Vox Popoli

Morgan won’t answer a simple question:

I’m hardly going to take the bait you’ve dangled and offer up any ten points to just please you and your Amen Chorus.

See Morgan write. See Morgan evade. The usual pattern. This is why she remains, intellectually speaking, a featherweight. If one wishes to be taken seriously, one cannot argue that I am attacking an extremist, straw version of an ideology by asserting that one’s own version on the ideology is different and then refuse to define that version. To do as she has done is a tacit admission of either intellectual cowardice or intellectual incompetence. I assume the former, but the latter is always possible.

To summarize the discussion to date:

VOX: Feminism is bad.

MOTL: You can’t say that because there are many different kinds of feminism. Never mind that there is a recognized canon which is taught in major universities across the country, my feminism is different.

VOX: Fine, so what is your feminism?

MOTL: I’m not telling!

I’m amazed that she doesn’t find this even a little bit embarrassing. I’d abandon my column in a heartbeat if I was ever reduced to that sort of pathetic evasion. And before she attempts to sidetrack the issue by claiming that I am avoiding what wasn’t even a direct question, I will point out that women have always worked. 29.6 percent of the workforce was female in 1950, prior to “liberation”, the difference is that married women, especially married middle-class and upper-middle class white women, did not work.

Since the workforce is now 46.6 percent female – an additional 48 million women – this has suppressed wages to the point that Moglie’s husband can no longer earn enough to provide her with the sort of insurance that would serve as an adequate safety net. The great irony of feminism is that through its advocacy of work for women, it has effectively removed the choice to stay at home for lower class, and to a certain extent, lower middle-class women.

This is not debatable, it is merely the operation of the iron law of supply and demand. And as Camille Paglia points out, the sole concern of feminist leaders from the very start has been the white, female upper-middle class.

As for Morgan’s bizarre attempt to muddy the issue with Christian denominations, I merely ask this: what is the feminist analogy to the belief in the birth, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ – not to mention the Bible – in which the failure to the orthodox view makes it clear to all that the self-professed Christian is not a Christian at all?

It is a simple matter to define Christianity as well as the differences between Southern Baptists, Catholics and Methodists. Given that feminism has been around for significantly less time and that many of its leaders are still alive, it should be even easier to provide equally clear definitions for feminism and its various strains.

Someone who knows a lot more than I do about making money raises an issue:

I can whip up a mean steak, but I still like to go to restaurants. Because I enjoy it. I enjoy getting out of the house with family, friends, who ever.

Every single Mavs game is on TV. It wasnt that long ago that some people in the sports business thought that having games on TV would reduce attendance. After all, why go to the game when you can watch it for free on TV ? Then someone decided to do some research and as it turns out, the more games you broadcast on TV, the more people who go to your games.

Isn’t it interesting how copyright holders so often shoot themselves in the foot in “protection” of what they assume to be their interests? It’s particularly interesting in light of Baen Books’ experience, which proved that giving out free text versions of its authors’ older books actually increased their sales.

Since bookstores increasingly carry a smaller number of titles and keep them on the shelves for a shorter period of time, the conventional book-selling model is becoming less and less beneficial to copyright holders. Increasing it from life plus 70 years to infinity isn’t going to put a single additional dollar into the pockets of the creators, so my guess is that it will not be too long before it is conclusively proven that the benefit of copyright to the creator is as nebulous as the once-credited benefit of public stadiums to the taxpayers.

The text is not the whole of the book experience, just as a meal is not the whole of the restaurant experience. Defenders of copyright are in the position of needing to explain the existence of restaurants, since according to their theory, the easy availability of better, cheaper food at home should all but eliminate any demand for eating out.

Here’s something I’ve never quite understood about the working woman vs housewife issue. The classic feminist argument is that women who stay at home won’t be satisfied and fulfilled, because they are stifled and oppressed by being limited to their roles as wives and mothers. So, in order to find themselves, and presumably, satisfaction, they recommend that women go out and spend over a third of the day doing something that they enjoy so little that someone has to offer them money in order to get them to do it.

Meanwhile, the first thing that a wealthy and successful man does when he can afford to do so is vacate the office! True, he’s probably not cleaning any bathrooms, but then, the average woman’s distaste for cleaning bathrooms is clearly not so great that anyone has to give her money to get her to do it. At least, not in the case of women with clean bathrooms….

This reminds me of the fable of the king and his general, wherein the general convinces the conquest-hungry king that even if they do go out and conquer the world, success will be crowned by their ability to sit peacefully in the sun and drink wine, exactly as they are doing already.

So, don’t expect to find much personal fulfillment in anything you wouldn’t do if someone wasn’t paying you money to do it. This would seem to be pretty obvious, and yet it has apparently escaped the attention of three generations of women pining to join the workforce.

Morgan sabotages her own argument:

Wow. It takes a big man to advocate hitting women. It takes an even bigger one to kick a dead one.

Yes, most men are afraid to openly advocate hitting women. I’m not. If a woman offers sufficient provocation, then deck her, with no more thought than you’d give a man who offered similar offense. This equality is exactly what women have been demanding… of course, once a rational mind points out the obvious consequence, women like Morgan don’t like it. Hey, you’ve come a long way, baby.

Gamma Males, take note of how this typical female tactic of attempted browbeating intended to inspire fear of social rejection simply doesn’t work with men who don’t buy into it. There’s nothing behind it, so why do you always fall for it?

However, for those of you howling with glee, may I propose you put your convictions into practice? If you truly object to women in the workplace, then you should begin making a concerted effort to boycott business that employ them, especially at executive levels.

Why bother? Is she talking about executive assistants or sales executives… or perhaps she has forgotten the Glass Ceiling. It cracks me up how Carly Fiorina is STILL trumpeted as some kind of feminist success story.

In fact, just avoid working women all together. If you suffer a heart attack or and need an ambulance, refuse treatment if the paramedic or driver is a woman. (You might want to make sure your family knows of your plans so they can do this on your behalf, should you be incapacitated.) If you are fortunate enough to have male attendants and male drivers on your way to the hospital, once your there make sure you only consent to treatment from male doctors, male nurses, male radiologists, anesthesiologists and pharmacists. And make sure you refuse drugs developed with the help of female researchers. Make sure, while you’re at it that you refuse treatment for your minor children – emergency or otherwise – from female pediatricians. And if your favorite hunting dog gets hit by a car and a female veterinarian is your only option, shoot the dog. Puppies are a dime a dozen.

If you’re seeking to have a written work published, *make sure* the publishing company knows what you think of working women up front. Ask that your writings only be reviewed by men, as any woman who rejects them will obviously have done so due to their feminist agenda.

Don’t watch television shows or movies. Those programs are full of working mothers.

I’m cool with all that, as long as men have the ability to hire whoever they want without women running to Big Daddy Government to make those mean nasty men give them jobs. Speaking of which, just how many men work for Mary Kay? What’s that I smell, an equal opportunity lawsuit? It seems Morgan hasn’t been paying attention to the television industry, which has been in panic mode of late because men in that all-important 18-35 demographic increasingly refuse to watch television. They prefer electronic games, which are created by men for men, with almost no female interference.

And of course, Morgan provides a wonderful explanation of how women can be relied upon to abuse positions of power, as she knows perfectly well that most women editors will NOT judge a work based on its potential financial benefit to the publisher, they will instead shoot it down simply because they don’t like the political views of the author. Since four of my five editors have been women, it would be interesting to know how many of them would have rejected that which they deemed acceptable if they had only been aware that I am a Thought Criminal.

But it’s heartening to know that Morgan is, like me, pro-discrimination, formerly known as the Constitutional right to free association.

Wendy McElroy on the late, unlamented Betty Friedan:

Friedan’s assessment of the housewife may well have been instrumental in the decades-long devaluation of women who chose that option. She wrote, “Housewives are mindless and thing-hungry…Housework is peculiarly suited to the capabilities of feeble-minded girls; it can hardly use the abilities of a woman of average or normal human intelligence.”

That pretty much sums up why working women feel superior to homemakers, and why homemakers used to feel the need to apologize for or somehow dress up their occupation. Because, of course, it requires so much more ability and intelligence to arrange pretty pictures in a Powerpoint demonstration or work out UPS charges and send the same three invoice forms out to your company’s client base.

And as for the smart ones… like we really need more lawyers generating income by interfering with the productive classes. Or more high-priced consultants getting paid in order to give the executives cover for their screw-ups.

Friedan was a Marxist, a myth-maker and a moron. I’ll urinate on her grave if I ever happen to stumble across it. She was one of the most ruinous public figures of the 20th century and it’s truly a shame her mother wasn’t an abortionette like the vast majority of her followers.

After long reflection, I have decided to make a major change in my life. After more than a decade of loyalty, I am abandoning my former footwear. Yes, gentle reader, I know it comes as a shock, but at long last I have decided to forsake Bally in favor of Geox as my primary means of being shod.

I am not proud of my inconstance, but the disappointments have been grievous for lo, these last three years. The elegant shoes that felt like slipping one’s feet into warm butter are no more, shoes of a lost golden age, now replaced by lesser creations that look, but do not feel, like Bally of yore.

Still, I am not entirely treacherous, as I remain faithful to Mr. Armani as well a certain camiceria.

MoveOn is worried about media bias:

This Sunday, CNN engaged in one of the most troubling trends in political dialogue today — pitting a right-wing advocate against a journalist who is paid to be neutral and calling it a “balanced” discussion of political issues.

Discussing the president’s State of the Union address on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” were Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank and Byron York, which CNN described as “of National Review.”

What CNN did not say is that the National Review is a right-wing movement magazine and that York is author of the book Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. As could be expected, no progressive perspective was offered on President Bush’s biggest speech of the year….

Why would CNN do something so obviously unfair and unbalanced? Either they didn’t think about it, which is a huge problem, or this is just the latest example of a news outlet caving to the right-wing’s false charge of “liberal bias” in the media — presuming that any real journalist must inherently be liberal.

Perhaps that’s because at least 95 percent of “real” journalists are liberal. What passes for liberal logic runs thusly:

1. Journalists work for corporations
2. Corporations are conservative
3. Therefore, even genuinely liberal journalists are forced to be politically moderate.
4. And besides, they are trained to be objective in journalism school.

Of course, as I have previously proved, (2) is demonstrably false, as anyone who is so unfortunate as to have encountered the HR departments of the Fortune 500 knows. As for four, many journalists have never been to journalism school, even if one accepts the questionable idea that one can be trained to be objective.

One wonders if these trained, objective journalists would be willing to concede that every business executives who has taken an ethics course in the process of obtaining his MBA may therefore be considered ethical.

From Editor and Publisher:

* National Public Radio decided not to even post a Web link to the cartoons. “The bottom line for me is that the cartoon is so highly offensive to millions of Muslims that it’s preferable to describe it in words rather than posting it on the web,” said NPR News executive Bill Marimow, the former editor of The Sun in Baltimore. “In this case, I believe that our audience can, through our reports — on radio and the web — get a very detailed sense of what’s depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs.”

* At USA Today, “we concluded that we could cover the issue comprehensively without republishing the cartoon, something clearly offensive to many Muslims. It’s not censorship, self or otherwise,” said Deputy World Editor Jim Michaels.

* According to an article in today’s USA Today, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a “long and vigorous debate” that publishing the cartoon would be “perceived as a particularly deliberate insult” by Muslims. “Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do.”

Of course, Bill Keller and company don’t mind putting a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in shit in the paper again. Perhaps a few Catholic radicals need to behead Mr. Keller, then the NYT might realize that it is giving a “particularly deliberate insult” to Catholics.

It’s become inarguably obvious that these secular champions of the 1st Amendment are pansy paper tigers. They’re bold and brave enough when attacking a religion that instructs followers to turn the other cheek, but they suddenly find deep sensitivity and respect when a religion of the sword is involved.

The lesson? No atheist ever died for his religion.

From the editors at the New York Press:

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper’s publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

Editor-in-Chief Harry Siegel emails, on behalf of the editorial staff:

New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization. Having been ordered at the 11th hour to pull the now-infamous Danish cartoons from an issue dedicated to them, the editorial group—consisting of myself, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editorJonathan Leaf and one-man city hall bureau Azi Paybarah, chose instead to resign our positions.

We have no desire to be free speech martyrs, but it would have been nakedly hypocritical to avoid the same cartoons we’d criticized others for not running, cartoons that however absurdly have inspired arson, kidnapping and murder and forced cartoonists in at least two continents to go into hiding. Editors have already been forced to leave papers in Jordan and France for having run these cartoons. We have no illusions about the power of the Press (NY Press, we mean), but even on the far margins of the world-historical stage, we are not willing to side with the enemies of the values we hold dear, a free press not least among them.

Meanwhile, CNN is refusing to display them out of respect for Islam. Of course, as John Miller of NRO’s Corner has pointed out, it has no similar regard for Christianity or Judaism.

Perhaps Christians should take notes from this unsurprising, but signal lesson in secular pusillanimity and shoot a few artists, editors and movie producers. No doubt we’d be up to our necks in television shows about King David and movies about the Apostle Paul within months.

Only three newspapers are willing to cover a story accurately. I guess they weren’t all that willing to sacrifice their lives for their right to speak freely; what are the chances that they actually stand by that Voltairean flag they’re always waving?

This Valentines Day, indulge her fantasies… SEX AND THE CITY: THE COMPLETE SERIES

I found this to be an educational advertisement, as apparently women’s fantasies primarily revolve around behaving in a totally conventional manner while presenting a falsely adventurous front to the world.

Sex in the City was rather like a hopelessly inept porn movie, where at the last moment, the clothes stay on and no one except the cautionary figure out of the traditional morality tale actually does anything but have missionary-style sex with the boyfriend. Thus, Charlotte and Miranda flirt with the idea of having threesomes but don’t, Carrie can’t have a fling without attempting to turn the mystified guy into a fixture and the eternal transgressor, Samantha, is punished with betrayal and cancer. Charlotte, we are given to understand, can’t even bear to give blow jobs, and Miranda, her inexplicable affairs notwithstanding, is about as sexually intriguing as a legal brief on import tax.

There are other fantasies, too, from the Beast’s inevitable taming in the end to the idea that a man will be so enraptured with a woman that he will leap from his younger, prettier new lover’s bed to rush to her side should she beckon. And then, there was the biggest fantasy of all… that four (presumably) attractive women whose primary connection was social would stay friends through thick and thin.

This was TV for the F/F – Friends Forever – crowd. What’s mystifying isn’t its popularity since escapist fantasy has always been popular, whether it is set in Manhattan or a Galaxy Far Far Away. What is mystifying is how anyone could take it seriously as a cultural icon, a guide to personal behavior or a realistic representation of modern American women.