I don’t want to give attention whore Ann Coulter any more attention than necessary, but I can’t help but point out that her insistence that women should lose the right to vote is—besides being a desperate attempt to get more attention and not to be taken strictly at face value—linked into the larger way that reactionary politics are tied up into anxious masculinity and misogyny. The latest shock statement from Coulter was in an interview in the New York Observer:
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’’
What’s noteworthy is that for Coulter and for much of the conservative movement, the hostility to women’s rights is completely bound up with a profound hostility to democracy. Coulter’s premise here is that there’s something wrong with democracy itself, because government by the people has potential to be government for the people. Yes, it’s true, that voting citizens might decide that the government should work for them instead of work to oppress them for the benefit of a neofeudal corporatism. Your average person, given the choice between health care and getting blown up for oil profits in Iraq, is going to carelessly choose the fomer, unconvinced of the right of the hyper-wealthy to get even wealthier with her blood.
It’s interesting that this attitude Coulter displays—that one’s right to vote should be contingent on voting “correctly”, i.e. against your own interests in favor of the wealthy—is exactly the same one that Saddam Hussein demonstrated with his farcical “elections” where he would get 100% of the vote because it was basically illegal to vote any other way. Remember how that was supposedly a bad thing? That was one of the things that war supporters, many of whom are Coulter’s fan base, cited as a reason that Saddam was bad. Another lie, I suppose. But it’s relevant here that what Coulter is suggesting as a goal—one party rule, by a party that operates on the principle of marrying government to corporate interests so that the two become indistinguishable, is basically fascism. All you need, really, is a citizen-on-citizen enforcement strategy. The process of creating that was already underway, but hit a bump in the road.
You really see in this comment why corporatists like BushCo are so hellbent on oppressing women, even though it doesn’t, on the surface, seem like it’s directly profitable to do so. But by turning up masculinity anxieties and sexism, they encourage a large chunk of men to scapegoat women for their problems and ignore the real causes of them. You can just see how many men will chuckle and say, “Right on,” to Coulter’s suggestion about repealing the vote for women, and they’ll feel more warmly towards the whole conservative movement even though, if they succeed in the goals openly stated by Coulter, those same men will be living under fascism just the same. It’s the divide-and-conquer plan. Men (except of course the few at the top of the economic heap) need women as allies badly, and what losses they get from women’s equality (which are real: they have to perform more housework, more childcare, they have to be respectful when pushiness would be easier, they have to compete with women for jobs, they have to work harder on emotional work because women are harder to trap in marriages and therefore have to be persuaded to stay, they don’t get the cheap thrill of feeling superior to someone without having to actually do anything, etc.) are a small price to pay for the real benefits to men of sharing power and being allies to women.
Which is why, I think, reproductive rights is such a contentious battleground and anti-choicers are always trying to make it sound like men are getting away with something when women can control our fertility. It’s because it’s an issue where men have something of a win-WIN thing going—if women can’t control their fertility, it’s a strike against our equality and men have the lowercase “win” of feeling superior, being dominant, etc. And if that’s the status quo, it’s easy to convince a lot of men that it would be horrible and scary and terrible for them if women got to have reproductive rights—appealing to men’s base fears about losing power was part of the anti-choice strategy in the early days. It’s interesting to read some reproductive rights histories and see how men were told women would philander, or become hard and cold and unsexy, or would simply leave if women had more control. But women got it anyway and men saw what happened, and it was that they had a WIN for themselves. It turns out that the vast majority of the benefits for women from controlling reproduction were shared by men—more choices, more money, more peaceful homes, healthier children when you do have them, more sex, a lot more sex, etc. Men saw how the benefits of women’s rights outweighed the drawbacks to them, and I think it helped soften a lot of them up to look fondly upon the whole of feminism.
Men embracing women’s equality leads to more political power for the working class (in the Marxist sense of the term, i.e. everyone who works for a living) leads a serious threat to the corporate neofeudalist bent of our society. So you can see the hostility to it. And the reason that men need to realize these little swipes at women and women’s rights are, in the end, attacks on them as well.
64 Responses to “The subtext is quickly becoming the text”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Former instead of latter, perhaps?Sheesh…for the longest time I was convinced Ann Coulter was a total joke. Like I thought one day on MSNBC she might rip her face-mask off and it would be Andy Kaufman, laughing wildly or something. But I’m afraid she is for real.
I have a pipedream that one day Ann Coulter will disappear into the sunset with Michael Savage, never to be heard from again…
A full throated YEAH!! for the post. My thinking comes straight out of this quadrant. The thing progressives really have to do is to bring something of an awareness of what the past was truly like, and connect that to these games that the corportists play. The romantization of the Antebellum South, or of the later Tudor era, or of the age of chivalry serves to help people imagine themselves as members of the elite, rather than what they’d really be. The craft of applying realist graffiti on romantic idealizations is one that really needs to be practiced.
Doh! Fixed.
I mentioned something similar on Feministng, about the “women can vote as long as they vote the way I want them to,” but as always Amanda says it so much better. Excellent post Amanda.
AdamN:
You weren’t the only one. I kept clinging to the hope that she would turn out to be a anarchist lesbian performance artist.
I can’t bear to read the whole interview. What does she say about *her* vote?
What does she say about *her* vote?
Nothing, of course. She doesn’t imagine for a second that she would ever be lumped in with the rest of the female rabble, because her tireless service to conservatives has, in her opinion, earned her an honorary penis.
Of course, I don’t know any conservative who doesn’t think of her as tits and ass first and a writer second. If she was at all a reflective kind of person she’d rather quickly learn that her plan hasn’t worked out so well.
This the kind of dot-connecting and economic analysis that we need to see more of on liberal and progressive blogs.
Bravo!
These perceptions by many men are quite ironic. Women not having control over their reproductive capacities causes overpopulation. Overpopulation speeds global warming.
If people thought rationally (admittedly an enormous “if”), they would realize that anti-choice politics are lose-lose for everyone.
That picture you’ve got at the top of the post is extraordinary even by your standards. That image is just priceless.
Coulter was someone I always thought fulfilled an unspoken rightwing desire — a person with a vagina but who hates women. Someone who swears, and smells, like a sailor but counts as a woman so they don’t have to admit they want to fuck male sailors.
My university voted this week to eliminate the race/gender awareness requirement (two courses) from its general education curriculum. I spent an utterly futile half hour arguing with a senior professor that students need to be aware of the polarities and exclusions and prejudices that surround them like water surrounds fish. I even used a couple of lines I’ve learned from this blog. But in the end my side was outvoted by about three to one. Said senior prof, a man who impregnated his student in 1991 but was allowed to keep his tenured job because he married the woman, told the assembled group that we as doctors of philosophy study “only those things which are true, good and beautiful” and don’t need to concern ourselves with “transient interest groups” and all the things they complain about. The irony was actually tactile. He’s completely unaware that truth, goodness and beauty refer not to transcendent ideals but to constructs generated by exclusion and dominance. He’s been a professor of the humanities for at least 20 years. Thank you for skimming this rant.
The more things change…
One of the fun things about women’s suffrage in NZ, the first country to give unrestricted suffrage, is only lightly touched on by the comment that both parties claimed it as a victory. Seddon, an opportunist par excellence, was against the female vote because he believed it would lead to Prohibition; he had heavy ties with the beer companies. There were certain shenanigans involving overseas soldiers and voting in referendums on the issue…
Actually, Seddon sounds a lot like a competent version of Bush.
My great great grandmother was a suffragist to whom Seddon owed a couple of favours. This came in useful when my great grandfather was condemned to death by a British military court for falling asleep on duty during the Boer War…
Libhomo, I’m reading Naomi Klein’s new book and it occurred to me that neocons have reason to welcome global warming—the tragedy of NYC drowning would be all profit opportunities and an opportunity to dismantle all sorts of social programs. Imagine—if Wall Street was under water, they’d immediately call for an end to the SEC, for one thing.
I read the interview at the Observer’s website, and now I’m going to have to wash my eyes out.
I knew Ann Coulter’s main raison d’etre was to give Gingrich fans something to do with their viagra-induced stiffies, but I never realized how nonsensical she was. Hillary Clinton imposing communism on America. Blaming 9/11 on Jimmy Carter??!!?? and Bill Clinton, because a pot smoking draft dodger has no credibility deploying the military while a coke snorting draft avoider somehow does.
And it’s Clinton’s fault for ignoring the menace of al-Qaeda while the fact that it happened on Bush’s watch, while he and his minions deliberately ignored the threat, is somehow not even worth mentioning. And, the fact that every other industrialized country has universal health care must just mean the world is full of girlie men — yes even Schwartzenegger’s heimat.
If she was at all a reflective kind of person she’d rather quickly learn that her plan hasn’t worked out so well.
She doesn’t care, because she doesn’t have to. It’s not going to affect her one way or the other if poor people don’t have health insurance or women who aren’t her can’t get abortions. She especially doesn’t have to care if slobbering conservative shut-ins think of her as a sex object. She thinks it’s funny to piss people off, and she gets paid for it.
you’d think that she’d at least try to camouflage this kind of outright contempt for women–that she sees a party supported primarily by women as less legitimate somehow than one supported primarily by men. that kind of honesty-in-bigotry is almost refreshing.
it should be noted, though, that most men support the democrats as well. maybe ann coulter is blocking november 2006 from her memory.
told the assembled group that we as doctors of philosophy study “only those things which are true, good and beautiful” and don’t need to concern ourselves with “transient interest groups” and all the things they complain about.
Transient interest groups? Good fucking lord.
If Ann Coulter hates women and democracy so much, why doesn’t she just move to Iran?
I’m a tad too lazy to go looking for all the links but I know that in the last year there have been multiple members of the so-called conservative moment who have come out and flatly advocated for dictatorship as democracy is just so messy.
And as a straight WM, may I offer the argument that if straight WM were denied the right to vote and hold property, we most likely would have fewer wars and Republicans elected to office. Which in and of itself should show the speciousness and lunacy of the Coultergeist’s arguments.
Isn’t she supposed to be an attorney? It seems as if her arguments come straight from the Regency Law School level of discourse. Whichever law school she graduated from, I doubt they are bragging about her as among their leading grads.
Indeed they would, libhomo. In anti-choice politics there are no winners, just losers for the people across the globe.
And now, thanks to Amanda, I am now starting to know the GOP’s true colours. Neocons (and especially that quack James Dobson) really do want to make America into a Taliban nation.
OK, honestly, I am one of those whe get annoyed by direct comparisons to distopian novels because the situation can rarely be mapped across 1:1. But the exception proves the rule here! It’s like Anne was reading the Handmaid’s Tale and didnt’get to the part about the woman who had been so influential in bringing about the new regime and who was shocked and dissapointed to be limited to being a house wife when they came to power…
I can literally draw a direct comparisson without needing to change *any* of the parameters. Can we just mail her the book and highlight the pertinent passages? Do you think that she’d miss the irony even then?
And it’s Clinton’s fault for ignoring the menace of al-Qaeda while the fact that it happened on Bush’s watch, while he and his minions deliberately ignored the threat, is somehow not even worth mentioning. And, the fact that every other industrialized country has universal health care must just mean the world is full of girlie men — yes even Schwartzenegger’s heimat.
Clinton also tried to arrange for Osama bin Laden’s assassination, but was basically overruled, as I understand it. He left Bush enough information that Bush should have known to expect a major attack from al-Qaeda, but Bush did nothing with it.
You’re right, but I’d like to add that only half the US population votes. Its less than that for congressional elections (you know.. our actual representatives). So whenever politicians talk about what “the people” prefer, or that they have a “mandate” to rule, its hollow. No one should ever talk like that because its false.
It is obvious that if we voted for candidates based on the issues instead of voting for individuals, or even if we just had an Australian-style “mandatory” voting system, the Democrats would win everything in landslides. The policies of the Dems are better for citizens.
And not just US citizens, but global citizens.
If we stopped identifying as “Democrats” and “Republicans” and “liberals” and “conservatives” and started identifying as “citizens” with real-world interests instead of symbolic interests, it would be a massive victory for Democrats and the US would finally start to catch up with the rest of the West.
By the way, Amanda.. stop talking about her. You’re making her job work, which is to play a deliberately provocative character. There’s no content or seriousness behind what she says, so don’t respond with either. Don’t respond at all.
if straight WM were denied the right to vote and hold property, we most likely would have fewer wars and Republicans elected to office.
Probably not fewer wars. People expected that the U.S. would never go to war again, once women got the vote, because no woman would vote to have her son killed.
So much for that idea.
To my eternal shame and horror, I discovered that she went to my law school, UMich. I even know some people who were classmates of hers.
Her problem isn’t that she’s stupid. She’s not. It’s that she knows people eat it up when she’s as outrageous as possible.
Felagund, thanks for trying. Stories like yours break my heart and enrage me; privilege just refusiing to see itself. I wouldn’t want to count the number of male profs who married (younger) students in my limited knowledge. Of course, the students gave up their own careers to worship the
arrogancebrilliance of the old twerp. Weren’t these people supposed to retire 10 years ago?Oh, no, it’s right there. It’s part of her thesis. You see, when a man votes for democrats,the party of wimpiness, his penis falls off. The act of voting as if it counted for something — as opposed to the act of winning elections — is essentially feminizing. Real men don’t need to vote, because others will recognize their essential fitness for power and vote for them.
I don’t think Coulter has a lot of illusions about how she’s viewed, but as long as she gets attention and money and gets to piss of all the people who wouldn’t be nice to her when she was a teen, it’s a good gig.
Why? Just show them Saudia Arabia where women can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t, can’t can’t
Or ask skeletor why she doesn’t live there then.
And the “ignore the bully and they’ll leave you alone” argument surfaces in record time.
The Coultergeist isn’t going to change or disappear because it doesn’t get a response. The Repukelican thugs who fund her screeds will give her a platform no matter what because she says what they know they’ll get called onto the carpet for.
No, the proper response is, and always will be, the truth. It might not seem to have any effect, and on half-human mouthwhores like Coulter, it doesn’t, but other people will get it.
“Sheesh…for the longest time I was convinced Ann Coulter was a total joke. Like I thought one day on MSNBC she might rip her face-mask off and it would be Andy Kaufman, laughing wildly or something.”
I always figured AnnieC was some kind reptile, so if she ripped off her face mask she’d be exposed as a giant man-eating lizard…
“Her problem isn’t that she’s stupid. She’s not. It’s that she knows people eat it up when she’s as outrageous as possible.”
Coulter is evil, shameless, soulless, mercenary, morally hollow - all those things and more.
But definitely not stupid…
Cletemnestra, she doesn’t give a fig about other people, and even if she did, she would refuse to apply their example to herself.
Gotta go out to her audience, and force them to reconcile her attitude with their own. More than that, convince their neighbors that anyone who’s in favor of Coulter is a direct threat to their own wellbeing…Perhaps a *good* kind of shaming? I’m always hesitant about that ‘cause it’s more fun than useful, and tends to not be useful as a result.
What might be fun is a dress like Coulter/talk like Coulter day.
“ I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’’”
Interesting that she portrays these as strictly women’s concerns.
“What might be fun is a dress like Coulter/talk like Coulter day.
Oh sweet chocolate Jesus, NO!
I have a pipedream that one day Ann Coulter will disappear into the sunset with Michael Savage, never to be heard from again…
actually, he calls her “the paris hilton of the conservative movement”. savage has nicknames for all the well-known rightwingers. not especially good ones, mind you. i think o’reilly is “the firebreathing leprechaun” or something. “sean vanity”, etc.
(what can i say — i need saved by the bell reruns, my boyfriend needs 24/7 right-wing talk radio. my shred of hope is that we just moved to dc and the car, and therefore the radio, now mostly sit unused.)
Yes MikeEss, I have also pondered the possibility of Ann being some form of extraterrestrial cold-blooded humanoid… or possibly an android created by Nazis hiding out in Brazil.
Anne Coulter is in the bible!In the book of revelations it says:”Behold a pale horse,and he that rode it his name was death”(or something,too lazy to look it up)
Who was it that said there aren’t any true Conservatives anymore — they’re just fascists in disguise? The more I hear nowadays, the more I’m believing that.
I don’t know, we’ve had John Howard for the past 10 years…
Ann Coulter is a parody, silly.
The truth of “no, really, women SHOULD be able to vote”?
Sadly, Coulter’s view that “the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it” mirrors the view of many of the Democratic Party’s consultants in D.C. They also dream of a party that is attractive to (white, upper middle class) males. Because remember, black or hispanic males, who vote in large numbers for the Democrats, don’t count. There was a nice essay on this topic in Salon by Thomas Schaller yesterday:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/
2007/09/17/white_man/?source=whitelist
Here’s a quote:
“In 2004, according to New York Times exit polls, Democrat Kerry won 38 percent of the total white male vote, confirming a familiar pattern. Kerry’s share was basically the same that every Democratic presidential candidate has received since Michael Dukakis. In the four elections between 1988 and 2000, in fact, using New York Times exit poll results, the Democratic nominee won 36 percent, 37 percent, 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of votes cast by white men. Because white men cast between 33 and 36 percent of all votes in 2004, that means a mere 12 to 13 percentage points of Kerry’s 48 percent nationally came from white men — about one vote in four. Nevertheless, and despite running against an incumbent in the first post-Sept. 11 presidential election, Kerry still came within one state of winning the Electoral College. Four years earlier, Al Gore also came within one state of reaching the magical 270 electors, and actually won the popular vote nationally — while, like Kerry, receiving only about one-fourth of his support from white men.
As Schaller points out, the decline in the number of white male voters over the past three decades has meant that
“Democrats are able to neutralize their white male voter problem with votes from African-Americans — even though the latter group is only about one-third the size of the former.” Combine that with the Democratic capture of the Hispanic vote, which the Republican party is ardently trying to make happen, and the lead among women, and you get a curious political picture - a majority party, depending on the votes of women, blacks, Hispanics, and unions, which is lead by a group who continually yearns to accrue the votes of white males and has no qualms about betraying its base. This accounts for some of the gridlock in D.C. - there are all too many Dems who still think being Bush-lite is an election winner.
When is this woman just going to have a sex-change operation and be done with it?
When is this woman just going to have a sex-change operation and be done with it?
It’s important to point out that, if it happens, it will be the first reassignment surgery performed purely out of self-loathing and not due to gender identity issues.
Don’t ever give Coulter the out by assuming she’s stupid. Zuzu is correct; the woman is indeed very bright. She once worked for Wachtell, and they are without exception very, very smart and capable people. Without exception.
Coulter has simply decided that getting paid and getting attention for saying publicly outrageous things that other conservatives only say among friends is easier than doing 100-hour weeks in M&A fights. IOW she says the things she does because she is both physically and intellectually lazy; the person to whom the term “adventurer” was ascribed when it was an insult.
Of course, I don’t know any conservative who doesn’t think of her as tits and ass first and a writer second. If she was at all a reflective kind of person she’d rather quickly learn that her plan hasn’t worked out so well.
It worked well when she was a young’un. I’m old enough to remember when she was just one more of the Bright Sexy Young Things who were making a name for themselves in wingnutland by being both educated AND willing to wear pinstriped miniskirts.
Problem is that the miniskirt act really only works well for so long; you stop being sexy by wingnut standards well before age 30. That’s why she’s gotten more and more crazy as time goes on; simply flashing her legs isn’t enough.
Thomas, I don’t think she’s as bright as she was back in the day, but you’re correct, she’s figured out that getting paid to say things lesser wingnuts dream of saying is *way* better than having a day job.
I thought Mann already had the sex change.
Mythago, the drinking may have dulled the edge, as it surely has with Ingraham.
I am now convinced that Ann Coulter is Serena Joy.
This is how losers think: Republicans say that if you only look at white male voters then they win. It reminds me of some of the baseball statistics: Joe’s batting average with two on in the third inning with a lefty pitching is… who cares. The point is Democrats won in a landslide in 2006.
In some ways the terrorist argument is a typical debating trick–mention only what helps your argument: Jimmy Carter did start the funding of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Reagan continued it. Clinton might not have done enough against terrrorists, but that’s because the Republican Congress didn’t let him. Etc.
JohnL
“Joe’s batting average with two on in the third inning with a lefty pitching” on thursdays.
Geeno, christ almighty, can we PLEASE cut it out with the transphobic and misogynistic insults towards Ann Coulter? There are about a billion real things you could insult her about, like the fact that she’s mean, dishonest, petty, and cruel. Could we please not make it all about her looks?
Caroline, I’m w/ you. That horrid personality of hers offers plenty to work w/, for insult purposes. Though I’m also partial to the Serena Joy comparisons as well…
Thanks Caroline,
I mean sheesh people, at the top of this post there was a specific request about NOT calling her a man, a transgender/sexual, or whatever. What about that do you not get? It is offensive and disgusting.
I think people should be able to distinguish between jokes about how Coulter seems to be a man, i.e. unaware that the rights she advocates taking away from women would be lost from her and actual trans jokes. I’m not sure everything being touted as a trans joke isn’t just a joke about her Serena Joy-ness, her inability to understand that the despised category “woman” includes her.
On the other hand, I think her looks are fair game insofar as they are a projection of her pathetic attempts to capitulate with a system where NO woman can EVER win, not even her.
Coulter is an honorary man already (much like Malkin is an honorary white person).
As long as she gets the benefits of that status (and more) with none of the drawbacks of actually BEING a woman, why rock the boat?
I hate Coulter for her evil insides, not her outsides.
The biggest problem is that SHE knows her act is just shtick, I’m sure her publishers and most of the people booking her know it’s shtick, but there seems to be a slimy layer of real wingnuts who buy it hook, line, and sinker.
(The same is true for Limbaugh…)
But I do have to ask myself an interesting question: If I were offered that kind of money to sell out all my principles, would I cling to my principles or take the cash? I’d like to think I could resist and remain true, but…?
Back to you, Ann….
The only issue with Coulter’s appearance that needs attention is the fact that she’s obviously been doing cocaine for a very long time.
Aside from that, the problem I have with Coulter is the problem I have with most conservatives: she was born on third base and thought she hit a triple.
Admittedly, she’s very bright and accomplished, but not compared to other people of her background. She graduated cum laude from Cornell and went to University of Michigan Law School, but so what? So did a whole lot of other upper-middle class white kids from Connecticut.
I’m not saying she’s stupid, but I am saying that it’s much easier to be smart and educated when you come from a privileged background. Her accomplishments are mediocre and completely average for someone of her pedigree. As Thomas TSID so aptly pointed out, Coulter is physically and intellectually lazy.
What makes her so repellent is that she’s also quick to point the finger at working-class people (in the Marxist sense; people who work for a living, unlike Coulter, who inherited everything she has) and call them “undeserving.” That’s basically her whole problem with so called women’s policy issues; they provide some compensation for structural social inequalities and allow members of oppressed groups opportunities to compete economically with people from more advantaged backgrounds.
Coulter is all about eliminating her competition, because she knows deep in her heart of hearts that she’s about as spoiled and undeserving as they come.
Could we please not make it all about her looks?
Coulter makes her looks one of her selling points. It’s one thing to attack the appearance of a conservative moron like, oh, Kathleen Parker, who doesn’t play the look-at-my-tits routine. But it strikes me as odd to say it’s antifeminist to respond to “I’m smart because you all want me!” with “Um, not so much.”
(Tranny jokes are a whole nuther issue, though.)
She’s not Serena Joy, either. Serena Joy managed to get herself a husband.
The only irony about Coulter’s looks is that she appears to be transgender. (I have no idea if she actually is, and it really isn’t important.) She is often referred to as a sex symbol by homophobic rightists.
Interestingly enough, men who are attracted to mtf trans people usually are bisexual. If a “hetero” guy is into Ann Coulter based on her looks, it suggests that he may have some unacknowledged bisexuality. It all ads fodder to those who claim that heterosexism often is based on gender and sexual orientation insecurities.
Coulter herself likes to call men “fags” and such, which suggests that she is insecure about the way she is perceived by the world.
Of course, some heterosexism is based on people who want to get self-righteous over a “sin” which they have no interest in enjoying.
The whole thing shows why people should just get over their sexual and gender prejudices.
This is all faintly redolent of Vox Day’s periodic rant about how women can’t be trusted with the vote. I wonder if she’s going to start explaining how True Christians believe in Thor next.
That’s a pretty optimistic way of looking at it; wouldn’t it be more likely for men to swallow and accept that women can (for example) easily access birth control, pretend that it’s always been the obviously correct way for things to be, declare feminism Officially Over, and steadfastly refuse to see any connection between feminism and the benefits they’ve been enjoying? I have honestly never been quite so tempted to campaign against my own franchise. Darn you.Roula–Don’t forget that savageweiner has indirectly called her a “burnt-out liberal hack woman” and “human wreckage in high heels,” since that’s his terminology for unmarried women in their 40s in general.
Of course Coulter WANTS to be in an environment where such thinking is commonplace, as expressed in her “common interest with Jerry Falwell” to go back to the 50s.
Coulter wouldn’t be so bad if the right didn’t constantly praise her for being “reasonable” and “well-thought out”…the Overton window at work. Not to mention the justifications of how she “didn’t really call Edwards gay/wanted Stevens poisoned/Murtha fragged/etc.”
I don’t want to give attention whore Ann Coulter any more attention than necessary,
Not even a full sentence in, and you’ve already failed.
felagund that sounds suspiciously similar to the college i went to…