Wonkette, Phooey
Okay, what’s the deal here? I thought Ana Marie Cox was supposed to be so clever, or witty or interesting or something – ? Isn’t she? I thought she was. I’ve never read or even glanced at Wonkette, because life is short and time is scarce and blogs are many and the subject matter – beltway gossip? Urrgghh – is so very unappealing; but I’ve gathered (how? I don’t know – as one does) that she’s good in some way. But clearly there has been some mistake. That “book review” is a piece of crap; it’s stupid and smug and truly staggeringly predictable. So if that’s Wonkette, I’m glad I’ve never wasted so much as a nanosecond on it.
Strident feminism can seem out of place – even tacky – in a world where women have come so demonstrably far. With Katie Couric at the anchor desk, Condoleezza Rice leading the State Department and Hillary Clinton aiming for the top of the ticket, many of the young, educated and otherwise liberal women who might, in another era, have found themselves burning bras and raising their consciousness would rather be fitted for the right bra (like on “Oprah”) and raising their credit limit.
Oh right. Of course. How stupid of us not to think of it. Because Hillary Clinton married the right guy and there’s – gasp! – one woman reading the news on tv, therefore feminism has nothing further to say, and if it says it it’s (oh christalmighty) “strident”. That’s the kind of thing that makes grizzled old feminists like me (and Pollitt, I daresay) want to send smug smirking young postfeminists off to – where, exactly? Let’s see. How about northern Nigeria. Or southern Afghanistan. Or Iran. Or Egypt. Or rural India, or China, or Congo. Sound good, Wonkette? Sound like a fun way to find out how far women have come? Hmmm?
Her new collection of essays, “Virginity or Death!,” culled from her columns for The Nation over the past five years, shows her to be stubbornly unapologetic in championing access to abortion and fixated on the depressingly slow evolution of women’s rights in the Middle East. In the midst of our celebration of Katie’s last day, Pollitt is the one who would drown out the clinking of cosmo glasses with a loud condemnation of the surgery available to those women who would sacrifice their little toes the better to fit their Jimmy Choos.
Fuck. I can’t even read any more. That’s only the first paragraph, and it’s some of the stupidest shit I’ve seen in a long time. And it’s in the New York Times, which still keeps insisting it’s a good newspaper! What is their problem? Why do they publish insulting garbage like that? Are they trying to show that they’re “hip” or not some bunch of latte-swigging elitists or what?
Okay, sorry, beg pardon. It’s the feminist in me – do excuse me, I mean the “strident” feminist – again. I’m sure I’ve told you, probably more than once, about seeing a panel of feminists – Pollitt was one – at the Los Angeles Book Fair a few years ago, on C-Span, and seeing a glam young French woman stand up and ask the panel why they were all so angry. They were all, to a woman, absolutely dumbfounded, and I was scarred for life. Seriously – Wonkette needs to learn about something beyond D.C. gossip. She also needs to learn to write better. A lot better.
But don’t you see? You don’t want to be strident about your feminism – just be half-hearted so’s not to intimidate the boys.. and for goodness sake don’t make a scene, woman! Although, having said that, I have to admit that you girls do look awfully cute when you’re angry!
Look, we’ve allowed you into the workplace; we even show some of your ladies sports on TV. And hey, that Thatcher was a woman, wasn’t she? So I am at a loss to know what more we can possibly do.
Political correctness gone mad, I tells you!
[I am informed that it’s important to acknowledge sarcasm when posting on the internet. So I am.]
I’d’ve thought that this sort of divergence is to be expected. The first wave is the easiest, as then there’s a broad consensus (“women should be allowed to vote”). But once that’s achieved, there’s no reason that that coalition should stay together.
And the young are always ungrateful.
I’ve believed for a long time that one of the commonest ways of reducing cognitive dissonance to a level one may live with
is that of radical identifiction of self with oppressor. Might this account for the peculiar opinions of Ana Marie Cox?
What a banal piece. Women’s rights in the Middle East is *so* last year…
It seems to me that only women are labelled ‘strident’; the same behaviour in men would be considered plain old forthrightness and tenacity, if considered worth commenting on at all.
I think that what is missing is confirmation that there is a problem ( that women are, in reality, treated unequally, as in less well than men0 not just obviously in non Western societies, but also within Western societies, why this should be, even in Western societies, where at least lip-service is paid to the notion of gender equality, and thirdly what to do about it?
Legislation does seem to have an impact.
Best wishes
The banality and the women’s rights so last year aspect is what struck me most. She’s supposed to be clever in some way, witty, fresh, something – but that piece is unbelievably stale. And if women’s rights is so last year, what on earth is a reference to (god save the mark) “bra-burning”? I ask you! That was stale in 1969, before W’ette was even born.
What, you mean you *weren’t* clinking cosmos in celebration of Katie’s being even more overpaid, Ophelia?
Ian, please don’t acknowledge sarcasm. Half the fun is working out which is which.
Very interesting. Thank you for calling Cox on this one. It was a disgraceful argument – that since a handful of women have made it we can all just go home and cook. Lovely. She compeletely disregards the millions of women across the world who, due to their sex, live in poverty, are illiterate, “married” against their will, sterilised, burned or beaten.
Cox has always been a member of the school of faux feminism, specifically, the “tee-hee-aren’t-I-naughty” kind. More accurately, she has been a popular coquette rather than doing anything to advance women’s causes — she’s all about advancing one woman’s cause, her own.
That’s certainly the impression I got from that review. What a good thing I’ve never wasted any time reading Wonkette then.
In a country where Ann Coulter can get so much apparently serious attention as a pundit on politics, religion and morality, perhaps it’s little wonder that Cox is commissioned to write about feminism…
But what to do about it? Looking back on films TV shows from the 1970s and even 1980s shows how unequally women were treated, so maybe strident was what was needed.
And things, while a whole heap better now, in the West, still are not good enough. When I first started out as a chartered accountant (US- CPA) student in the mid 70s 50% of students were women. There were (and are now) similar percentages for the law.
I expected that by now around 30% or so of partners would be women. But it’s far lower both in accounting and the law. So women are not being given a fair shake. And quite apart from the unfairness, it’s also economically stupid, as scarce talent is only being sought from half the gene pool.
But what to do about it? In the UK it’s always a Labour Party issue (which I yhink they should do more on). Why don’t parties in the US take it up?
Best wishes
This sort of thing is depressing enough coming from men, but when women come out with it it makes me want to cry. As I understand it this woman works in politics. If it wasn’t for those ‘strident’ feminists, she wouldn’t even have the right to vote for politicians, let alone work for them.
Grrrr.
It makes me want to cry and scream and yell and tear my hair and kick things and throw dishes around the room and fall down and drum my heels on the floor.
“In the midst of our celebration of Katie’s last day, Pollitt is the one who would drown out the clinking of cosmo glasses with a loud condemnation of the surgery available to those women who would sacrifice their little toes the better to fit their Jimmy Choos.”
How smug are they in Washington ? Does she really have influence over policy ?? That’s off the f-ing scale that one…
I know; isn’t it? But no, she doesn’t have any influence over policy as far as I know. But over something as nebulous as ‘the climate of opinion’? Who knows…
I’m sorry, but the answer is political. The Labour Party only started addressing female issues when they realised they could win votes . That’s why they had all-women shortlists and introduced rights so women could have the fairer chance they should have. But it only comes from struggle. Look at the rumpus over an all-woman shortlist in Wales in 2005. So the struggle for full rights for women comes down to a political struggle. Tories and Reublicans need women’s votes, so where are the campaigns by women in those parties?
Best wishes
“I can’t even read any more. That’s only the first paragraph….”
Seeing that, I wondered whether the rest of the review would reveal that the first paragraph was actually some subtle form of irony or sarcasm.
No, it turns out she meant it seriously. Apparently it’s boring, tedious, and a turn-off to “lecture” and be “strident” — an error equal and opposite to calling bad choices “empowerment”.
Shorter version: “I’ve got mine, Jackie.”