Feminism Laid Bare

I guess the feminists will attack me for the title alone.

Here is feminism in one paragraph at Pandagon:

That said, this is a particular sore spot, because feminists know all too well that our appearance is scrutinized to death and then our enemies make proclaimations (sic) that all our motivations can be correctly assessed by our appearance. I've been told by countless people that I wouldn't be a feminist if I weren't ugly and when they find out I'm not, many of them will flip around and claim I only "get away" with having feminist politics because men indulge me because of my looks. That kind of crap can really scare you off the entire topic of examining how women present themselves and what that might mean. And that's what Malkin is capitalizing on, sadly with an audience that mostly thinks, "Feminists are too ugly to get a man" is an actual argument.

The entire feminism debate is a joke in 2005, as it was in 1975. You have all the rights that men have, and thanks to the feminist movement you actually have more.

In the business world, I don't give a damn if you are good looking or not. I have only one question: will you be able to help me make money? That's all I give a damn about. I'm a dirty Capitalist. More:

That said, on Ring of Fire on Air America yesterday, the (sic, again) took a look at conservative female pundits, with Rachel Maddow as a guest, and Rachel convinced me that there is a legitimate purpose to examining the way that female pundits present themselves without being sexist or shallow. Of course, most of the examples that Malkin links to are both, but I have little doubt that she is trying to lump all critical looks at her and other conservative women's self-presentation together so they can continue to use their looks to their advantage without being called out for it.

I can't comment on the conversation because Air Scamerica is broadcast on, like three stations and none of them are in south Texas. This brings up an interesting point; if a guy stole near $800,000 from Alzheimer's patients and kids, you'd at least think he could get it on the air in small cities like San Antonio.

Anyway, this is an inane post and serves no other purpose than to take a few cheap shots at Coulter and Malkin, the favorite lefty whipping girls who do nothing other than beat you all with logic and intelligence. Here's an example with the last paragraph:

Maddow described the way that Ann Coulter presents herself as drag. Maddow was exactly right--Coulter is female, but she is still play-acting at being female much like a drag queen does. But her goals are completely different. A drag queen does that for fun, for play, and in part to sort of fuck with gender roles. Coulter does it for essentially wicked reasons--to reinforce gender roles, to exaggerate them and to trap other women with them. It's not bad to comment on costumery in and of itself, it's just bad when you do it to hurt someone who is just being him/herself and not harming anyone else. But female conservative pundits wear these costumes with the end goal of quite a bit of harm, so I don't see the problem with criticizing them for that.

Does that even warrant a response? I surely hope not.