James Taranto writes on Sandra Fluke who said at the DNC:
“Your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party.”
Taranto cuts to the quick of feminism’s inherent tension which is exemplified in Fluke’s statement:
What’s most interesting about the Fluke comment, though, is that it points to a central cultural contradiction of feminism. Libertarian feminists sometimes argue that left-wing ones aren’t “true feminists” because they want women to be dependent, albeit on government rather than on men. But feminism is about sexual equality or female supremacy, not freedom or independence. As long as the government isn’t masculine in character (“patriarchal”), its size and scope are irrelevant to feminism.
When one considers the specific context of Fluke’s above-quoted comment, however, it turns out to be as patriarchal a conception of government as one can imagine. By criticizing Romney for failing to “stand up” against Limbaugh, she faults him for a lack of chivalry. The duty of the president in a Flukist regime is to act as a white knight when a fair maiden’s honor has been besmirched.
Being an -ism, feminism can only exist as a victim movement. Feminism’s headcount may wax and wane, but those who are still among its ranks will always use almighty government as a tool against private citizens.
Feminists engaged in political debate frequently take advantage of the chivalric male impulse to defer to women, or to defend them when other men challenge them. To be sure, all’s fair in love and war. But if the male instinct to protect women is a social construct, as feminists usually claim, then it is hypocritical for feminists to exploit it. If it is hard-wired, as most evolutionary psychologists would argue, then feminism is fundamentally false.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Many things about Sandra Fluke make her an odd spokeswoman for a political cause, state-sponsored feminism trumping private religious institutions in this case. For an upper class young woman, she is not physically attractive. And orchestrated political blitzes rely on attractive figureheads.
She reminds me of Monica Lewinsky minus the airheadish softness.
Chuck,
I think your girlfriend said Fluke is likely a lesbian. After seeing her speak, I think your girlfriend is right. I have nothing against lesbians, but I think she should be honest about that. She will view sex relations differently than a heterosexual woman would.
Is Sandra Fluke calling herself a private citizen…. lol stupid whore, back to the kitchen.
Fluke is about as far from a sex positive feminist as you can imagine. I think she’s got more in common with Santorum than just opposition to porn. It’s not surprising to me she was raised in a religious household, she’s definitely got the church lady vibe.
The feminist aspect is bad enough, but I’m just amazed at the self-centeredness of it all. As though the president should have nothing more important to do all day than monitor radio shows and apologize to anyone whose feelings get hurt. Feminism has been around for decades, but can you imagine anyone in a previous generation even suggesting something like that?
And I understand that people like Sandra Fluke don’t really mean what they’re saying, and are just attempting to use it as a “gotcha” against Romney, but don’t they ever feel even a little bit ashamed at the way they portray themselves?
bjk – Sandra Fluke? Religious? Don’t make me laugh. How many genuine religious girls go out making false rape allegations? That sex is rape or that this is creepy or that this is abuse? RAAAAAAPPEEE! That’s the 2ND WAVE (or maybe 3rd?) of the feminist movement.
She’s a hypergamous slut who calls every beta man a rapist. LOL
I don’t get slut vibes from her. I get “I hate men” vibes.
It seems to me the obvious contradiction is that she’s claiming Limbaugh (who, incidentally, is just as much a private citizen as she is, not a “public figure” in the sense of someone wielding government power) is Evil for trying to “silence” her, therefore the government ought to silence Limbaugh. Taken at face value she is literally saying that she ought to be able to say whatever she wants while those who disagree should be censored by the President himself.
If she didn’t want people talking about her sex life, she shouldn’t have gone to Congress and asked them to pay for it.