Palin’s Wardrobe

The Huffington Post, of all places, has come out with a defense of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe and $22,000 in makeup expenses. Their argument is, essentially, that women will be judged by sexist standards so the RNC totally had to spend almost $2K to get their veep to look okay.

What a load of malarkey. Yes, women face double standards, but that standard has less to do with wardrobe than people think. Those snide remarks about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were not just about her pantsuits; they were also coded remarks about her thighs. This is not unusual. Criticisms of women’s clothes are often really criticisms of women’s bodies. Sarah Palin’s body is titillating enough to enough men that, as long as her clothes reveal that body sufficiently, it doesn’t much matter where the taffeta suit is from.

Second of all, has no one at the RNC heard of knock-offs? And could not Ms. Palin somehow make do with, say, four or five suits, rather than the plethora of outfits she has? And how does one spend $22,000 on makeup? Does she have a makeup professional traveling with her, applying makeup before she appears at rallies to her fan base with their chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” The fans are the ones who would judge her by a double standard so harsh that if she spent any less on her looks, they would spit on her and vote for Obama the Muslim? Puhhhhhhhhhh-leeeeeeeeeease. –Then again, maybe they would; and the fact that the RNC tacitly acknowledges that and plays into it, showcases exactly how “feminist” they are.

Nope – no excuses. All that happened here is that a wannabe richy who installed a $30,000 tanning bed in her offices got a free $175,000 wardrobe, given her by a bunch of people who don’t even understand what a lot of money that is, and don’t care, and just want the hot chick to look hot, because that’s all they picked her for.

“The Yellow Wall-paper” is NOT about post-partum depression!

The Post-Partum Depression Theory of “The Yellow Wall-Paper” is tiresome and wrong-headed. The popularity of this stupid theory showcases how deeply reluctant people are to engage a feminist story on its own (pretty unsubtle) terms.

The protagonist has, it is true, recently given birth. But she struggles with no feelings of conflict regarding that fact, or the baby. Frankly, she doesn’t seem to give much of a damn about the baby one way or another. She mentions that it’s cute and she would spend more time with it except that she gets “nervous.” Her nervousness, however, is linked in the story, NOT to her child, but directly and repeatedly to a conflict over writing - she wants to write, her husband doesn’t want her to. She is not conflicted about being a mother; she is largely uninterested, and also un-allowed — as long as her interest in writing continues, she is cut off by her husband from the privileges of immersion in the domestic sphere and is instead “treated” by a forced reversion to childhood and dependence (symbolized by the nursery), the idea being that if she is “cured” by becoming more child-like, then she will be fit for, and allowed to join, the domestic sphere as a wife and mother.

In every way, this is a feminist short story. The post-partum depression theory has been seized on, consciously or not, by people who just can’t wrap their heads around the twin ideas that: 1-motherhood is not necessarily a profoundly emotional experience, and is not even necessarily part of the adult experience, and 2-chicks do things for reasons OTHER than their wacky biology.

Our editor teaches college and has tried to be tolerant of this viewpoint. No longer – it is not an innocent viewpoint, but one that is mendacious, sexist, and above all shockingly inattentive to the actual story.

Joe the Plumber, Tax Maverick!

The McCandidate’s Man of the Hour last night was Joe the Plumber, who’s concerned about having to pay more taxes under Obama. Joe wants a tax break. Funny – he’s already given himself one:

`Joe the plumber,” the Toledo, Ohio, man whose complaints about Barack Obama‘s tax plan were highlighted by John McCain in the final presidential debate, owes the state of Ohio almost $1,200 in back income taxes.

According to records on file with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, the state filed a tax lien against Samuel J. Wurzelbacher for $1,182.98 on Jan. 26, 2007, that is still active.

~ Bloomberg.com

No sense of civic duty, that’s what we see here. Taxes? Sharing for the common good? Ptah. Who needs a society where people work together and look out for each other, when we could have a society of proud individuals, hoarding their Preciouses.

Men’s Health – Way More Important Than Women’s

It is the voice of the Male, crying in the wilderness:

There is much ado in society about women’s health which, in my opinion is already more than adequately addressed…. Where is the hue and cry about this discrepancy in men’s health? Why aren’t there more headlines, investigations, studies and research into this? Why are women so concerned about their health (women are usually considerably more health conscious than men) when their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons are destined to live, on average 7 to 8 years less time than their female relations?

Why is it socially acceptable for men to die younger?

~ One “Fatesrider”

A damning indictment indeed. New Feminist smarts under the stinging lash of the prophet. Half a lash, that is, because the prophet only asks half of a good question; the whole question should be: Why are women concerned about their health when men aren’t concerned about theirs? Why do most men get all macho and squeamish when it comes to their health? “Fatesrider” asks: “why don’t we have a 10K run for Prostate Cancer?” Could it be because men would rather die – literally – than have a doctor put a gloved finger up their rectum?

New Feminist takes it back. Fatesrider is not a prophet, only an apprentice. His questions are good ones, but Fatesrider can’t look far enough forward into the future to realize the answer to all his questions: it’s men’s own fault that men’s health doesn’t get more attention. Instead, Fatesrider blames women, assuming that women should take care of men, that women are responsible for men’s survival, and thus revealing that his vision of the world looks back to mommy’s teat.

The WNBA: STILL Making People Mad?

So saith ESPN. Why? A whole bunch of dumbass reasons.

• “Normally, I wouldn’t care that the NBA is wasting some money on the side, but when there are avenues to invest that money that could actually provide a benefit for the NBA, that’s where I have an issue.” –Look, buddy, the definition of “waste” is something that doesn’t provide a benefit. So what you’re saying is, you have a problem with this “waste” of money – just not others.
• “It’s not the gender, it’s the talent. They just aren’t good enough yet. I say yet, because I recognize the progress they’ve made. The NBA didn’t start with the greatest talent either.” –So what you’re saying is, the first NBA fans were dumb and should not have been fans until, um, the NBA grew big enough – without fans – to um, not suck enough to be worth His Highness’ time.
• “It’s not about being threatened as a man, it’s about being threatened as a fan.” Of men. Right.
• “I have only one issue about the WNBA — it’s a violation of the Civil Rights Amendment.” Totally unlike men’s sports!

Legislating From the Bench

Those who hate Roe vs. Wade have scarcely ever read the majority opinion. Those who have, understand that law and private morality are two different things and that from a legal point of view RvW is unassailable.

It’s time to take some rhetoric back and lay it on the line: Those who wish to overturn RvW want judges to legislate from the bench – not the other way around.

Pro-Life, Pro-Obama

http://www.prolifeproobama.com/index.htm

The Hook-Up Culture

Independent Women’s Forum loves to talk about hook-up culture and how it damages women. The latest essay on this subject is a representative entry: Kylie Harrell, Duke student, argues that casual sex takes an emotional toll on women because women produce a hormone during sex called oxytocin. This hormone produces a sense of bonding, which is why women feel “heartbroken” when their male partner doesn’t want to turn a one-night stand into a relationship. Conclusion? “There is a biological explanation for the way you feel and the way he doesn’t feel,” writes Harrell, but this truth is being obscured by a “radical feminist agenda.”

Interesting, but oxytocin also is associated with reduced stress – so, if women are heartbroken the morning after he doesn’t call, they should by the same token recover that much more quickly. (Or, hell, maybe women should just become lesbians / woman-identified women — but something tells New Feminist that that logical extension of Harrell’s argument would be classified as “radical feminism,” so it must be stupid).

Furthermore, focusing on some hormone ignores other explanations for these women’s sadness. Maybe they feel used because they were used, not because they’re chicks.

Men implicitly get a free pass in this article for the highly scientific reason that they’re dudes and dudes do dude stuff. Evidently the conservative-leaning IWF doesn’t believe in free will.

In short, Harrell’s, and the IWF’s, insistence on biologizing everything is questionable and one-sided.

However, having said all that, New Feminist actually agrees – sort of – with Harrell’s conclusion, though not her premises. Casual sex isn’t a good idea. The very definition of casual sex is sex without emotional attachment – that is, using another’s body to pleasure oneself. In a responsible situation, the using is mutual, a bargain struck – I’ll let you use mine if you let me use yours. But it is still using.

New Feminist isn’t a fan of people using people. To NF, this comes under the heading of objectification, which doesn’t get any better just because more people do it, or because people agree to it. If consent were all that mattered, then every battered woman who says, “Well, I was asking for it,” would thereby make her own situation A-OK.

Consent is not enough – objectification is not good. It’s a moral and feminist issue and biology is frankly irrelevant. Is it easier for men to use women and treat them as objects? Interesting, but they still shouldn’t do it. Is it harder for women to use men and treat them as objects? That’s nice, and they shouldn’t do it either. They also shouldn’t give men a free pass and blame their failure to feel good after getting entangled in patriarchy on their lady-hormones.

How are the Mighty Fallen

McCain needs a game-changer. Tonight’s debate isn’t it.

He avoids eye contact with Obama; he will not name him beyond a jerk of the head and a reference to “this one.” He glares. He writes notes, stabbing the tablet so that the water in the glass on the shelf under the writing surface shakes. He makes “jokes” and nobody laughs. He reverts to tripe in his talking points, which increasingly reflect the stylistic influence of Sarah Palin (“uh, and also”).

His fans yell “Kill him [Obama]” and his vice-president doesn’t miss a beat. His ads pander to racism (“How disrespectful“). And his big campaign strategy is to turn himself into Hillary Clinton: A democrat for change + experience who has nothing to do with bad ol’ Bush – because that’s a proven strategy for success. At least Hillary is a Democrat; McCain just wants to be one if that’s what it takes to win.

David said it well: How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Johnathan, thou was slain in thine high places.

A Car for Ladies – Excuse Me, a Car-ette!

From the Guardian:

Iran’s biggest motor manufacturer is to take the country’s gender sensitivity to new levels by producing a car specially for women.It will be fitted with features common on the international market but seen as female-specific in Iran’s male-dominated culture. These include an automatic gearbox, electronic parking aids, a navigation system and a jack designed to make it easier to change a wheel, suggesting that women drivers lack the mechanical competence of their male counterparts. Alarms may also be installed to warn of flat tyres. The vehicle will be painted in soft “feminine” colours and include interior designs tailored to women’s tastes. There will also be audiovisual entertainment systems for child passengers.

Iran Khodro, the state-backed manufacturer, said it would put the first models on sale next June to coincide with Iranian women’s day. The car will be part of the Samand range, which has been exported to allied countries such as Syria and Venezuela. However, the women’s car will initially be aimed solely at the Iranian domestic market.

Vahid Najafi, managing director of Iran Khodro’s order unit, said the design was prompted by a sharp increase in women drivers and car owners and was based on research into their preferences and needs. Cars will be built in response to orders from customers.

“Women’s necessities are different from men’s,” Najafi said. “For example, a woman goes shopping, takes children to school – so this car is going to have some visual distinctions that will separate it from other cars. It will be more beautiful. Cheerful and attractive colours will be used – for example red. A series of decoration pieces will be added to the interior, on the dashboard for example. What’s important for women is that the car should be comfortable and handle well.”

The idea is in line with gender separation officially encouraged by Iran’s Islamic authorities. Last year they backed a proposal for a female bicycle designed to conceal the rider’s legs and upper body. Women are discouraged from cycling, mainly to preserve notions of female modesty, and are banned from riding motorcycles, except as passengers.

A women-only taxi service, with women drivers, was recently launched in Tehran and other big cities. Men and women are segregated in buses and on Tehran’s underground.

Iran Khodro last year announced plans for an Islamic car – with a navigation system designed to locate Mecca – to be produced jointly with Malaysia and Turkey.

Frankly, despite the sexist motives of the designers and the crass ones of the manufacterers, these cars sound a lot nicer than whatever dingy, featureless cars the macho sex is awarding itself. Since when is ugliness manly?