“Global warming” is now “climate change.” The “estate tax” is now the “death tax.” Think of popular buzzwords today: sustainable, social justice, rights, etc. All of these are now politically charged words.

Those changes make policy arguments more palatable to average voters, and therefore more acceptable. You should always beware a liberal complaining about the semantics of a political issue. It plays into the larger strategy of some sweeping social change to be unleased on America.

Yesterday, Miriam at Feministing threw a little hissy at the Associated Press’ use of “illegal immigrant.” While her post is laughable (a person with an anthropology degree is telling professional journalists how to write?), it shows the level of detail to which liberals will take their fight.

Miriam is upset that the Associated Press Stylebook* instructs journalists and writers to use “illegal immigrant” over the more-PC “undocumented worker.” She whines:

Screw you AP Style Book.

The AP Style Book is a resource for journalists on language, spelling, pronunciation and proper word usage. I’m not clear how the AP Style Book makes decisions, but it is widely regarded and highly used by journalists.

This explains why most of the mainstream media still uses the term “illegal immigrant.” I find the term offensive and disrespectful, as do most immigration activists. People are not illegal, actions are. The advocate community uses the term “undocumented immigrant” which the Stylebook clearly disagrees with.

Thankfully, they don’t advocate using the term “alien.” But illegal needs to go.

If you want to contact the AP Style Book and lobby them to use “undocumented immigrant” you can email them here: info@apbookstore.com.

This may seem like a silly battle, especially since her argument hinges on personal offense, but phrasing is critical to winning policy battles. One of my graduate school professors proudly explained how she changed the word “terrorists” to “freedom fighters” when working as a copyeditor in the 70s. There’s quite a difference of perspective between freedom fighters and terrorists. (She also brought a union organizer who was a former aid to Cynthia McKinney to class, but that’s another story.)

The left needs to re-frame the immigration debate in order to win. As long as persons who enter the country without permission are known as “illegal immigrants” it reminds voters that they broke the law. Those individuals are starting their American existence as criminals. Liberals want to hide that fact. They want you to feel guilty for your hard work and success and spread your wealth around to “underserved” or “at-risk” “undocumented workers” because it’s just not fair!

Most liberal policy arguments are built on sob stories. How can they evoke sympathy for someone when the proper term reminds you of their criminal activity. Thus, the bland “undocumented worker, which emphasizes “worker,” as in person earning their own living. It’s part of our American pathos to side with the underdog.  “Undocumented” just makes them appear to lack a passport. The term is far more palatable and easier to sell voters on the need for immigration reform that includes amnesty.

Newsflash to Miriam: People can be illegal. The term “illegal immigrant” references their status in this country. If they moved from another country to America, they are immigrants. If they entered this country without permission, that makes them and their actions illegal. Also, it’s Stylebook not Style Book.

It is absolutely critical to the immigration debate that we win this battle over semantics.

*For those outside of writing worlds, the AP Stylebook is the bible of the media. My beloved 2002 edition has literally been bled over from my J-school days. It started out a few pages of guidelines to standardize the newspaper world and is now the voice of authority for the industry. Individual newspapers and outlets can maintain their own style guidelines (such as using Mr. Smith vs. Smith) but the Stylebook is the national standard.

What surprised me was the ageist angle that the gals took.

We definitely need to worry about protecting the sanctity of straight marriage–otherwise how could family values men like Rush Limbaugh get married four times, the most recent to a woman 26 years his junior?

What’s it to Feministing to pick on the age difference? This is an organization that embraced a woman live-tweeting abortions, cannonized Dr. George Tiller, the murdered abortionist, and took Palestine’s side in the flotilla situation, since Feministing’s opinion is so crucial in that issue.

Katheryn Rogers, Rush’s new wife, is a 33-year-old woman. She is old enough to decide for herself if a 26-year-old age gap is a big deal. The Feministing nags lost any shred of credibility a long time ago, and they have absolutely no right to take an ageist bent on their union. Not surprising but tacky and shallow, like most of their writing. Who are they to judge? Don’t they believe that all women should be empowered to make their own decisions? That applies to women who marry conservative talk show radio hosts.

When combined with the news that Elton John played at the festivities, should I be surprised that they went with that angle?

I wish Feministing and other outlets like Jezebel (Broadsheet and Double X, I”m pointing at you too!) would do something as simple as perform a Google search to verify facts rather than just read TPM, Kos, HuffPo or whatever source the talking points gods sanctioned that day.

Had they searched, they would have found this interesting exchange on Mediaite that described the evening with Megyn Kelly, who was a guest.

Sheesh, Mediaite is even on their side. How much lazier can those women get?

Secondly, Allahpundit makes a valid point. Elton John has a history of performing with people who disagree with his views.

First, Kelly quotes Elton as having said that he’s “all about tearing down walls and building bridges,” which is true to form. Remember when he teamed up for a Freddie Mercury tribute with Axl Rose, whose most notorious song for Guns ‘n Roses sneered about “immigrants and faggots”? Remember when he dueted at the Grammys with Eminem, who has his own share of gay-baiting lyrics? He has been to known to bridge-build from time to time.\

Plus, factor in that it was his wedding day. Since the women at Feministing are so opposed to that patriarchal sign of female oppression, I’m sure few of them have experienced many weddings. Newsflash, the groom is generally pretty busy. Plus, who cares about politics on your wedding day? All that matters is the person you’re saying “I do” with.

While the author could have used better semantics in describing the woman’s body language (obedient is always a bad way to describe a woman), is this overtly sexist? Sexism is typically hard to define and is based on interpretation. Feminists have blatantly ignored the way that Nikki Haley was treated in the press and threatened by a scummy blogger, but they have time to dissect an article about women’s body language on a website geared towards guys? Guess it’s all about priorities.

I found the article funny in the “this is really how guys perceive us?” sense. Do you expect more from a site that posts video footage from a lightsaber duel in NYC and goes to Russell Brand for relationship advice? I’m not going to click on Feministing and expect to see a story on how awesome Michele Bachmann is. Why would Feministing expect to see an insightful article on male/female relationships at Asylum?

What an accurate description! However, Feministing is one of the more prominent ones in lefty gal world, so people actually get their information and draw their opinions there. (Does that make you cringe, too?)

It makes my day when kick-ass conservative women bloggers, like Lori Ziganto, take on Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing. Given that Lori actually makes logical arguments and the extent of Jessica’s are typically, “but that’s so f—ing stupid to ME, so THEY are wrong.” (Don’t believe me? Read her books). Apparently Lori ruffled a few feathers, which resulted in Cassy Fiano responding at Hot Air.

What was all the fuss over? A simple ad in NYC subways that states, “abortion changes you.”

For the past few months, I’ve read numerous reports about pro-abortion women angered at the concept that abortion could change you. As John Hawkins described, it’s rather mild. Yet to feminists, this ad was incredibly offensive. No one should dare question their opinion on abortion. As liberal women, they have the final word.

Cassy touches on a subject that I’ve tried to understand:

It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions.

I’ve seen that same enthusiasm and find it cold and calculating. Mentally, I’ve started referring to these type of women as the baby killer cheerleaders. You have women reveling in their abortion stories, bowling for abortion, blogging for abortion and tweeting an abortion. It doesn’t quite resonate with the “safe, legal, rare” drumbeat that liberals tried to use in the 90s. I guess the new motto is “YEA! ABORTION!”

As part of the larger liberal movement, feminists completely eliminate the concept of personal responsibility. A group of women doesn’t want to accept responsibilities for their actions and are convinced that women can and should have the same sexual abandon as a frat boy. They don’t want to deal with the consequences, and abortion makes it convenient for them. Don’t want a baby? Poof! Abortion makes the little unwanted mass of tissues disappear.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and a majority of Americans agree. Every woman who stands up and says, “this attitude and behavior is not acceptable” only highlights the shallow callousness of pro-abortion women. In order to succeed, they must silence all opposition and bully other women into agreeing with them. That’s the only pro-woman way, right?

Kudos to Cassy and Lori. I wish more women on the right would take on Jessica Valenti and others like her.

This could be a reflection of society growing more pro-life, which Gallup has reported for a while now. However, the generation billed as the most “socially liberal” is far more pro-life than our parents were at our age.

Today, via Feministing, I saw the results of a survey the Girl Scouts released, Good Intentions: The Beliefs and Values of Tweens and Teens today that surveyed the younger members and complements the Gallup survey.  The Girl Scout survey was actually a better sample than Gallup with 3,263 girls and boys in grades 3-12 who were both in and out of scouting (Gallup only had about 1,000 in the 18-29 cohort). The survey revealed similar findings for the school-aged sample as Gallup did:

Another topic of interest in this survey was youth’s attitudes about abortion. The proportion of 7th- to 12th-graders who agree that abortion is all right is lower today than it was in 1989. Fewer youth today (25%) than in 1989 (33%) believe that “abortion is all right if having a baby will change your life plans in a way you find hard to live with.” Six in ten (60%) disagree that “abortion is all right, if having a baby will change your life plans”. Fifteen percent do not know how they feel about the matter. Boys are more likely than girls to agree that abortion is all right (29% compared to 20%), and as youth get older they are more likely to agree. White (28%) and Asian (35%) youth in this age bracket are more likely than African Americans (15%) to agree with this as well. (emphasis mine.)

What has made this generation–and society overall–more pro-life? Is it the constant presence of abortion in the news? The development of neo-natal medicine or the loudly silent population of 52 million missing people that were killed before they were born?

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.

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?

But some of today’s most influential feminists contend that women will never fulfill their potential if they play by men’s rules. According to Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland, two of the most prominent exponents of this position, it is not enough to smash the glass ceiling. You need to audit the entire building for “gender asbestos”—in other words, root out the inherent sexism built into corporate structures and processes.

The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

Not surprisingly, the gals at Feministing had a few issues with this article, which puts them at odds with other feminist teachings from waves past.

Um, wait — what?? I don’t know about y’all, but I don’t think I have read one book in the last 10 years or have talked to one feminist who has contended that women are “wired” differently than men when it comes to work.

And as for the few examples of these “new feminists” that the author directs us to, here’s a tip: Just because someone has written about gender issues in the workplace doesn’t make them representative of today’s feminism. In fact, after some online research, I couldn’t find really any history where these folks even identified themselves as feminists.

Now if you’re like me and had read through The Economist article twice to understand the gibberish going on, this article hits on a few squishy issues that the feminist movement is now facing.

Vanessa at Feministing admonishes The Economist for, “contending that women are ‘wired’ different than men when it comes to work.” For starters, I didn’t realize that anyone was “wired” for work. Humans were not created to drive to the office every day and sit in front of little machines known as computers. There isn’t a part of our brain labeled “work.”

Since neither men nor women are wired for work, doesn’t it make sense that there would be difference in our styles and performance? Oh wait, what Vanessa is getting at is the larger, nature vs. nuture and “gender is socially constructed” fallacies that those on the left like to pretentiously trot out.

Recently, I finished reading The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, which focuses on how modern medicine has found vast differences in the brains of men and women. Starting in utero, our brains are  triggered by different hormones, which produce a multitude of differences from our physical appearance to our emotions to how we respond to situations. Even male babies and toddlers respond differently than their female counterparts.

While Brizendine refrains for writing anything political, you can tell that she is hesitant to show that men and women are different. She writes, “In writing this book I have struggled with two voices in my head–one is the scientific truth, the other is political correctness. I have chosen to emphasize scientific truth over political correctness even though scientific truths may not always be welcome.”

Earlier she explains the political settings in which her training and research were conducted:

There are those who wish there were no differences between men and women. In the 1970s at the University of California, Berkeley, the buzzword among young women was “mandatory unisex,” which meant that it was still politically incorrect even to mention sex difference. There are still those who believe that for women to become equal, unisex must be the norm. The biological reality, is that there is no unisex brain. The fear of discrimination based on differences runs deep,  and for many years assumptions about sex differences went scientifically unexamined for fear that women wouldn’t be able to claim equality with men. But pretended that women and men are the same, while doing a disservice to both men and women, ultimately hurts women.

As I’ve written before, there are numerous types of feminism. That’s the problem when a philosophy emerges after the activist movement. In the 60s/70s when women were fighting real discrimination in the workplace, they branched out and began searching for an academic angle and philosophy. They essentially combined pop psychology (Betty Friedan) with actual philosophy (Simone de Beauvoir) with the suffragist movement (First Wave Feminists) and established a framework that was largely piecemeal. This is why feminism is broken into waves. Second wave feminists wanted to eliminate the concept of gender and were the hardened activists. As The Economist notes:

The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. They had nothing but contempt for the notion of special treatment for “the sisters”, and instead insisted on getting ahead by dint of working harder and thinking smarter. Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the wimpish men around her. (There is a joke about her going out to dinner with her cabinet. “Steak or fish?” asks the waiter. “Steak, of course,” she replies. “And for the vegetables?” “They’ll have steak as well.”) During America’s most recent presidential election Hillary Clinton taunted Barack Obama with an advertisement that implied that he, unlike she, was not up to the challenge of answering the red phone at 3am.

The third wave realized that de-feminizing women wasn’t working, so another theory emerged: men and women are different, and women are superior. This is most evident in Women’s Ways of Knowing, an important text in academia, that has now infiltrated management. The book essentially teaches that all knowledge and education is misogynistic because the patriarchy (men) were the ones in control:

Along with other academic feminists, we believe that conceptions of knowledge and truth that are accepted and articulated today have been shaped by the male-dominated majority culture. Drawing on their own perspectives and visions, men have constructed the prevailing theories, written history, and set values that have become the guiding principles for men and women alike.

Thus, all knowledge, even the hard sciences, discriminates against women. Contrast what Christina Hoff Sommers writes in Who Stole Feminism? with The Economist article:

The authors of Women’s Ways of Knowing…define “separate knowing” as “the game of impersonal reason,” a game that has “belonged traditionally to boys.” “Separate knowers are tough-minded. They are like doormen at exclusive clubs. they do not want to let anything in unless they are pretty sure it is good….Presented with a proposition, separate knowers immediately look for something wrong–a loophole, a factual error, a logical contradiction, the omission of contrary evidence.”

Separate knowers–mainly men–play the “doubting game.” The authors of Women’s Ways of Knowing contrasts separate knowing with a higher state of “connected knowing” that they view as more feminine. In place of the “doubting game,” connected knowers play the “believing game.” This is more congenial for women because “many women find it easier to believe than to doubt.”

Again read the maligned paragraphs from The Economist article:

The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

While proponents of this “feminized” management style may not be card-carrying feminists, this philosophy has its roots in Women’s Ways of Knowing and other transformationalist studies that attempt to break down the very foundations of education and learning and run them through a gender filter before being rebuilt the politically correct way.

This is hardly surprising. Peruse the business or management section at any bookstore. Has there every been a field more given to fads or philosophies-of-the-month? In grad school, I tried to write a satirical paper for my management class on how the cartoon strip Dilbert has influenced corporate management. I didn’t get very far with the satire because the research and academic papers were very real and very serious.

Anytime there is a problem in the workplace or a crisis, the business world will try some new technique or philsophy. Since we’re in a mancession, why not try feminism? Women are apparently successful and have reached parity with men in the workplace, so we need to re-teach men to be more “connected” and “transformational” in their professional approaches.

Cross-posted at Fourth Wave Woman

Now, I could care less about her wedding and all the hullabaloo of a “feminist wedding.” I’ve gone on the record to state that I have zero respect for Valenti. I’ve read one of her books (I refuse to spend anymore more money purchasing the rest), and found the writing and rationale behind her positions absolutely sloppy. Just because she’s not afraid to drop the f-bomb doesn’t make her fresh and witty and give her a “unique perspective.” Backing up your claims with statistics, examples and other sources goes a long way towards winning an argument than “those f-ing Christians feel this way, so you should believe the opposite.” It’s juvenile scholarship at best.*

I honestly hope she had a happy day that was special for her and her husband. However, I was a bit surprised at this statement:

We wanted to make the wedding representative of the institution we’d like marriage to be, and I think we did a good job. Does any of this change the fact that marriage is a historically sexist institution or make it okay that millions of people are denied the right to be married? Of course not. But it made the celebration one that made sense to us, one that re-imagined what marriage as an institution should be about – love, equal partnership and community. (And seriously, to the some of the more conservative relatives at our wedding, hearing these sort of things at a wedding absolutely made an impact.) [italics mine]

That’s nothing short of rude. It’s one thing to hold a ceremony that is important to you. It’s another to hold a ceremony that pushes a political agenda so that the less “enlightened” members of your family can be exposed to the “truth.”

I hate to break it to Ms. Valenti, but she sounds dangerously close to the Bible-thumping-Bob-Jones-University-types that I knew in high school. If you go far enough to one side, you start resembling the views of your so-called enemies. The politics my be different, but the attitude and expressions are nearly identical.

To push an agenda towards your extended family who have taken off from work, spent time and money to travel and most likely purchased at least one gift is the height of arrogance. What Valenti and other liberals (and many conservatives and Evangelicals for that matter) refuse to understand is the right to hold an opposing view.

The greatest part of democracy is the ability to hold a dissenting view and be vocal about it. That is a liberty that far too few people hold in this world, and it’s one that is taken for granted and trampled by both sides of the political spectrum.

I see this every day as I help conservative college students fight for freedom of speech and diversity of thought. I write about the absolute exclusion that liberal women have towards the center-right majority of women in this country. The right to dissent without fear of ramification through lawsuits, hate speech codes or threats of “intolerance” is a very real battle in this country.

Simply because you have very strong views and are surrounded by a fawning press and people who agree with you (ahem, Ms. Valenti), doesn’t make you superior. I disagree with nearly everything that you believe. While I respect your right to hold these views, I rarely see that respect come from your side. When was the last time that you gave a conservative woman an interview? When was the last time that you tried to find common ground with a Republican? What about an honest and real debate with someone from the other side? How is feminism helping women when you automatically dismiss at least 50% of your audience?

Where is our country going when we can’t even openly debate important issues? This problem ranges from small situations, such as the Valenti wedding to the White House shoving government health care down our throats. Average Americans, the ones that the left claims to speak up for, are not allowing debate. You either agree or disagree. There are a range of options out there from de-regulation and allowing competition and flexible health care plans to the public option. However, we only hear one side. When one side shuts down all debate, it furthers one side’s political agenda but it destroys democracy.

*I’m currently reading Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future and find the writing far more articulate and the views of the authors better explained. While the book is a bit outdated (published in 2000 with a considerable zeal for ‘zines), it presents a grown-up perspective of feminism that Full Frontal Feminism lacks. I still disagree with nearly everything, but I don’t find myself putting the book down and laughing at its idiocy.