Posts Tagged ‘culture wars’

…and jump into the argument between two of the people I am most fond of on the net.

I’ve already talked about what I think of and owe Stacy McCain and There is no person in bloggerdom whose company I enjoy more than Little Miss Attila, but this is getting ridiculous.

Stacy put out 4000 words last night on the History of feminism. It is very detailed and quite a read. I would recommend it to anyone.

Yesterday Joy today fisked a previous Stacy’s post and answered his magnum opus with a single drawing and two sentences proving she is an expert in blog Jujutsu.

I haven’t talked to either Stacy or Joy about this exchange but I am going to comment very briefly on the substance and I’ll let them correct me if I’m misinterpreting it either of them.

The way I see it Stacy is saying that Feminism and its origins are a lot less clean than a lot of people see it and that conservatives should avoid being seen as “feminists” because it means something that is quite different that what we think it does.

The way I see it Attila is defending Feminism or what she is calling equity feminism and saying that is is not invalid for a conservative to believe in it.

A lot of this is starting to look like dogs chasing tales so lets cut to that chase:

1. Per Stacy’s argument, There are a lot of nasty roots in the feminist movement, just as there were a lot of people happy to break bread with the communists in the civil rights movement. We might even stipulate that both groups used addressing an actual wrong (Jim Crow and inequality before the law of the sexes) to advance something they were more loyal to (the overthrow of capitalism and western culture that they found racist and/or sexist). Thus feminism means something and we should let the left have that label and stew in it.

2. Per Attila’s argument the basic equality before the law of women (and the equality of souls in the before the eyes of God) is a basic human right. Such a belief and the advancement of said belief is feminism 101 in the same way that belief in Christ is Christianity 101. One can adopt the label feminist without paying homage to the leftist maxims of some of those who followed it at the time. Or to use the Christian example, Protestants don’t shun the term Christian because we Catholics were using it hundreds of years before Luther was a gleam in his mother’s eye.

In terms of an intellectual point and history, Stacy makes good points, but I think he is forgetting something about society.

Words mean things as he says but the meaning of words change over time. 150 years if someone said “Michael Jordan is cool” the answer expected would be “Well have him come closer to the fireplace.” More importantly the public perception of the meaning of those words change.

When society thinks of the word feminism, they do not think of the Marxist roots or any of the class warfare BS that the left was trying to peddle, they are thinking simply of the base equality before the law of the sexes. The terms has become mainstreamed to the point where it can be used without incident.

Stacy correctly worries that like planned parenthood’s Eugenic past, this allows Radical feminists such as NOW and those in the gender studies department to co-op the uninformed because people think they are simply supporting woman’s rights when they are in fact supporting wrongs, wrongs simply used to sexualize our society even further or as a club to beat Western Civilization, Christianity and the US while ignoring actual wrongs against women in the East and in Islam. It’s a valid worry and I think it is very important to call them out loudly and regularly!

Happily there is an easy and well known term for such people propagated over the last two decades, that can be used without using the now generic terms Feminist: Feminazi.

I submit it would be healthier and easier to deploy the Feminazi term, particularly within the movement than to try and insist people stop deploying the, I submit now generic term “feminist”. In terms of changing hearts and minds I say its the best move. Additionally it forces the feminist left (read feminazi) to explain why a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Tammy Bruce or a Little Miss Attila is “not” a feminist. Inevitably their anger leads them instead into the trap of proclaiming that they are not valid “women” retreating into a level of misogyny that alienates regular people and forces honest feminists to recoil, thus dividing them.

Or to put it another way Stacy has a good intellectual point, both socially and politically I think its to our disadvantage.

And although it is entertaining intellectually (and may or may not have been productive in terms of hits) I think that like Road Runner cartoons this is getting too long. I can’t think it’s generating enough hits to make it worth going on.

Stacy thinks we should abandon the term feminism to the left: Fine, that’s a valid opinion but I disagree.
Attila thinks we should not: Fine, that’s a valid opinion too. I agree and state why.

Now excuse me while I duck for cover.

Update: Cripes that generated a bunch of comments and links quickly. Maybe I should just schedule them together on the show and let them have it out. April 2nd is open.

Advertisements

This time in overwhelmingly democratic Maryland:

The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

But the closer the bill got to a final vote, the bumpier its path became. One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.

Dan Riehl point out the obvious:

Many of the arguments against running conservatives are false arguments spun by the Left which the GOP establishment embraces because the media embraces them.

How many states are we going to concede to liberalism? We’ve done that for so long, we’re now in a place where a Leftist like Obama can get elected without being exposed until he gets into office. If the pattern continues, you can forget conservative. We’re almost at a tipping point where we’ll never have a conservative Washington because we accept the notion that conservatism can’t win in so may places, especially due to social issues.

As you might guess Jonathan Capeheart is very angry:

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland. emphasis mine

Hang on a second I’m confused. Haven’t we been hearing the left screaming about money in politics (particularly from the Koch family)? Doesn’t the left believe that reps should be voting based on the wishes of the people they represent and not donors? Apparently not, check some of the gay sites, they are very angry about people they gave money to voting against them.

So we must conclude the rules are as follows:

If you get money from the right and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a brave independent voice.

If you get money from the left and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a traitor.

Any questions?

Apparently its primary purpose is to make a social statement:

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Let me point out something very simple. The purpose of the military is not to reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of the country. The job of the military is to:

  • Fight and deter the enemies of the united states
  • Defend our allies and to deter those who would threaten them.
  • Protect American interest and citizens.

As long as we are able to do this, I don’t care if our military is composed of three-legged aliens who all answer to the name “Harold”. I’ll let others argue the specifics, the bottom line is promotion and leadership should be based on whatever helps the military achieve those goals I listed, that it!

The moment we do otherwise we lose the best military in the world, and believe me the rest of the world and our enemies are watching.

Planned parenthood is certainly trying to earn their name with this nonsense, because if kids follow this advice they’d better plan for parenthood:

The World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations this week where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” The event was part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which concludes this week.

Because this is exactly what Girl Scouts (Girl Guides is the English Version) is all about learning how to be hot.

And of course why stop there:

The New York Times recently reported that UN Population Fund had co-sponsored a very controversial curriculum with UNESCO, that included teaching children as young as five to be sexually active and training adolescents to advocate for abortion.

Via Pundit and Pundette who also comments on the previous NEA outrage concluding:

Ms. Schneider doesn’t want this to be a choice. Got it. Parental involvement is the last thing they want. It might interfere with the agenda against “heterosexism.”

Stacy McCain who has an image of the cover and one page of the handout has this to say:

Those of you old enough to think of Girl Scouts in terms of crafts, camping and cooking are probably astonished by this, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the national Girl Scouts organization has been hijacked by radical feminists.

Might as well send them camping with Charlie Sheen . . .

As for Planned Parenthood, as I said on the show, if they have $200k for ads then I think they can pay for this nonsense without taxpayer funds, don’t you?

Update:
I gave a copy of McCain’s article to a local girl scout leader after mass today. I think her jaw dropped off and rolled down the front stairs.