Caitlin Flanagan, she of the career-woman hating hypocrisy, continues to get bigger stages from which to spew her candy-coated reactionary guck (she used to be one of the only female staff writers at the New Yorker). Today’s venue: the New York Times, which is really on a roll recently with its columnists.
In today’s column, Flanagan takes on the movie Juno, and the idea that a teenage girl can have sex and not end up poor, alone, and uneducated. I was not going to get into the politics of Juno, but she’s given me no choice.
I’ve got to agree with Amanda that in dismissing Juno’s agency, Flanagan equates an opinionated and strong young woman with a fairy tale. Certainly not all teenage pregnancy doesn’t turn out as well as does Juno’s (perhaps most doesn’t). But Juno is not about the difficulty of teenage pregnancy. It’s about a young woman finding her voice, and about her embracing of the non-traditional. And that that can be ok too.
Flanagan also can’t let an opportunity to bash girls’ sexuality pass her by. She seizes upon this column as a chance to say that maybe we are mistaken to push for girls’ equality if it requires us to also accept their sexuality. I think that’s totally wrong. We can – and should – be open to the fact that women young and old have sexuality, and that they should be able to exercise that sexuality free from punishment. Instead of tackling how this might be possible (say, by education girls to use birth control via comprehensive sex ed programs), Flanagan just throws up her hands and says that it’s not and that we better just protect our fragile girls. As they did in the Victorian era. Because that was such a good time for women.
Ultimately, Flanagan returns to her favorite line: biology is destiny. I can’t imagine a more retrograde way to approach female sexuality. Resort to this seems, to me, to ensure that any real discussions of equality are superficial at best and, more likely, totally full of hot air.
Steven Landsburg shows up in comments at Delong’s to defend his idiotic article. It was a pretty feeble effort, to be frank, until he took it up a notch with this:
You *can’t* tax rich people who don’t spend their wealth. You can only pretend to. If Scrooge hides all his money under a pillow,and you tax some of it away from him, you’re putting that money back into circulation and driving up prices. Scrooge is no worse off (he was never goingto spend that money anyway) but other holders of money ARE worse off. You canpretend you’ve taxed Scrooge, but you’ve really taxed those other moneyholders.
I don’t even know which decoder ring I’m supposed to be using here.
I agree that it would really be nice if Shaun Alexander was still an NFL-caliber running back. But he’s not. What could possibly compel you to give the ball twice in a row to a guy who couldn’t break through a cardboard cutout of an NFL player in a crucial red zone possession? Seriously, has Herm Edwards secretly taken over the offense?
P.S. Speaking of cardboard cutouts standing in for defenders, I guess we now know that the apparently good Seahwaks defense was wholly a product of the feeble schedule; that was beyond embarrassing. Do these stiffs ever get a third down stop? Ever? The Irritating Narcissist could have a 3rd-and-42 with 8 guys on the field and convert.
There’s probably not much point in detailed explanations for each game, because my take mirrors the consensus so closely. I don’t see either AFC game as being competitive, and don’t think Jacksonville and (especially) the Chargers — probably without Gates and definitely with Norv Turner — will even cover the large spreads. The Giants/Cowboys game is tricky, and not only because if forces me to cheer for the Giants. If healthy, the Cowboys will win easily, but if Romo and Owens are a lot less than 100% — who knows. Given Owens’s performance after a much more serious injury in the Super Bowl and because I don’t believe in Manning (although he did play very well last week, and the Cowboys are vulnerable to his ability to hit Burress deep) I’d pick the Cowboys to cover, but I wouldn’t actually bet on the game unless you had some inside injury information.
Which leaves us with Seattle/Green Bay. While the Seahawks used to be very underrated, that’s no longer really the case; they seem to be a trendy upset pick. Based strictly on this year’s performance, that’s probably not really justified; the Packers have been better against a much tougher schedule. And Hasselbeck’s performance against the Redskins doesn’t inspire confidence. If I wanted to be optimistic, I would say that 1)the biggest difference between this Seattle team and the Super Bowl team is that the pass defense is better and the running game is worse, and in the modern game the former is a lot more important, and 2)they have a high-INT secondary against a QB prone to making low-odds throws. On the other hand, Green Bay seems to have the ability to neutralize Seattle’s pass rush, which is a serious problem. I guess I’d take the 8 points and pick Seattle, but probably expect Green Bay to win the game outright.
…can’t complain about that start!
…Except for the whole Deion Branch getting injured thing.
It’s good that the severe gender issues of MSNBC’s election night anchor are finally getting some attention. The whole piece is worth reading, but I think Jamison Foer makes the key point here:
Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn’t hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs — and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless.
And then there’s Matthews’ fixation on Hillary Clinton’s “ambition.” In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton’s Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was “ambitious.” Finally, Matthews said, “People who seek political power are ambitious by definition,” leading Wolfson to tell him: “if you say so. If it will make you happy, I’ll agree.” If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the “ambition” of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private.
Right. Somehow St. McCain’s extensive adultery, benefiting from family connections, and ambition strong enough that according to Matt Welch’s new book he bought a house in an Arizona congressional district the day the incumbent retired never get Matthews’s attention, but the fact that Clinton’s husband committed adultery is supposed to be a major issue. And I don’t mean to say that there’s anything wrong with ignoring these aspects of McCain — accusing a presidential candidate of ambition is tautological — but the double standard couldn’t be more glaring.
The news that Jonathan Stewart will skip his senior season and enter the NFL draft is obviously disappointing as a Duck fan. On the other hand, I can hardly begrudge a young man the chance to make money for himself, rather than for the UO, the Pac-10, and the NCAA.
Judith Warner is on a wave-making roll with her Domestic Disturbances column in the NY Times. Today she takes on the voice quiver heard ’round the world and asks: why did it matter so much to the New Hampshire primary voters that Clinton cried (or almost did)?
I don’t for a moment begrudge Hillary her victory on Tuesday. But if victory came for the reasons we’ve been led to believe – because women voters ultimately saw in her, exhausted and near defeat, a countenance that mirrored their own – then I hate what that victory says about the state of their lives and the nature of the emotions they carry forward into this race. I hate the thought that women feel beaten down, backed into a corner, overwhelmed and near to breaking point, as Hillary appeared to be in the debate Saturday night. And I hate even more that they’ve got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own.
I can definitely echo Warner’s discomfort with the line the MSM is feeding us — that Clinton won in New Hampshire because she showed some emotion. And I too have been scratching my head over why, if indeed that is how Clinton picked up the votes, women thought that the tears were a positive development in Clinton’s candidacy.
But I’m not so sure that it was the tears. And if it was, I’m not so ready to pile all the blame on the voters (though certainly they play a role). What about the media that has created this Hillary persona to begin with. While I disagreed with Gloria Steinem’s piece the other day, it does at time seem like a lose-lose for a female candidate: either she’s tough enough to run with the male candidates and too tough to win, or she’s not tough enough to have power over our military and have her finger on the button but she’s now sensitive enough to win.
As some of Warner’s commenters point out, maybe she’s got a little of her own voter narcissism going on in her column. Whatever her angle, I think she’s right to point out that if it is indeed the tears that allowed Hillary to win, we’ve got some serious soul searching to do.
[K:] You’ve talked about Mussolini remaining on the left and remaining a socialist, and in your book you’ve got a lot of quotes from the 1920s about that, but I’m wondering — how does that fit in with what he wrote and said later, especially “The Doctrine of Fascism” in 1932?
[DP:]I’d need to know specifically what he wrote in “The Doctrine of Fascism.” It’s been about three years since I’ve read it.
If you don’t know what’s in La Dottrina del Fascismo, you should just go ahead and admit that you’ve never read the fucking thing.
[Dave Neiwert] seems to think you are less qualified to propound your thesis than, say, a tenured professor of history at some hoo-hah university. I consider that hogwash. I have read your comments and posts for several years now. I may disagree with you (a lot) — but you are every bit as qualified to research the literature and distill it into a book as any professor. I also trust you to have done what you did with diligence and integrity. That’s perhaps the most important reason I’m reading your book.
A regressive sales tax plan that (barring the creation of a massive state apparatus for investigation and enforcement) would encourage fraud, drive up government spending, and (barring a constitutional amendment to abolish an earlier constitutional amendment) give birth to yet another level to the tax bureaucracy? Why, it’s a libertarian’s wet dream!
…UPDATE (BY SL): Jon Chaitpoints out that Landsburg also posits the potential for a progressive consumption tax, charging different amounts for different people at the cash register. Because rich people would never pay cash or use poor people as fronts to buy stuff under such a system. And three ponies!