“If all women are feminists, then this strategy can work. But if the most attractive women are Republicans, then it will start breaking down.”

Good looking conservative women threaten the liberal status quo.  Or, in the alternative, Republicans are the new sexy. 

But seriously, the writer here is saying something I’ve noticed for a while.  Republicans have always had the stereotype of being old, and, with that, unattractive.  People, particularly young people, (and, I hate to say it, but even more particularly, young women) eschew the unattractive and unsexy, and gravitate towards that which they would like to emulate.  Women like those described in the article were brave enough to buck that, and now they’re changing our impressions of what is attractive.  Interesting.


OMG! An Attractive Woman!!

That’s a pretty accurate summary of Troy Patterson’s (Slate’s TV writer) “review” of Megyn Kelly’s new FoxNews midday show. 

First of all, it’s a mid-day show.  Which means that we’re not supposed to care about it.  Which he explains, but never provides any explanation (other than the obvious pointed out above) that he (or his readers) should care about it. 

The program itself is not anything special, nor does it need to be. As a midday show, its sole purpose is to keep a stream of information—meaningless and otherwise—flowing at a decent pace. As a Fox News offering, it just needs to throw out some red-state red meat, U.S. commercial grade or higher, every other block.

While he does throw in a few notes about her being an “up and coming” star (although she’s been a FoxNews regular for years, so I’m not sure what that’s all about), it’s pretty clear that his only reason for bringing her show to our attention is so that he can write stuff like this:

Megyn’s Manhattan studio offers a view of Sixth Avenue by way of a video screen and of her legs by way of a clear plastic desk. The desk is positioned atop a map of the 48 contiguous states such that Kansas City would seem to have a good view up her skirt. If it is less than gallant to make such an observation, it is more than fair to believe that Kelly would be OK with that.

My understanding of the concept of “post-feminist,” which Mr. Patterson insists that her show demonstrates, is that a woman can be a woman, including being attractive and feminine, and not have that limit her from being intellectual and reliable. Mr. Patterson’s understanding appears to be “she asked for it by wearing that skirt.”

And then they came for the gays

I’ve got a new article posted at NewsBlaze, where I discuss the way that liberals, believing that they and they alone have the monopoly on “oppressed people,” must destroy, by any means necessary, women, gays, and blacks who dare to outspokenly express conservative viewpoints.

This doesn’t delight me anymore

There was a time, when Barack the Lightworker was still in recent memory, when people were still painting things like this (BTW, not safe for work or anyone who ever wants to have sex ever again!), that any sign of liberal blowback, of liberal criticism, was something to cherish in the most lovely schadenfreude, and perhaps a bit of delight over the fact that maybe they aren’t all brainwashed. 

But I think that that day has passed.  Newsbusters points to an article, one among many, from a very leftwing professor detailing President Obama’s failings:

Barack Obama has now, in just a year’s time, become the single most inept president perhaps in all of American history, and certainly in my lifetime. Never has so much political advantage been pissed away so rapidly, and what’s more in the context of so much national urgency and crisis. It’s astonishing, really, to contemplate how much has been lost in a single year.

…he doesn’t really “charge” at anything. He just talks about things, thinks about things a real long time, defers to others on things, and waits around for things to maybe happen.

…I have never seen a president so utterly lacking in passion. This man literally doesn’t even seem to care about himself, let alone this or that policy issue. He doesn’t seem to have any strong opinions on anything, a sure prescription for presidential failure.

…if you’re trying to run the most failed presidency ever, a really good idea is to campaign in the grandest terms possible, and then deliver squat. You know, talk about bending the arc of history. Invoke Martin Luther King’s dream and his struggles and even those of the slaves. Ring the big bells of generational calling. Remind voters every thirty seconds that the country badly needs “Change!”. Then get elected and turn around and continue the policies of your hated predecessor in every meaningful policy area. Only with less conviction. People will love that.

Is it amusing in a way?  Sure.  He’s not wrong, not about anything.  And yet, that’s my country’s president he’s talking about.  I love this country.  On one hand, I can’t defend Obama here, but on the other, I don’t want to see the leader of the U.S.A. maligned quite like this, fairly or not.  I can’t argue against it, so I can only be sad that it has come down to this.

Ann Althouse has a great piece . . .

juxtaposing Sec. State Clinton’s wonderful pro-free speech statements recently with President Obama’s statements in view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC. 

Hillary says (in a discussion about speech in Vietnam):

In fact, I would like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. Explain what it is you’re doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that a blogger might be taking.

Obama says (in a discussion about the Supreme Court case refusing to allow censorship of a documentary which was intended to put down Hillary Clinton):

That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Terrifying.  Ironic.  Read the whole thing. 

Also, from reading the comments to this and others like it recently, I am amazed at how ignorent people (well, liberals) are on the concept of corporations as people.  Someone(s) in the liberal world is pushing the idea that this is a new idea, just put out by a runaway (evil-Bush supported) Supreme Court.  I don’t know who the source of this is; the liberal commenters who are pushing this on the ground are clearly just repeating what they have heard. 

This idea is hardly new.  Here’s a good Wikipedia article that explains the history, but in a nutshell, corporations have bene people for the purposes of contracts since 1819, and people under the 14th Amendment rights (which are basically all of the Bill of Rights rights) since 1886.  But then, liberals never were big scholars of history, were they?

Sen. Spector just proved that he is right where he belongs

in the sexist Democratic party. 

He and Michelle Bachmann are debating on a Philadelphia radio station.  She interrupts him (Shocking!  That is, unless you’ve never heard two politicians debate before, ever.)  He could ask her not to interrupt him; he could ask the host to intervene; he could (practicing a trick I’ve learned when working customer service phone calls) just keep talking until she realizes her overeagerness and stops.  But instead:

Now wait a minute. I’ll stop and you can talk,” Specter said. “I’ll treat you like a lady. So act like one.”  “I am a lady,” Bachmann replied.

Specter later went after Bachmann for saying she voted for “prosperity.”

“She said ‘I voted for prosperity,'” Specter said. “Well prosperity wasn’t a bill.”

“Well why don’t we make it a bill?” Bachmann responded.

“Now wait a minute, don’t interrupt me,” he said. “I didn’t interrupt you. Act like a lady.”

When Bachmann said, “I think I am a lady,” Specter toned down the rhetoric a bit, “I think you are too, that’s why I’m treating you like one.”

So, he’s treating her “like a lady.”  Not like a fellow politician, not like an equal.  Instead, he’s treating her like a little girl who’s trying to play too rough. 

In the eyes of many liberals, if you are female, you have a place.  You have a role, to act like a lady.  You’re allowed to do and say certain things, as long as you stay in your place and keep supporting the big boys.  Nancy Pelosi, well, she’s no threat to the fellows in charge; Hillary Clinton wasn’t until she tried to step out in front of them.  Step out of that little box that they’ve painted for you, by, for example, daring to speak up about conservatives, and it’s time for them to step in and put a stop to it.  You have a place, and they aim to keep you in it.

A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle, Assuming That the Woman Can Be Taken Care of By the Government

I’ve been mulling over this article, from the women-centric, “unabashedly intellectual, but not dry or condescending,” allegedly feminist Slate spin-off Double X for quite a few days, and I still can’t come up with exactly what I can say about it.  Have you ever had someone say something to you that was so offensive, so unabashedly insulting, that you are literally too shocked to respond?  Erika Kawalek says (bolding mine, of course):

I want to emphasize something about the difference between the state of affairs for women in America and in the rest of the civilized world. The competitiveness people bring to “dating” and “closing the deal” here is underpinned by intense economic competition and the desire—increasingly, the necessity—for basic social and physical security. There is a secret amongst the Canadian and European women living in the Big Apple. I know this because I am Canadian and my closest girlfriend is French, and when we resident aliens get together we really tear up this country and how it treats its women. (Our dating lives are fine and always have been.) When we talk about dating or the possibility of having family, with a man or on our own or with—gasp!—a coven of like-minded women (why not?), the conversation is framed entirely by the fact that we can count on our native countries to look after us should we—for whatever reason—not be able to make ends meet stateside. Now, we should be able to secure decent futures for ourselves, with or without male partners: We have Ivy League degrees, speak multiple languages, are savvy and entrepreneurial. We are also a lot more calm about dating and mating than the American women we know, who seem plagued by contradictory forces. . . .

I’m always baffled that women here don’t demand the same benefits on which we Canadian and European women rely. It would make dating and mating a lot easier, that’s for certain. American family values? Where are they?

So, the basic thesis of the article, the entire assumption of the argument, is that women can be, nay, should be, more equal by being parented by the state.  Kawalek argues that America is keeping women down by not providing, to all extents imaginable, any and all needs of any children they should choose to bear.  That the state is keeping us poor women from landing a husband by not offering to pick up any and all slack that he may leave behind (to say nothing at all about the slack that the woman should and could cover on her own).  The implicit, but clear, assumption underlying this article is that the woman is not capable of covering her own life’s costs. 

It’s notable that Kawalek’s suggestions about the security brought to Europeans is clearly, egregiously incorrect.  She never even considers the facts that these policies in no way correlate with higher marriage rates, indeed marriage rates in France, Canada, and almost all of Europe are far below ours.  The European fertility rates have dropped so far as to be considered a crisis, and Canada’s is similarly low, yet our American rates are still at replacement levels.  Men and women are simply not refusing to date and mate as a result of our smaller safety net.  Facts are, as usual, completely irrelevant to liberals when compared to what “should work” based on whatever theory happens to be in their heads. 

But I’m used to that.  I should be used to liberals assuming that women, like minorities, are completely incapable of things that men are expected to do with no problem (somebody, of course, has to be producing the wealth that is going to be taken away from them and provided to the helpless females in Kawalek’s world). 

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, said in his link to this article that the “dating secrets of Canadian and European women” referred to here “revolve around the state playing the role of the husband.”  I think Reynolds is too generous.  A husband expects some contribution and partnership with the wife.  Kawelek clearly wants a world where the state plays the daddy to the helpless child, dotingly covering any and all possible bumps in the road.  She, and her liberal cohorts, have so little respect for women, for me, for you or your wife or your mother or your daughter or your sister, that she thinks that it is only to be expected that we would need and demand that “help.”