The ‘dissident feminist’ on the intersection between feminism and debate.
Camile Paglia writes: History moves in cycles. The plague of political correctness and assaults on free speech that erupted in the 1980s and were beaten back in the 1990s have returned with a vengeance. In the United States, the universities as well as the mainstream media are currently patrolled by well-meaning but ruthless thought police, as dogmatic in their views as agents of the Spanish Inquisition. We are plunged once again into an ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group.
The premier principles of my new book, Free Women, Free Men, are free thought and free speech—open, mobile, and unconstrained by either liberal or conservative ideology. The liberal versus conservative dichotomy, dating from the split between Left and Right following the French Revolution, is hopelessly outmoded for our far more complex era of expansive technology and global politics. A bitter polarization of liberal and conservative has become so extreme and strident in both the Americas and Europe that it sometimes resembles mental illness, severed from the common sense realities of everyday life.
My dissident brand of feminism is grounded in my own childhood experience as a fractious rebel against the suffocating conformism of the 1950s, when Americans, exhausted by two decades of economic instability and war, reverted to a Victorian cult of domesticity that limited young girls’ aspirations and confined them (in my jaundiced view) to a simpering, saccharine femininity. Read the rest of this entry »
“If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.”
– Margaret Thatcher
“Do you think you would ever have heard of Christianity if the Apostles had gone out and said, ‘I believe in consensus?’”
– Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”
– Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite characteristic of them.”
– Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister
“The feminist movement is not about success for women. It is about treating women as victims and about telling women that you can’t succeed because society is unfair to you, and I think that’s a very unfortunate idea to put in the minds of young women because I believe women can do whatever they want.”
– Phyllis Schlafly
“The United States is the world’s most stunning example of a nation that has peaceably and successfully assimilated people from many disparate cultures. So why are some people trying to separate us into factions, emphasizing what divides us instead of what unites us?”
– Phyllis Schlafly
“We certainly don’t need a committee of foreigners who call themselves “experts” to dictate our laws or customs. But that’s what this treaty and most other U.N. treaties try to do.”
– Phyllis Schlafly
“Environmental policies are driven by a kind of emotional spiritualism that threatens the very foundation of our society. There is increasing evidence of a government-sponsored religion in America. This religion, a cloudy mixture of new-age mysticism, Native American folklore, and primitive Earth worship, is being promoted and enforced by the Clinton administration in violation of our rights and freedoms.”
– Helen Chenoweth, U.S. Congressman (don’t call her “Congresswoman”) Read the rest of this entry »
Okay, not brainwashing, exactly. ‘Drying of the hair’.
Eine neuartige Erfindung zum Trocknen der Haare. Vorf¸hrung auf der j‰hrlichen Messe in White City. Photographie. England. Um 1930. An ingenius method of drying the hair. Practical demonstrations, presented at the annual White City Fair. Photograph. England. Around 1930.
“Most of the American electorate has probably been ready for a woman president for some time. But that woman must have the right array of qualities and ideally have risen to prominence through her own talents and not (like Hillary Clinton or Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) through her marriage to a powerful man.”
Camille Paglia writes: Why has the U.S., the cradle of modern democracy, never had a woman president?
Incredulous young feminists, watching female heads of state multiply from Brazil and Norway to Namibia and Bangladesh, denounce this glaring omission as blatant sexism. But there are systemic factors, arising from the Constitution, popular tradition, and our electoral process, that have inhibited American women from attaining the highest office in the land.
The U.S. president is not just chief executive but commander-in-chief of the armed forces, an anomaly that requires manifest personal authority, particularly during periods of global instability. Women politicians, routinely focused on social welfare needs, must demonstrate greater involvement with international and military affairs.
“The protracted and ruthlessly gladiatorial U.S. electoral process drives talented women politicians away from the fray. What has kept women from winning the White House is not simple sexism but their own reluctance to subject themselves to the harsh scrutiny and ritual abuse of the presidential sweepstakes.”
Second, the president has a ceremonial function, like that of the British royal family, in symbolically representing the history and prestige of the nation. Hence voters subliminally look for gravitas, an ancient term describing the laconic dignity of Roman senators. The president must project steadiness, sober reserve, and deliberative judgment. Many women, who tend to talk faster and smile more than men, have trouble with gravitas as performance art.
[Order Paglia’s book “Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars” from Amazon]
Third, the complex, coast-to-coast primary system in the U.S. forces presidential candidates into well over a year of brutal competition for funding and grass-roots support. Their lives are usurped by family-disrupting travel, stroking of rich donors, and tutelage by professional consultants and p.r. flacks. This exhausting, venal marathon requires enormous physical stamina and perhaps ethical desensitization to survive it.
In contrast, many heads of state elsewhere ascend through their internal party structure. They are automatically elevated to prime minister when their party wins a national election. This parliamentary system of government has been far more favorable for the steady rise of women to the top. Read the rest of this entry »
Women Are Buying More Guns Than Ever
AWR Hawkins writes: Women have emerged as one of the fastest-growing demographics of new gun buyers and concealed carry permit holders in the country, and in the process, they have become a driving force in the shift in American attitudes from pro-gun control to pro-gun rights.
“This growing participation of women in firearm purchases and firearm-related activities has not happened overnight. Rather, it has been steadily increasing over a number of years.”
In January, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that “women [are] buying more guns than ever.” And the result of this surge in women gun buyers has been an expansion of firearms and firearms accessories made to cater to the female market. Many of the accessories are often designed and marketed by fellow women gun owners.
“The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that this is not only providing new markets for the gun industry and expanding the number of concealed carry permits issued to women, but also impacting Americans’ views on guns and gun rights.”
This growing participation of women in firearm purchases and firearm-related activities has not happened overnight. Rather, it has been steadily increasing over a number of years. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation found that 2011 and 2012 showed the surge beginning with a “79 percent … increase in female” customers buying firearms and/or firearm accessories. The trend has continued from that point. Read the rest of this entry »
The Warrior Pack purse line. There are 8 different ways you can wear the purse (handbag, purse, thigh holster, shoulder holster, messenger bag, backpack, fanny pack, and protected purse). Simply adjust the straps to change the look. The safest purse ever created and even more safe with a Glock 23 in the middle compartment! A high quality leather bag that is fun and gets noticed. See more at www.warrior-creek.com. and visit Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WarriorCreek for giveaways and promotional offers. This bag is badass!
And there’s no reason to believe it will work in 2014. The exit polls tell the real story.
For the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved writes: President Obama is suddenly upset about the alleged wage gap between men and women, but he’s not responding to a national economic crisis. Instead, he is attempting to revive the “war on women” theme that, according to Washington wisdom, helped carry Democrats to victory in 2012 and might do again in 2014. If this narrative were true, the White House could spend the year demonizing Republicans as women-hating creeps, driving women to the polls in November and helping the party hold the Senate.
But the conventional analysis isn’t accurate. National exit polls from 2012 show scant success for the war-on-women ploy, and there’s no reason to think trotting it out again will help Democrats in the midterms.
True enough, Mr. Obama won the overall female vote by 11 points in 2012—55% to 44%—but that’s hardly remarkable for a Democratic presidential candidate. Al Gore fared the same in 2000, prevailing among women by an identical 11-point advantage. Mr. Obama did better with women in 2008, beating John McCain by 56% to 43%. He enjoyed that advantage even though his first campaign never emphasized “women’s issues” and despite the presence of a woman— Sarah Palin—on the Republican ticket.
A closer look at the numbers reveals that Mr. Obama’s success with the ladies actually stemmed from his well-known appeal to minority voters. In 2012, 72% of all women voters identified themselves as “white.”
This subset preferred Mitt Romney by a crushing 14-point advantage, 56% to 42%. Though Democrats ratcheted up the women’s rhetoric in the run-up to Election Day, the party did poorly among the white women it sought to influence: The Republican advantage in this crucial segment of the electorate doubled to 14 points in 2012 from seven points in 2008. In the race against Mr. Romney, Obama carried the overall female vote—and with it the election—based solely on his success with the 28% of women voters who identified as nonwhite. He carried 76% of Latina women and a startling 96% of black women.
The same discrepancy exists when considering marital status. In 2012, nearly 60% of female voters were married, and they preferred Mr. Romney by six points, 53% to 46%. Black and Latina women, on the other hand, are disproportionately represented among unmarried female voters, and they favored Mr. Obama by more than 2-to-1, 67% to 31%.
One of my favorite simmerin’-sauce jazz bloggers, Jazzybeatchick, has an item you’ll want to see more of…
I wanted to feature the Phenomenal Women who have influenced and were inspirational in my life particularly in the 1960’s when civil rights was not solely relegated to race. Mom was my role model. my B1FF and beside the fact that she was the best mom; it’s because she was an educator who believed and promoted multiethnic culturalism including women to assimilate into American cultural life. That meant not to segregate but the inclusion where we all would learn about diversity and to respect and appreciate one another. My father, forced to deal racism in the jazz world, chose not make waves however it was whole different talk show when it came to allowing women to participate in performances because that would’ve make the situation worse on both fronts. Neither agenda survived!
Today they’re particularly milfed by Japan’s beauty contests honoring women over 30. It must be upsetting to discover that the Japanese don’t conform to the correct standards of propriety that righteous monocultural western feminists are trained to focus their flippant fury on. Their disapproval is a badge of honor! And their critique is colorful. Hint: it involves biscuits, and how they’re taken.
We’re aware that we live in a world of seriously offensive and sexist things, but the National Beautiful Witches Contest for the over-35s simply has to take the biscuit.
Housewife Mayumi Nishimura, 39, won the prize, for her “cheerful disposition” reported Rocket News 24…
That really takes the cake, doesn’t it? The biscuit, I mean.
Fear not, it’s all in good fun. Their complaint is peppered with harmless insults, and is preceded by a hilariously over-the-top headline, revealing that they aren’t as serious as they pretend to be.
Human rights activists say approved bill, making girls vulnerable to the ruling from age 13, ‘legalizes paedophilia’
Saeed Kamali Dehghan reports: Parliamentarians in Iran have passed a bill to protect the rights of children which includes a clause that allows a man to marry his adopted daughter and while she is as young as 13 years.
Activists have expressed alarm that the bill, approved by parliament on Sunday, opens the door for the caretaker of a family to marry his or her adopted child if a court rules it is in the interests of the individual child.
Iran’s Guardian Council, a body of clerics and jurists which vets all parliamentary bills before the constitution and the Islamic law, has yet to issue its verdict on the controversial legislation.
To the dismay of rights campaigners, girls in the Islamic republic can marry as young as 13 provided they have the permission of their father. Boys can marry after the age of 15. Read the rest of this entry »