's Feminists have sex with each other then abortion will never provide Planned Parenthood opportunity to remain a mega Corporation profiting off the death of human beings?

  • ||

    Dr. Stephen Chasen, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, is one of the plaintiffs against the Act. On cross-examination, counsel for the Government inquired into each element of a partial-birth abortion:
    Q. You wrap a small sterile towel around the fetus, because it is slippery, and after the legs are out you pull on the sacrum, or the lower portion of the spine, to continue to remove the fetus, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. When the fetus is out to the level of the breech, you place another, larger towel around the first small towel, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. You gently pull downward on the sacrum until the shoulder blades appear, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. Then, with your hand on the fetus’s back, holding it with the towel, you twist in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion to rotate the shoulder, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. The shoulder in front or the arm in front is swept out with your fingers, and then you rotate the other side of the fetus to sweep out the other arm, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. Then the fetus is at a point where only the head remains in the cervix, correct?
    A. That’s correct.
    Q. That is when you make the decision based on gestational age and the amount of cervical dilation, whether the head will fit out intact, whether you can tuck the head of the fetus to its chest, or whether you have to decompress the skull to remove the fetus’s head, right?
    A. It is based on the size of the fetal head and the cervical dilation. I don’t directly consider the gestational age.
    Q. If you are able to deliver the head by flexing the chin against the fetal chest – and you have been able to do this several times … Doctor?
    A. There have been a few occasions, yes.
    Q. Then you remove the fetus with the towel, you put it on the table, and you turn back to the woman to deal with the placenta, right?
    A. That’s right.
    Q. If you can’t do that, you know you are going to have to crush the head, and so you take a clamp and you grasp the cervix to elevate it, and then your assistant there in the operating room will pull down on the fetus’s legs or back, gently lowering the fetus’s head toward the opening of the vagina, right?
    A. Right.
    Q. That is when you put two fingers at the back of the fetus’s neck at the base of the skull where you can feel the base of the skull, and then you puncture the skull with the scissors, right?
    A. I can usually see it as well as feel it. But yes.
    Q. At that point you see some brain tissue come out, and you are 100 percent certain that you are in the brain, so you open the scissors to expand the hole, remove the scissors, and put the suction device in the skull, right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You turn on the suction, and typically the fetus comes right out with the suction device still in its skull, right?
    A. Right.
    Dr. Timothy Johnson, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified from his own experience about performing dismemberment abortions, and gave his opinion about the partial-birth abortions he had observed. Dr. Johnson described observing how doctors who did partial-birth abortions “used a crushing instrument to deliver the head.” This provoked further questions from Judge Casey.
    The Court: Can you explain to me what that means?
    The Witness: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix.
    The Court: What did they utilize to crush the head?
    The Witness: An instrument, a large pair of forceps that have a round, serrated edge at the
    end of it, so that they were able to bring them together and crush the head between the ends of the instrument.
    The Court: Like the cracker they use to crack a lobster shell, serrated edge?
    The Witness: No.
    The Court: Describe it for me.
    The Witness: It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up a salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center. The instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with—
    The Court: Except here you are crushing the head of a baby.
    The Witness: Correct.
    […]
    The Court: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive when they crush the skull?
    The Witness: That’s correct, yes, sir.
    The Court: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing?
    The Witness: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them.
    The Court: Were they in some instances?
    The Witness: Not that I remember. I don’t think I have ever looked at the hands.
    The Court: Were the feet moving?
    The Witness: Feet could be moving, yes.
    The judge in the case asked to what extent abortion doctors inform their patients about the details of the abortion procedures they will perform. The following is an exchange between Judge Casey and Dr. Westhoff:
    The Court: I want to know whether that woman knows that you are going to take a pair of scissors and insert them into the base of the skull of her baby, or her fetus. Do you tell her?
    The Witness: I do not usually tell patients specific details of the operative approach. I’m
    completely—
    The Court: Do you tell her that you are going to then, ultimately, suck the brain out of the skull?
    The Witness: In all of our D&Es; the head is collapsed or crushed and the brains are definitely out of the skull but those are—
    The Court: Do you tell them that?
    The Witness: Those are details that would be distressing to my patients and would not—
    information about that is not directly relevant to their safety.
    The Court: Don’t—whether it’s relative to their safety or not—don’t you think it’s since they’re giving authorization to you to do this act that they should know precisely what you’re going to do?
    The Witness: That’s actually not the practice I have of discussing surgical cases with the patients.
    The Court: I didn’t ask you that. I said don’t you think they ought to know?
    The Witness: No, sir, I don’t.
    Of course they don’t want women to know. What women would be willing to have the brain of her unborn child crushed and his brains vacuumed out? They would come to the same realization that occurred to Sen. Moynihan. In a “Meet the Press” television appearance he said that he was wrong when he said the procedure was “close to infanticide.” “[PBA] is infanticide,” said Moynihan, “and one would be too many.”

  • ||

    Look michael....its simple.
    unless a woman supports autonomy over women's own bodies she cannot be called a feminist. that is a fact, and you are just weasel wording around it like the twodigit glibertatians here at reason.
    /spit

  • ||

    Ya know, my mom was involved in feminism back when she was in college. Nothing ground-breaking, I'm sure, but she did what she could. Recollecting on it, she noted that some of the feminists took a very openly dim view of female students who were only interested in getting married. Mom noted the blatant hypocrisy of talking about free choice and not following through just because someone had a different opinion. Needless to say, Mom took a dim view of those select feminists. I like this story because it's comforting to know the feminist movement is solely self-righteous, man-hating slime.

  • ||

    I'm fine with women just wanting to be homemakers. It is free will.
    But they don't get to force me to be a womb of the state by banning abortion.
    Who's the stalin now, Moynihan?

  • 1389AD||

    If somebody called me a feminist I'd feel insulted. They're nothing more than doctrinaire leftists, and like other leftists, they've made a devil's bargain with Islam. See Is feminism deaf to the women in Islam? for more on that.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement