Blog of the Week: The Other McCain
Why is feminism still a dirty word? Why do people still regard it as a fleeting female term with no historical purpose? A friend of mine sent me a link to Robert Stacy McCain’s blog, ‘The Other McCain ‘ yesterday, and I tried to rub it off it’s most recent post as just another symptom of that disease I call ‘conservatism,’ and carry on with my work. But, like Amanda Hess , writer of ‘The Sexist,’ this shit is really starting to piss me off! Reading the blog reminds me of watching Fox News, where the men act like twelve year old frat boys and laugh off the world’s sociological dilemmas; everything is just “totally cool, dude.” I guess Robert Stacy McCain has tried to provide a new, fresh perspective to the conservative/libertarian political community, but really the blog posts remind me of the time I gave my drunk uncle the microphone at my cousin’s wedding. The ‘new perspectives’ are cliche’ and disingenuous.
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
If we are in a War of Ideas, it is important to distinguish between ourselves and our ideas. Identity politics, however, convinces some people that an attack on feminism (an idea) is an attack on people (women), just as some people confuse an attack on same-sex marriage (an idea) with an attack on people (gays).
Allison, I believe that I know more about femiinism than you know about conservatism, and I certainly believe I know more about conservatism than you do. Either I do know more or I do not. But to assert my own superiority of knowledge is not a personal attack on you. There are many people whom I love and I admire who know less than I do.
What I am trying to say is that there are actual facts in this world. Not everything is a matter of opinion. And the possibility that you might be mistaken as to the facts is something you might want to consider.
Thanks for the link. Like I say, Rule 4: “Hits is hits,” and linky-hate is as good as linky-love, when it comes down to increasing blog traffic. That is a fact.
BTW, I’m thinking of an Elvis Costello song:
My aim is true.
Robert Stacy McCain is retarded. The true definition of feminism is literally the desire for the sexes to be treated fairly in all POSSIBLE ways. If you’re against that, you’re sexist, period. It’s funny that you mention facts, though, as your position on feminism is factually incorrect.
Same-sex marriage is not an idea. I wonder if this pompous ass is married and if he considers all of the rights and privileges he and his wife enjoys merely an idea. And who says this guy gets to decide what the facts are? What an incoherent bunch of drivel and what a self-absorbed, insecure fool.
Dan,
Maybe that’s what feminism USED to mean, but today it’s an ideology that promotes reckless promiscuity (and objectification of women), denigrates women who honestly choose a family over a career, and demonizes men in general, ironically hi-jacking the definition of chauvenism to especially target those who would demonstrate any kind of civility or chivalry towards women. That is the concept of feminism being opposed, not “fairness”, so your straw-man dichotomy doesn’t hold up.
And if you oppose me, it could ONLY be because you’re a bigot in general! I can tell since you already admitted to discriminating against the differently abled. I’m kidding, but you see how stupid that kind of argument is?
It’s funny that you mention facts, though, as your position on RSM’s position on feminism is factually incorrect.
Johnny Mac…
Just LOL… never heard the phrase “the concept of marriage” before? There is nothing “mere” about ideas… the most powerful things on the planet.
“And who says this guy gets to decide what the facts are?” That’s just brilliant… that can be applied to anyone and everyone. So we should all just stumble around in ignorant nihilism because no-one can have “permission” to determine facts? With that kind of intellectual faculty, I’m glad you’re not the one with permission.
“What an incoherent bunch of drivel and what a self-absorbed, insecure fool.”
Upon reading your post, my thoughts exactly!
i love how his “idea” of feminism is almost exclusively about women wanting to be allowed to be sluts. it’s not about equal recognition and equal expectations, it’s about sleeping around and having abortions. because the only thing a feminist loves more than unprotected sex with myriad partners is aborting the resulting fetus. sheesh.
also: why is it always a fucking “war” with these conservative dicks? everything’s a goddamned “war”. jesus! CTFD conservatives.
and finally, “conservatism” is totally necessary and i wouldn’t just hand over the reigns to “progressives” and think that would work. but why are conservative mouthpieces always such unabashed assholes? i mean, i’m not shy about offending people, i even kind of like it, but it would be nice to see at least ONE conservative commentator who wasn’t willfully prickish. seriously, just one would go a long way toward making rush limbaugh and anne coulter and (ugh) bill kristol and this douchebag here look a lot less clownish.
You’re right, it really isn’t about equal rights and equal expectations, though it may make us feel better about ourselves when we say that it is. But that really isn’t very helpful when it comes to addressing how these ideas are playing out in our society. That is what we are talking about. But such ideas cannot be broached on the left. The critical thinking engendered in the responding comments are largely filled with personal invectives. “Robert Stacy McCain is a retard” “I wonder if this pompous ass is married” and “why is it always a fucking war with these conservative dicks” is not exactly compelling rhetoric. The one exception is Captain Obvious… that guy is all right.
And yes, I am sorry to reveal to all you that Mr. McCain is already taken.
no nicholas, it actually IS about equal recognition and equal expectations. saying that feminism is about encouraging promiscuity (as per your hero dr obvious’ suggestion) is like saying “conservatism” is about trying to starve the poor and eradicate minorities. it’s so panicked and thoughtless. i’d really like to know what sources dr obvious is pulling his image of modern feminism from. it’s jessica spano isn’t it? jessica spano is THE face of feminism.
actually i can see why he would be so confused. showgirls confuses the shit outta me too. but that’s not jessie. it’s nomi. they’re like, completely different people.
No Adam, it actually is NOT about equal recognition and equal expectations.
If that were the case, why all the battles over the language? Why the disparagement of women who choose to place raising their children before raising their career? Why can’t women who make that choice be held in high regard? Why did the feminists completely overlook Bill Clinton’s serial mistreatment of women? Why the underlying (and more often overt) misandry? How could they be so enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, and so disparaging of Sarah Palin? Were they not both ambitious political women on the national stage? If the focus were on seeing women succeed, wouldn’t you think that they would have something to say in admiration of Governor Palin’s successful challenge and rise against the Republican political establishment in Alaska? Commendable, right? Impressive, right? Nada.
Equal recognition and equal expectations? Hardly.
You want an example?
“Feminist” Naomi Wolf said that it is “pretty cool to be able to offer a young man the actual presence of a naked, willing young woman.” Most mysoginists support her definition of “cool.”
“Feminist” Jessica Valenti wrote a whole book called “The Purity Myth” which was a long-winded winge about how “I was the cruelly labeled slut” … for behaving as such. She gets onto the “Today” show with this nonsense. Go figure.
This is “Feminism” as it has been aggrandized by those who call themselves “Feminists” in mass media, which is who RSM rails against.
Because of the mass identification of such, don’t be surprised when people refer to Feminism without always attaching the phrase “as opposed to the classical egalitarian version of feminism as defined on thenewgay blog.” If you don’t consider yourself this kind of “neo-pseudo-feminist,” then the argument isn’t directed at you and you doth protest too much.
This is much the same way wherein people rail about “liberals.” This is merely the common term for modern day statists and has little to do with “classical liberals”. Similarly, there is plenty of bellyaching about big-C “Conservative policies” in reference to, for example, Prescription Drug Entitlement, which is anything BUT based on small-c conservative principles.
Rather, “Conservative” is just the common association as what the people who promoted it were consistently identified, even being nothing of the sort.
The moral of the story is, when you have a media that twists language as it does, you should do yourself a favor and make sure you’re talking about the same thing before diving into impassioned indignance.
Somebody asks you where they can get a fag, and you start screaming about their homophobia, you look mighty foolish when they tell you they just wanted a cigarette.
Bottom line: if you’re the type of “Feminist” who promotes XY and Z in mass media under the banner of feminism that RSM complains about, then yeah, he’s talking to you. If you don’t do XY and Z, you’re just being needlessly defensive and hypersensitive against someone who, when it comes down to the ideas rather than the labels, is more on your side than those XY and Z neo-pseudo-feminists who co-opted the movement in the first place.
Maybe the time has come to start diligently distinguishing between big F and small f feminists.
Very nice, Captain O. Illustrative and thought provoking. And neither demeaning nor antagonizing.
Perhaps I am off base, but it strikes me that your small f feminists are predominantly conservative, and the big F variety fall in with your Liberal, statist crowd. That would explain the marked disparity between the proclaimed feminist goals and the way it plays out in reality.
Anybody?
first, those references don’t really illustrate much with so little context. that said: a woman being young, willing and naked is not the same thing a woman being promiscuous. the difference between the feminist position and the misogynist’s is that final step that you’ve taken, that i and other feminists would not. that a woman being young, willing and naked MAKES her a slut. because only slutty women enjoy sex, and only slutty women would let their sexual expression be anything less than tightly reigned.
and nicholas: though hilary clinton be a ball-breaker, but she’s not an idiotic national embarrassment. THAT’S the difference.
No, a woman being young naked and willing is not the same as promiscuous.
The IDEA that women being young naked and willing is always “cool” is Feminist promoted promiscuity, of which is what I believe you asked for an example. As opposed to the idea that being young naked and willing has pros and cons that are balanced differently in every unique circumstance, Feminists (as opposed to the classical egalitarian version of feminists as defined on thenewgay blog) are pushing the “everyone should think it’s cool to do this” angle.
This would be akin to saying “as opposed to white lies, which may have some debatable justification at some times, lying whenever for any reason should be cool!”
Being young, naked, and willing does not inherently make anyone a slut, man or woman… but any man or woman that tries to make “naked and willing” a common and beyond-reproach normalcy is promoting promiscuity, which is a disservice to women who will always bear a higher burden of consequence for sexual acts by biological necessity.
Feminists are encouraging some kind of equality-of-opportunity-to-play-russian-roulette, while pretending that there’s no difference between men being handed revolvers and women being handed automatics.
Language is a fickle thing, but it’s the best we can do without telepathy. In addition to feminists and Feminists, you tend to see the same thing among conservatives and Conservatives, liberals and Liberals, and libertarians and Libertarians… the former being an abstraction of principle and the latter being an application of ideological purity. Odd that the “pure” ideological practice so often contradicts basic ideological theory on both sides of the aisle.
The whole Palin-as-idiot meme was self-fulfilling propoganda started by Feminists. We were told she was stupid, therefore every inoccuous thing she said (or that was falsely attributed to her) was characterized as stupid, and then offered as proof of stupidity. But everyone has a different opinion of stupid, so I think it would be a waste of my time to argue over her.
Well, I will. Sarah Palin is a woman who came to political prominence by challenging the political power base and won out with determination, courage and a willingness to present ideas that she believes in passionately, which in her case happen to be conservative.
Hillary Clinton came to political prominence by marrying well.
Which of the two most dramatically represents a feminist success story as they define it?
Well, here is how it all translates over onto this blog:
Hillary Clinton (D) Smartest woman in the world
Sarah Palin (R) Idiot
I thought Megan was the “other” McCain…
Modern feminism is not about true equality, but rather retribution and dominance role-reversal. The most militant of the crowd are not about leveling the playing field, but about turning the tables.
Take any kind of “womens’ studies” class at a major university, and then tell me how modern feminism is really all about equal treatment and equal respect between the sexes. No, really.
One only has to read the rhetoric coming out of most mainstream feminists these days to be inundated with villification of males, condemnations of organized religion, and catty criticisms of women who have the gall to find fulfillment in “traditionalist, patriarchal concepts molded around the idea of maintaining feminine subjugation through financial and sexual repression and bondage.” Oooh, looky. I can spout rhetoric, too. Cool!
Feminism is still a dirty word because of the caustic bile spewed by so many of its more rabid adherents. Feminists can be every bit as fundamentalist as the the worst of the bible-thumpers. Jeneane Garafolo, Fred Phelps, eh, whatever.
No one is saying that women shouldn’t be treated equally, merely that they shouldn’t be treated like men. Because they aren’t. Fairly, yes. THE SAME AS, no.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days