Click here for DaTechGuyBlog.com Same Fedoras, Same Cannoli different domain.
Please Help DaTechGuy pay Da Bills
Click for the latest show
Only a very ignorant person can call Liz Taylor the last star of Hollywood’s Golden Era while O’Hara and de Havilland are still around.
Oh and I think considering Taylor was sleeping with her husband I think its classless to be interviewing Debbie Reynolds on Taylor.
…at least that would be the headline at Think Progress if they were 1. Consistent 2. Not multicultural cowards, and 3. Covering this story:
“America is not showing its power it’s showing appeasement, they are laughing all the way to the bank” Nonie Darwish
Personally I’ve got no problem with the fixing the Egyptian sewer system (promote the general welfare and all that) but we need to realize that we are earning no brownie points by doing any of this stuff. I really think the whole funding Mosques overseas stuff is just to get us wound up.
Meanwhile ThinkProgress hits Newt Gingrich for opposing Gay Marriage along with the majority of the country, Stacy notes:
Except, of course, that there wasn’t anything “secret” about the “funneling”: It was duly reported as required by law and, as Think Progress itself notes, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of the effort “to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices” who had voted to mandate same-sex marriage in that state.
Is it “hate” to oppose same-sex marriage?
It is “hate” to oppose Obama, “Gay Marriage” is just one club to beat his opponents with, additionally Newt is a particular target because he committed the ultimate sin to them, he converted to Catholicism.
Exit question: Under Think Progress’ definition since no president has ever supported Gay Marriage and until the mid nineties no congressman ever talked about the subject would they all be considered “Haters”? I’d ask if they would call Islam “Haters” for the same reason but that one is too easy.
…and jump into the argument between two of the people I am most fond of on the net.
I’ve already talked about what I think of and owe Stacy McCain and There is no person in bloggerdom whose company I enjoy more than Little Miss Attila, but this is getting ridiculous.
Stacy put out 4000 words last night on the History of feminism. It is very detailed and quite a read. I would recommend it to anyone.
Yesterday Joy today fisked a previous Stacy’s post and answered his magnum opus with a single drawing and two sentences proving she is an expert in blog Jujutsu.
I haven’t talked to either Stacy or Joy about this exchange but I am going to comment very briefly on the substance and I’ll let them correct me if I’m misinterpreting it either of them.
The way I see it Stacy is saying that Feminism and its origins are a lot less clean than a lot of people see it and that conservatives should avoid being seen as “feminists” because it means something that is quite different that what we think it does.
The way I see it Attila is defending Feminism or what she is calling equity feminism and saying that is is not invalid for a conservative to believe in it.
A lot of this is starting to look like dogs chasing tales so lets cut to that chase:
1. Per Stacy’s argument, There are a lot of nasty roots in the feminist movement, just as there were a lot of people happy to break bread with the communists in the civil rights movement. We might even stipulate that both groups used addressing an actual wrong (Jim Crow and inequality before the law of the sexes) to advance something they were more loyal to (the overthrow of capitalism and western culture that they found racist and/or sexist). Thus feminism means something and we should let the left have that label and stew in it.
2. Per Attila’s argument the basic equality before the law of women (and the equality of souls in the before the eyes of God) is a basic human right. Such a belief and the advancement of said belief is feminism 101 in the same way that belief in Christ is Christianity 101. One can adopt the label feminist without paying homage to the leftist maxims of some of those who followed it at the time. Or to use the Christian example, Protestants don’t shun the term Christian because we Catholics were using it hundreds of years before Luther was a gleam in his mother’s eye.
In terms of an intellectual point and history, Stacy makes good points, but I think he is forgetting something about society.
Words mean things as he says but the meaning of words change over time. 150 years if someone said “Michael Jordan is cool” the answer expected would be “Well have him come closer to the fireplace.” More importantly the public perception of the meaning of those words change.
When society thinks of the word feminism, they do not think of the Marxist roots or any of the class warfare BS that the left was trying to peddle, they are thinking simply of the base equality before the law of the sexes. The terms has become mainstreamed to the point where it can be used without incident.
Stacy correctly worries that like planned parenthood’s Eugenic past, this allows Radical feminists such as NOW and those in the gender studies department to co-op the uninformed because people think they are simply supporting woman’s rights when they are in fact supporting wrongs, wrongs simply used to sexualize our society even further or as a club to beat Western Civilization, Christianity and the US while ignoring actual wrongs against women in the East and in Islam. It’s a valid worry and I think it is very important to call them out loudly and regularly!
Happily there is an easy and well known term for such people propagated over the last two decades, that can be used without using the now generic terms Feminist: Feminazi.
I submit it would be healthier and easier to deploy the Feminazi term, particularly within the movement than to try and insist people stop deploying the, I submit now generic term “feminist”. In terms of changing hearts and minds I say its the best move. Additionally it forces the feminist left (read feminazi) to explain why a Sarah Palin or a Michelle Bachmann or a Tammy Bruce or a Little Miss Attila is “not” a feminist. Inevitably their anger leads them instead into the trap of proclaiming that they are not valid “women” retreating into a level of misogyny that alienates regular people and forces honest feminists to recoil, thus dividing them.
Or to put it another way Stacy has a good intellectual point, both socially and politically I think its to our disadvantage.
And although it is entertaining intellectually (and may or may not have been productive in terms of hits) I think that like Road Runner cartoons this is getting too long. I can’t think it’s generating enough hits to make it worth going on.
Stacy thinks we should abandon the term feminism to the left: Fine, that’s a valid opinion but I disagree.
Attila thinks we should not: Fine, that’s a valid opinion too. I agree and state why.
Now excuse me while I duck for cover.
Update: Cripes that generated a bunch of comments and links quickly. Maybe I should just schedule them together on the show and let them have it out. April 2nd is open.
This time in overwhelmingly democratic Maryland:
The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.
But the closer the bill got to a final vote, the bumpier its path became. One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.
Dan Riehl point out the obvious:
Many of the arguments against running conservatives are false arguments spun by the Left which the GOP establishment embraces because the media embraces them.
How many states are we going to concede to liberalism? We’ve done that for so long, we’re now in a place where a Leftist like Obama can get elected without being exposed until he gets into office. If the pattern continues, you can forget conservative. We’re almost at a tipping point where we’ll never have a conservative Washington because we accept the notion that conservatism can’t win in so may places, especially due to social issues.
As you might guess Jonathan Capeheart is very angry:
The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland. emphasis mine
Hang on a second I’m confused. Haven’t we been hearing the left screaming about money in politics (particularly from the Koch family)? Doesn’t the left believe that reps should be voting based on the wishes of the people they represent and not donors? Apparently not, check some of the gay sites, they are very angry about people they gave money to voting against them.
So we must conclude the rules are as follows:
If you get money from the right and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a brave independent voice.
If you get money from the left and you vote your constituents vs your donors, you are a traitor.
Any questions?
