Sit down and grab a can to puke in: Pickles claims to be a feminist...

[Kerrytravelers]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/one-good-thing-about-laur_b_21025.html


Anyway, on Mother's Day, I decided to watch Laura Bush on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. She told George she doesn't believe her husband's low approval ratings. She claimed that the press enjoys printing the bad news. She said she wasn't seeing either of her daughters on Mother's Day. No surprise in any of that.

But here's the thing that threw me: George Stephanopoulos asked her if she was a feminist. And guess what? She said yes.

And then she went right on: "A lot of what I do internationally does have to do with women's issues, with women's rights, with the education of women and girls, because it's so important and because women - as we saw in Afghanistan - and girls have been left out, actually forbidden to be educated.... You can't tell me that mothers and fathers don't love their daughters. I know they do and want the best thing for their daughters and sons the world over. I truly believe that. And if women are educated, they're more likely to be able to make wise and healthy decisions for their children."

[ismnotwasm]

1. Good Gawd.

Well like she said, at least Laura said yes. Ms. bush may be popular because she's largely invisible. No forthright openness. Just mousy little opinions now and again. No threat, especially no FEMALE threat that may emasculate the powers that be.

I can see it now, kinder, gentler feminism, nurturing those atrophied feminine instincts of motherhood, housekeeping, on-demand sex and standing by and obeying your man. You know REAL feminism ala Phyllis Schafly
You want to puke some more? Speaking of Phillis?
http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200602080754.asp

She just knew equal rights for women would destroy marriage by opening that institution for Gays. Self-hating bigoted woman.

[BlueIris]

2. ...egh. Well, I guess she's taking a lesson from her spouse there.

And I guess you don't actually have to be a feminist to claim that you are one.

Sigh.

Thanks for warning us about the potential this news has to bring the puke--I believe I will.

[politicat]

3. Pickles is smarter than she looks.

I think the xanax, the obsessive cleaning, the ciggies, the cocktails and the self-delusion are how she deals with the fact that she made a really bad bargain and probably has no way to get out of it. (I can completely see * being the type to assure her quite coldly that if she leaves him, she will see her daughters dead before she dies herself.) She probably realized too late that she messed with a wealthy, connected family with ties to some pretty brutal thugs, and like most organized crime wives, she had to make the decision between living and dying.

I don't doubt that she was a feminist. I don't really doubt that she even deludes herself into thinking she's maintained those principles. It's self-preservation in a psychically toxic environment. Her past history is not nearly as neo-con as *; housing contractors in Midland in the 50s, 60s and 70s were usually out on a limb and got hit hard by Texas' boom and bust cycles. The Welches were definitely not in the same crowd as the Bushes. And teaching and librarianship were the acceptable options for a young, Southern woman without a lot of "prospects". Besides, after the car accident, I doubt she thought she was emotionally stable enough to marry, and when she came across *, reforming and fixing him would be atonement for killing the boyfriend.

I feel sorry for her. The best things to come out of that marriage are two daughters, both of whom are strong inheritors of their father's piss-poor genetic legacy. One's a drunken, lazy, coasting twit and the other is cold and manipulative.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Many, many, women are in her predicament

To reject patriarchy in favor of feminist thought and action places a lot of us, hell most of us, in some type of peril. You may lose your job for confronting sexism and harassment. Your husband (still a source of support for many women) might dump you (or act like a shit in order to goad you into initiating the divorce) and take the kids away for sassing him or simply because you refused to maintain your youthful weight or appearance. You may be called all sorts of names, have your reputation dragged through the mud, or even be physically assualted for failing to assume your "proper" role. There will always be consequences of some sort and any woman, or man, who bucks the system had better be prepared for them.

On the other hand, compliance doesn't guarantee that any of the above won't happen to you. My hope is that eventually all women (including me) and men will wake up to the fact that our current corporo-military patriarchy benefits none but a few rich men at the top.

[politicat]

5. Compliance is no guarantee, but it's the prisoner's dilemma.

From game theory. Betrayal of others in favor of the authority figure is likely to pay off with a less severe circumstance than cooperation with peers.

And we all do it, if not in matters of sexual equality then in matters of financial, social or educational security, employment or a thousand other places. As long as economic policy is set up to favor the social unit of the nuclear family instead of the extended family, the individual or the cooperative peer group, we will have to make these choices. The nuclear family is an inherently unstable unit (since it effectively self-destructs upon the maturation of the children) and as a basis for long-term economic stability, it's pretty useless. (I like the idea of line and cooperative multi-signatory marriages for long term conservation of capital.)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. line and cooperative multi-signatory marriages

What does that entail, if you don't mind my asking?

[politicat]

13. They're concepts rather than actualities as yet.

A multi-signatory marriage is the basis for a line marriage, so I'll start there. In some ways, it's polygamy, though the primary purpose is economic and social rather than sexual. The idea is for at least three, but more likely four to ten consenting and aware adults to create a corporation that preserves their capital and keeps the custody of any children in common in such a way as to assure that the welfare of the group will endure past a death or state-change. Obviously, the details for any specific agreement would vary from case to case, but most would be set up like S Corporations or LLCs for tax and legal purposes and would have buy-out options. The idea here is that, if in partnership ABCDEF, partners DE are killed in a car crash, that children GHIJKL would still have four loving, comforting and financially stable parents to care for them, rather than IJ becoming orphans. Whether child K is the offspring of AB, CD, EF or AD, CF or BE, it doesn't matter. Preserving the cultural and social capital is at least as important as genetic lines and in practical, biological terms, it's better for B to have a child by A, C and E each instead of three children by A. (But that kind of thing should necessarily be at the discretion of the parties involved.) Six adults are better prepared to take care of six children than are three sets of two adults raising two children per pair. Instead of requiring three parents to stay home with the babies, two could do so while the other four pursue careers or manage the community needs. And they can rotate duties far easier than can two adults.

A line marriage takes this concept and goes to the next level, adding a multi-generational element to the mix to extend the body in time as well. Again, sexual matters are not the prime purpose for the group - it's to take care of children and preserve the communal capital. So the body may start out with two men and three women who are peers in year one, and add another, slightly younger man in year five, add a fourth, younger woman in year 12, a pair in year 20, and add options for the children of the original three women back into the body in year 25. And so on and so forth. Theoretically, the communal capital could become eternal, as long as the body continued to add members at at least the same rate as death or state-change in the previous generations.

The two major points that any such group would have to deal with are putting the long-term welfare of children, the communal property and the members above fleeting sexual or other non-permanent commitments, decisions or activities and the absolute clarification of terms of the agreement (i.e. that sexual relationships within the body are permitted under X circumstances, or that divorce would require a commitment to support all children currently under the roof until maturity, or terms of the communal will and decision making. Marriage documents would have to cease to be single page, brief statements that, while bestowing certain rights and privileges, fail to define those rights and privileges.)

Marriage is primarily financial and social in most of the world and in a lot of marriages that are past that first year. Not that married people don't love their partners and care very deeply about them, but the financial stake in marriage is a huge issue. Money issues cause more divorces than sexual infidelity and domestic violence combined. (Thus, I support gay marriage -- it's about economics, not love. Everyone should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose for as long as they choose to maintain the partnership.) It all hinges on true gender equality and the idea of consenting and aware adults. Right now, people get married for bad reasons - pregnancy, to express sexuality, emotional security. We need to change that because romantic lust isn't necessarily the best basis for lifetimes. (And just because marriage takes on a proprietary and dependency basis for many women in the world, that is not the fault necessarily of the marriage document, but of the culture in which the woman lives and the lack of education for girls.)

And there are endless variations to these sort of defined cooperative marriages. Yes, they're polygamous in terms of emotional, financial and social commitment to a community. Yes, they require abandoning tradition in favor of communal preservation. And yes, they will probably require a rethinking of marital sexuality. But 85 years ago, virgin brides were the norm, and men who performed oral sex even in marriage would probably have had relationship problems. Standards change.

(Credit where credit is due: the term line marriage was first used and somewhat defined (though not totally) by R. A. Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Other terms and descriptions are merely definitions for practical economic situations.)

Edited becaze hukt awn fonix werkt fur mie!

[ismnotwasm]

8. Speaking of which

Can anybody explain exactly what THIS article is trying to say?
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/careertraining/?article=ladiesfirst
I found it very strange--She seems to be saying women do well at school because the traditional feminine role is rewarded, but they don't do well as men in the workplace because of lack of aggression? (I think) I couldn't quite make sense of it. It's a kind of irritating double-speak article. The author goes back to that old hard-wired by biology with a nod to cultural influences crap

[bloom]

11. I think it goes to what is rewarded

I think that schools train people that when they work hard, do a good job, etc. that they will be rewarded.

And then you get into some (a lot of) workplaces and working hard, doing a good job isn't always rewarded.


People who are assertive, take charge kind of people are often more rewarded than other people. Not skills taught in most schools - where compliance over assertiveness gets you the bonus points.

There can also be gender bias in some of the types of work that work is rewarded. I think the article was also suggesting that.

[politicat]

14. The idea I think is that

women excel in academic arenas because academics have clearly defined goals, standards and principles; the nature of the work is reasonably consistent and static, but that the work place requires a more flexible outlook on progress and a more aggressive attitude towards advancement. But the author is smoking something because all cultural and social psych research says that it's men who are the ones who require clearly defined goals and standards and that women do far better in flexible, chaotic and fluid environments. I'd say that women do better in academics than men do because it means more to us -- it's the way we ensure our financial survival and we have a much more critical stake in it than do men (since we have to really support any children we choose to bear). And men still believe that they can coast and get by on their testosterone and their looks. (Which does serve them better in some work environments, since aggression and control are related to fear-based testosterone...)

It's like saying that women are better at the pop-out effect (when static objects "pop" from a complex and multi-layered visual field) than men because our ancestors gathered nuts and berries while the men were off hunting. And that men are better at visual tracking for the same reasons. It's too pat an answer and too easy to generalize.

[ThomCat]

6. Is this sort of like consumer based "girl power" feminism?

If you say you're a feminist but you don't stand for anything but traditional gender roles is it still empowering?

[Warpy]

7. How very FIFTIES

when well bred daughters of the upper crust were encouraged to go to liberal arts colleges and snag that BA and "MRS degree" at the same time. They were never intended to use that education for anything but teaching the bay-bees they would then produce for some captain of industry. You know, teaching them how to spell "cat" with their first set of alphabet blocks.

She's a fine representative of the upper crust, isn't she?

Betty Friedan wrote about those women and what happened to them in "The Feminine Mystique," a must read if you haven't discovered it already.

[Kerrytravelers]

12. Thanks for the excellent reading suggestion. I hope others pick it up

if they haven't read it yet. I did a semester-long research project (visual presentation, so nothing to link here) of Betty Freidan and the begining of NOW during my undergrad years.

[bliss_eternal]

9. Riiiiight...

and I guess that is why she is also anti-choice and married to the man that has worked to single-handedly put the women's movement back decades.

:wtf:

She must be smoking the pot she used to sell as an undergraduate. Only someone under the influence of psychotropic drugs would dare to make such an assertion...