|
March 03, 2008
Redeeming the old stereotypes
If I were an old fashioned sexist pig, I'd love Gloria Steinem. No seriously. I really would. While no reasonable person would call her a "leader" of women, to the extent she is perceived as that, she makes women who follow her ("all" feminist women, to sexist men who believe in stereotypes) look like absolute idiots. Analyzing the Obama-Clinton race in purely identity politics terms, feminist icon Steinem first brushes aside the McCain candidacy for the bizarre reason that his former P.O.W. status not only doesn't qualify him for office, but would be seen as a liability for a woman. ...she claimed that if Clinton's experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might "finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss's job and take it over."Hey, wait a second! That little snippet of vintage Hollywood Marxism is just too rich for me to ignore. Does she mean all secretaries working for all bosses? Or only women secretaries working for male bosses? Or is she simply stuck in an endless replay of "9 to 5" in which the three secretaries played by Jane Fonda, Lilly Tomlin and Dolly Parton took over the job of clueless sexist moron Dabney Coleman? I don't know, but the reason I'm asking is that I've always wanted to be a brain surgeon, but I'm a little too old to go through the years of medical school plus a residency program, and I like the idea of being a brain surgeon's secretary and then replacing her. (Yes, there are women surgeons. And even male secretaries. But surely someone told this feminist icon all about life in America.) Come to think of it, I'd like to replace Bill Gates too. Maybe he'll hire me as a secretary andI can. Steinem raised McCain's Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.Hmmm.... Is that an argument for or against women serving in the military? As to McCain's qualifications to be president, I'm thinking maybe his decades of public service in Congress and in the Senate might count for something. And actually, I think that had Hillary Clinton (or, say, a female combat pilot) been shot down, imprisoned and tortured, Steinem would be singing her praises as a woman who knew firsthand what suffering was all about, and had been there and faced the worst that humanity had to offer. It's called life experience. You know, being tested? Who knows, being imprisoned and tortured might even be more of a test than having your spouse cheat on you. I don't know, as I haven't been imprisoned and tortured. As to having been cheated on, yes, it has happened to me! Should I run for president? (Someone, form a committee quick!) But the part that most caught my attention was Steinem's statement that "redemption" for what she calls "gynocide" justifies the election of Hillary Clinton: Steinem told me the Illinois senator was "an intelligent, well-intentioned person." She added: "I would like very much to see him be president for eight years after Hillary has been president for eight years."Assuming that the "majority" of Americans see a vote for Obama as "redemptive" (a pretty major assumption), this same American majority is at fault because they are avoiding their clear responsibility of redeeming themselves for millions of murdered pregnant women all over the world. By that logic, I am responsible (along with the American majority) for world starvation, Muslim honor killings, and genocide around the world. I've long been annoyed by the social conservatives' argument that I am somehow responsible for the personal decision of millions of American women to abort their fetuses, because it is not logical. But at least they're talking about something happening in the United States. Steinem's argument is sillier than the social conservatives, for she's seeking to blame Americans for events over which they have no control -- but of course Hillary will redeem us if only we would seek redemption ourselves by voting for her. Such logic is more than astoundingly bad. It's irredeemably bad. I'd be tempted to say that Steinem gives women a bad name, but that would be a sexist stereotype. The problem is that she is steeped in vintage stereotypes herself, and this lends credence to the idea that stereotypes are true. I've joked about the idea, but at times like this I wish I could choose my gender to "whatever, whenever" as certain activists have proposed. That way, I could register as a woman and redeem myself by voting against Hillary Clinton. As I explained, there'd be no need for messy surgery: If a woman can go from female to male (and can be called a man before the surgery) then why require the male lesbian (once s/he really reaches a deeper understanding of him/herself) to go through one surgery to become female and another to become male? Can't the process be an internal one?Yes it can! Yes I can be a woman against Hillary! And yes I can go back and redeem my manhood after the election. But would Gloria Steinem ever understand? MORE: Am I being too kind to Gloria Steinem? Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Ann Althouse characterized Steinem's remarks about McCain as "mindcrushingly stupid," as well as an "old feminist rhetorical device." Glenn asks a good question about whether "mindcrushingly stupid," or "an old feminist rhetorical device" should be applied. I don't know, but I'm thinking maybe both. "Mindcrushingly stupid old feminist rhetorical device" does have a nice ring to it. (But only her mindcrusher knows for sure.) posted by Eric on 03.03.08 at 05:46 PM
Comments
...she claimed that if Clinton's experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might "finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss's job and take it over." Steinem thinks the first lady is the President's secretary? tim maguire · March 4, 2008 02:37 PM Probably a "might as well" equivalent. Actually, Hillary has a secretary, and I'd like her to replace her boss. Hmmm... Maybe I should think this whole thing over! Eric Scheie · March 4, 2008 06:34 PM I handle Day Light Savings Time the same way. I don't change my clocks. I change my mind. I never thought of applying that to social situations. I can see where it would come in really handy. M. Simon · March 5, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
March 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Advertise your innocence!
Are you all aTwitter? You Were Warned Santelli And The Traders Latest entry in the national routine Browsing in the marketplace of ideas Obamanomics in a nutshell The turtle and the cat The ongoing war on rot Climate Action
Links
Site Credits
|
|
McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so."
Being a POW is not job training for the presidency. McCain's imprisonment (and his military service) demonstrate character. And patriotism. Both qualities we would like in a commander in chief.