Explicitly Laid Out Like a Fruitcake

FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL!

DID YOU KNOW...  that women are not the chief victims of idiotic vapid sexist crap as spewed by the American media?

DID YOU KNOW... that feminists are not the folks who have Real-True Legitimate Bitching Rights when the American media engage in spewing said idiotic vapid sexist crap?

OF COURSE NOT! You see, when the idiot American media spew idiotic vapid sexist crap, the real victims are in fact...  anti-feminist conservative bloggers! Vide, Tigerhawk:

I like visible cleavage as much as anybody. As far as I'm concerned, let's have more of it. But how will those of us who believe that political feminism has outlived its usefulness sustain that belief if one of the nation's leading newspapers insists on deconstructing Hillary Clinton's neckline?

Stupid MSM, proving the feminists right when conservatives would so very much like the feminists to be so very wrong. This revelation of an anti-feminist bias on the part of the MSM is incontrovertible evidence that the MSM is biased against conservatives!

Wheeeeeee!

WIngnuttia is a magical land where the carnival rides never, ever end.

Comments

[NTodd]

I like boobies.

[myiq2xu]

The most common logical fallacy engaged in by wingnuttia is the "Straw man." First they proclaim what "liberals" believe, then they prove how wrong it is. The problem is, the only "liberals" who assert those beliefs are the imaginary ones invented by the wingnuts.

[TigerHawk]

Sigh.

You guys need to stop by my blog more often, so you can distinguish the tongue-in-cheek and the ingenuous. Or not. Your call.

[anon]

I don't follow Tigerhawk, but your aim seems off in this one instance. I do see him taking issue with the wapo article, but I don't see him making the case that con bloggers are the victims in this, or that the msm is biased against cons.

I think his point is that he is an anti-feminist and so when he sees stupid sexism which he acknowledges does exist, it just makes his position that much harder to advocate.

Also in weird news, if I read TBogg correctly, he almost agrees with Althouse on this issue.

I myself think Hillary's boobies, in this display, barely can be called cleavage, and there is of course nothing wrong with her attire. But I do think that commenting on this display shows that Althouse is not the 2nd wave feminist she claims to be.

It's potentially one thing for her to rag on Jessica Valenti in terms of 2nd wave vs. 3rd wave and what Althouse perceives to be exploitation of Valenti's body and of the breast on Valenti's blog (breastblogging!), but in what feminist world can Althouse participate in which this particular display (or non-display) of Senator Clinton is deemed noteworthy?

[zuzu]

Also in weird news, if I read TBogg correctly, he almost agrees with Althouse on this issue.

Oh, you're kidding. But then, she can't resist Clintons plus boobies.

My issue with the piece is really that it started off as an interesting examination of different cultures' reactions to displays of cleavage and/or sexiness in their female leaders, and then went to hell when she admitted her own discomfort with Hillary loosening up a little, sartorially. And that's really where she brought in the value judgments of HRC as a person and as a woman, and crossed the line.

[Thers]

I think his point is that he is an anti-feminist and so when he sees stupid sexism which he acknowledges does exist, it just makes his position that much harder to advocate.

Uh, which is precisely my point.

You guys need to stop by my blog more often, so you can distinguish the tongue-in-cheek and the ingenuous.

I assumed that's where your tongue was - but... so?

Neither of these objections has anything to do with the fact that the post I'm mocking betrays a ludicrous and eminently mockable contradiction.

[KC45s]

Wingnuttia is a magical land where the carnival rides never, ever end.

No wonder I read this stuff and feel dizzy and nauseated.

[anon]

I see, I thought you were also saying that Tigerhawk was claiming victimhood, but that was just part of your satire. I spent too much time staring at a screen today....

[anon]

So I don't want to weasel out from an interesting conversation for the sake of being afraid to offend my host.

I take it this is the claim at at the heart of what you find an eminently mockable contradiction:

But how will those of us who believe that political feminism has outlived its usefulness

I do see the contradiction of the wapo article and the belief that feminism has outlives its usefulness. Also, understand I am probably too tired to be typing, but it is still 2+ hours until I can pick Potter up for my daughter.

So this is a for real question that I don't see answered at any of our top tier feminist blogs:

It's an n-part question:

Can you describe the conditions under which
feminism will have outlived its usefulness?

How does that end society differ from a society in which there is no longer any sexism?

The motivation is that I am trying to determine what "feminism" is and what its end goals are. I think I understand what sexism is, and I think as a society we can measure sexism and our progress towards eliminating sexism.

But I honestly don't know what the end goals of feminism are, but I've seen at several feminist blogs (such as I Blame The Patriarchy) that it is not just the elimination of sexism, but something more.

Anyway, I think I'll just think good thoughts that Hermione, Ron, and Harry make it through the night.

(Really not trying to troll, really looking for a non-confrontational dialogue with someone in the world about feminism in which we can each understand the other side is arguing in good faith and intellectual honesty.)

[Thers]

Anon, fair enough. I'll respond on the main page because it's worth an airing out of this stuff.

[TigerHawk]

All good questions, anon. Who knows, maybe at the end of it I will think that political feminism has a continuing purpose that even I, a "wingnut" but the standards of these parts, would support.

[Thers]

Aw, don't be so hard on yourself. You're a wingnut but any standard!