Be careful for what you wish. The fem blogs finally noticed the craziness going down in South Carolina. Rather than use this as an opportunity to attack the establishment good ol’ boy network, they question if the allegations were true.

Note the Jezebel’s headline, which is the only fem outlet to cover this story the entire time, “Nikki Haley Refuses Polygraph.”

An article on The Daily Beast makes my skin crawl. This is exactly the type of journalism that propels me to fight feminists:

Granted, Haley has a hypocrisy problem: Like Mark Sanford, the adulterous and love-sick Republican governor she’s trying to replace, Haley is one of those preachy “family values” conservatives who seem to think the rules apply to everyone but themselves. In a May TV ad, Sarah Palin is seen describing Haley as “a strong pro-family, pro-life…conservative reformer.” A campaign flyer announces that Haley “supports traditional, family values,” and in her latest TV spot, produced after the sex scandal broke, Haley introduces her silent and slightly dorky looking husband, the possibly cuckolded Michael, in what might be termed a Spitzer reversal. Watching the ad made me cringe; it’s uncomfortable to see Michael standing there next to Nikki, just as it was uncomfortable to see Silda standing by Eliot. “What are they thinking?” you wonder. “Why aren’t they mad as hell?”

Given that the allegations are likely false, and South Carolina has the political machine that would make Huey P. Long sick, how can feminists do this? They aren’t taking the high road or waiting for evidence. They’re sitting with baited breath waiting for clear proof to come out against Haley. They’re dying to bring her down.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is exactly the same hypocrisy that feminists demonstrated with the womanizing Bill Clinton. This is one of the few times that feminists could have transcended party lines and fought for a true pro-woman cause. Every feminist blog, magazine, spokesperson and pundit should denounce the sexist operation going on in South Carolina. This type of campaigning should not be allowed to exist.

By primly sitting back, feminists are silently endorsing this sleazy behavior.

Is it too much for feminists to take a few minutes each day and read right-wing blogs? If they only read Red State, they would have seen the post penned by Lori Ziganto, a South Carolina voter, on the state’s corruption.That was the focus of the Haley campaign. Nikki Haley took on establishment corruption. Shouldn’t all women respect that regardless of political affiliation?

Hanna Rosin at Double X likens Haley to Riot Grrl, an early third-wave feminist movement. That’s a silly comparison because Haley has campaigned on her record for demanding accountability and transparency in a state that nearly operates under a cloak of darkness. Riot Grrl was a small under-the-radar movement that gave us the conflicting and ambiguous third-wave feminist definition of “as long as you’re empowered to make choices, you’re a feminist.” But through their actions over the past year, that’s proved hollow.

I wish the Dana Goldstein, the sleazeball masquerading as an editor at The Daily Beast, and Hanna Rosin, sadly one of the more reasonable writers at Double X, would wake up and see how futile this quote is:

Weathering a scandal of this magnitude would help conservatives see modern women as we really are: complex, sexually liberated, and free to make our own decisions about what we do with our bodies.

No Dana and Hanna. Perhaps feminists should understand how silly and marginalized your movement is now? Modern women are far more complex and view politics through a wider lense than just abortion. That’s why your movement is decreasing in size. That’s why fewer and fewer women identify as feminists. That’s why pro-life PACS are out-fundraising the old dinosaurs like EMILY’s List and NOW. That’s why more and more Americans are identifying as pro-life. And that’s why mostly conservative women won primaries across America tonight.

Feminists, you had one last redeeming chance to prove that your movement was legitimate. I’d say you failed…miserably.

The universe must be off-balanced today. Slates’ Double X actually published a post that attacked Nancy Pelosi and linked to a Mary Katherine Ham piece at the Weekly Standard. I thought they had some type of rule that banned all conservative women in order to pretend that we don’t exist.  Then, I read two other posts at different blogs that I nearly agreed with. (Ok, I agreed with one.)

I agree with Amanda Hess at The Sexist

Amanda Hess covers Hollaback DC, and I agree with her. She shares a negative experience of a police officer intimidating her from a car while she was running alone.Unfortunately, there are cops out there who use their positions of power to intimidate women. Normally, I disagree with Hess, but she’s right on this issue.

About a year after I graduated from college, a cop in Tennessee pulled me over for tailgating. Yes, tailgating. (I think I passed a car with less than one car-length in front of me.) I was driving back to my parents house for Good Friday, so I knew that I had not run a red light or failed to stop at a crosswalk. The cop took my name and information and gave me a written warning.

When I told my family, something bothered my Dad about it. He happened to know the officer in charge of all traffic cops  and asked his opinion.  The officer told my dad that pulling over young women for tailgating is a cover for stopping female drivers in order to check them out. Since I was driving a little Honda covered in sorority stickers, I was a prime target. My dad’s acquaintance was extremely upset that someone working for him would pull such a stunt and wanted me to complain. I debated reporting the offending cop’s badge number, but ultimately decided against it. If he was willing to use his position to intimidate women, what would he do in retaliation? It’s not a very big town.

As Hess notes, it might not seem like a big deal when a guy shouts out “Hey Baby!” on the street, but you never know where that guy will stop. Most women have had negative experiences with skeezy guys and are wary. If you’re enough of a jerk to shout at us from the street, how do we know you’re not going to do more?

However, an element of personal responsibility is required. We are adults. In Hess’ case, I would recommend not running alone. In a city like DC, every other person is a runner*. It’s not difficult to find a partner or join a gym. Women should also use common sense. It doesn’t matter if you feel empowered from holding up a Take Back the Night sign. Chances are, it’s not safe to walk around at 2 a.m. by yourself. There will always be bad people out there in the world (both male and female) and no well-intentioned law or protest walk can protect us enough. Ultimately, we must use good judgment and protect ourselves.

I sort of agree with Feministing

Sometime last week, my mom sent me a photo of Angelina Jolie’s daughter, Shiloh, with the commment, “You had that haircut as a little kid.” I replied, “Me and almost every other kid from the 80s.” It’s true. The bowl cut that little Shiloh Jolie-Pitt is sporting was immensely popular with the under-10 crowd during the 1980s.

Last night at the grocery store, I noticed Life & Style with the headline, “Is Angelina Turning Shiloh into a Boy?” and rolled my eyes. Immediately I thought, “Some gender blog is going to cover that tomorrow.” (If only I could monetize my gift for anticipating the reaction of feminists.) Feministing rarely fails to disappoint in expected liberal outrage.

The article is immensely stupid and attacks Angelina Jolie because she’s been cast into the “other woman” narrative since tabloids can’t move past the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Anniston break-up. (If Jolie broke up a marriage, she must be a bad mother!) The haircut is not masculine, nor is Shiloh dressed like a little boy. If anything, she’s displaying some serious prep for a three-year-old.

Feministing, of course, goes off on the other end.

First of all, the gendering of kids’ clothing for a three year old like Shiloh is utter bullshit. There is little to no difference between the body of a young girl and the body of a young boy–the norms we hold around clothing and hairstyles at that age are pretty much made up. There is little difference in kids’ bodies until puberty.

Well, actually that’s wrong. Gender differences are part of our DNA, and toddlers actually go through a pre-pubescence phase. Little boys’ minds are washed with testosterone, which makes them more aggressive, and little girls are washed with estrogen, which makes them more sensitive and observant.

According to The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, babies and toddlers go through infantile puberty, which starts at about 18 months. It only lasts for 9 months for boys, but 24 months for girls. Brizendine writes:

During this time, the ovaries begin producing huge amounts of estrogen–comparable to the level of an adult female–that marinate the little girls’ brain. Scientists believe these infantile estrogen surges are needed to prompt the development of the ovaries and brain for reproductive purposes. but this high quanity of estrogen also stimulates the brain circuits that are rapidly becoming built. It spurs the growth and development of neurons, further enhancing the female brain circuits and centers for observation, communication, gut feelings, even tending and caring. Estrogen is priming these innate female brain circuits so that this little girl can master her skills in social nuance and promote her fertility. That’s why she was able to be so emotionally adept while still in diapers.

As much as the left doesn’t want to admit, there are strong arguments that gender is imprinted in our DNA and hormonal make-up. Some factors are socially constructed, but many are a result of our brain chemistry or are reactions triggered by brain chemistry. However, the Feministing post continues:

But what if Shiloh was exploring their gender identity? What if Shiloh wanted to be a boy, or wear “boy’s” clothes, or go by male pronouns? That of course, would be unacceptable, according to Life & Style magazine. It might even harm the child. Such a typical narrative around gender variance in the mainstream media.

While this cover is an extreme example, it’s indicative of larger norms that exist around gender. These norms are real, and alive, and affect us from the the moment we are a bump in our parent’s belly to the day we die.

Say what? Isn’t Shiloh three? What toddler is exploring gender-bending? Most three-year-olds are consumed by toys, naps and their families. According to the left’s beloved Maslow, they aren’t self-aware enough at the tender age of three to comprehend the concept of gender. It makes me wonder if the writer, Miriam, has ever encountered a three-year-old before.

So I agree with Feministing that Life & Style was stupid for mocking a little girl, but they went way too far into liberal psychobabble. But be careful. According to Miriam, if you are so inclined to not abort your in utero “bump,” you may be causing gender confusion if you invoke the “larger norms that exist around gender.”

*Someone once told me that you can judge the amount of type-A people in a geographic area by the number of runners. DC has to be in the top 3 for the U.S.

Update: Some pit in hell must be icy today because I nearly agree with Amanda Marcotte on something. Although, I do enjoy the “joys of housework,” and look forward to spending a few hours each week cleaning my apartment. Also, as a life-long crafter, Martha Stewart ideas are generally overrated.

In a post displaying all of the hubris that comes from being a liberal feminist writer, Newsweek’s Margaret Wheeler Johnson admonishes those under 35 for taking the time to cook. In response to a New York Times article on bread recipes, she writes:

The question that occurred to me reading every one of these pieces is how anyone trying to succeed in New York or a similarly pricey and competitive cosmopolis finds the time or reason to engage in elaborate culinary exercises like bread making. Perhaps these articles are geared to a middle-aged, upper-middle-class demographic secure in their careers with some leisure time to spare. But the Times articles also validate the idea currently floating in the zeitgeist that while building our actual careers, we under-35-year-olds should also be joyously training ourselves in the art of fresh-market-simple-slow-nouveau soul-food preparation. Think of the multitudinous cook-offs, the astonishing amount of cookware urban twenty-something engaged couples receive as shower and wedding gifts, the “young artisanal food scene,” or Noteatingoutinny.com. The overall implication is that if you stock your freezer with Trader Joe’s frozen entrees, or worse, anything non-organic, if you aren’t making your friends buttercream-frosted birthday cakes or whipping up truffle frittatas, you do not live “seasonally, locally, sustainably, cost-efficiently and healthily”; you are immature and possibly lazy; and the worst of all possible Gen Y fates, you are NOT WELL-ROUNDED.

What’s wrong with cooking? Even though I live in a busy metropolis and work hard at my career, I haven’t felt society pushing me towards culinary action. I have a crazy commute, several blogs, including a cooking blog, numerous weekly volunteer commitments, and relationships to maintain but I still find the time to cook each week. Why? Because I like it. Am I offending Ms. Wheeler Johnson by being more well-rounded than her?

I simply disagree with Ms. Johnson’s opinion that Millenials shouldn’t cook:

The truth is that unless you are a chef by profession or truly love cooking, spending a minimum of seven hours a week in the kitchen—and that’s just making dinner—is not the best use of an ambitious youngish person’s time. Wouldn’t the energy we expend making the meatloaf our mothers never did, or feeling guilty that we don’t, be better spent connecting with peers, putting in extra hours at work, or pursuing personal projects? If you want an Amy’s loaf, get it from Amy’s. Otherwise buy a sleeve of Nature’s Own, and leave the no-need bread for retirement.

Actually Ms. Johnson, cooking is not a waste of time for educated young workers. IT’S CALLED BEING A GROWN UP. Responsible adults think ahead about what they’re going to eat in order to be healthy and use their financial resources wisely. I’d rather spend a few hours a week cooking than spending my money eating out every night or defrosting TV dinners as Ms. Johnson suggests.

For many, baking or cooking is a way to relax. I spend my work hours in digital media and then come home to blog. Cooking provides an outlet to use a different part of my brain. There are many days that I spend writing emails or building websites while I’m thinking about a recipe or dying to try out a new cookbook. I’m not alone. My best friend’s husband calls her love of the Food Network, “cooking porn.” Why is cooking offensive?

Cooking also provides a better way to control our diets and budgets. Eating out is expensive. When trying to save money, the experts always say eliminate Starbucks and restaurants. One day when I’m finally free of credit card debt and student loans, will I look back and regret all my missed opportunities for Chinese takeout? Also, those Trader Joe’s dinners that Ms. Johnson praises are typically high in fat and sodium. As a Trader Joe’s customer, I’ve checked. The best way to stay on a budget and eat healthy is to cook.

Perhaps Ms. Johnson also failed at the most basic Millenial skills–time management and multi-tasking. Typically, I cook several meals on the weekend, freeze the leftovers and enjoy them during the rest of the week. I also package fresh veggies in sandwich bags after grocery shopping, so that I can throw my lunch together quickly in the morning (with a re-usable and fashion-forward lunch box even the trendiest Manhattanite would approve). It hardly takes time. Just a little planning.

Cooking also helps those concerned about buying environmentally-friendly products, fair trade or special diets. A friend of mine is now eating gluten-free at the advice of a doctor. Try going to a restaurant and finding gluten-free food. It’s difficult. My mother is a vegetarian, it is still hard to eat out decades after the vegetarian movement took off.

Honestly, what’s Ms. Johnson’s deal? Cooking isn’t sexist. Millenials who cook are just as likely to be men or women. It’s not a waste of time to enjoy being in the kitchen. Apparently, it is a crime for the New York Times Dining & Wine section to publish a recipe. Something struck a nerve with Ms. Johnson. I just don’t understand why she had to share it with everyone else.