« I for one welcome our new nanny overlords | Main | Well, look on the bright side »

All hail the New Feminism!

Far out. My fellow Jersey blogger and longtime sparring partner Jill has incurred the "wrath of Althouse" (check out the comments section) by suggesting that educated, successful women who criticize Bill Clinton do so because he never made a pass at them.

This is a far cry from the feminism I encountered back in college, which told me I was a rapist because I was born with a penis. This new breed of feminism seems to suggest that if a woman espouses the "wrong" political opinion, it's only because the right guy hasn't grabbed her ass in the Chappaqua Starbucks.

Both feminisms still seem a bit strange to me, but I have to say I much prefer the new version. I'd call that progress. "I am woman, hear me roar...."


As usual, Barry, you're oversimplifying -- perhaps because you have to appeal to the reptilian brains of your readers.

My comment about Althouse, in essence saying that what she needs is a good schtup, as she puts it, is of course not meant seriously. But did you read her post about the Hillary/Sopranos video? As I said in my post, had you bothered to read it instead of just being dazzled by the fact that La Althouse deigned to visit my little bloggeroo, I work in a building full of shrinks and not one of them would take seriously her Freudian "analysis."

As I posted in my own comments section, my hatred of George W. Bush is based on how he runs this country, not because he let an intern blow him. Real people have felt real consequences from what Bush has done.

But this obsession that people like Althouse and Dowd have with both Bill and Hillary Clinton makes me wonder just what's going on here. It's an obsession that would still be going on even if Hillary weren't running for president.

It all seems to have to do with their marriage, which for some reason people find very threatening. As anyone who's been married for a long time knows, every marriage has its own dynamic, and why people get and stay together is often a mystery from the outside. Bill and Hill have a strong intellectual connection, but whatever else is going on is none of my business any more than George and Laura's marriage is none of my business. And frankly, neither is something I think about. But Althouse often gives the impression that she obsesses about the Clintons' sexuality all the time. And THAT'S what I find strange.

Of course the idea that it's because Bill never made a pass at her and she's angry is ridiculous. And anyone who thought I meant that seriously is an idiot.

I don't get it. Could you explain this to me again -- but wait until the sun comes out...I understand things better when I'm warm.

Jill wrote:

"And anyone who thought I meant that seriously is an idiot."

Now we are all waiting anxiously Barry's reaction :)

Jill wrote:

"And anyone who thought I meant that seriously is an idiot."

Well, she nailed it right there.

>But this obsession that people like Althouse and Dowd have with both Bill and Hillary Clinton makes me wonder just what's going on here.

They obsess about Clinton far less than you obsess about Bush. I guess that must mean....

"They obsess about Clinton far less than you obsess about Bush."

Nobody is obsessing about Bush. He can not even achieve that. The only reason people talk about him is because he has been so destructive to this country. Also, having someone of such a low intelligence, with complete lack of competence, running the government of this country is noticeable. On the other hand, far-right wingers hate deeply the Clintons for no good reason.

"On the other hand, far-right wingers hate deeply the Clintons for no good reason." (BW)

Now that's untrue on it's face.

Now, I'm more Conservative than Pat Buchanan, so to some folks that's pretty far "Right-wing," I'd acknowledge that "I'm somewhat Right of Center," BUT even I've never "hated Bill Clinton."

I liked his pro-business agenda that included a huge Cap Gains cut.

I liked a seeing a Supply-Side Democrat, the first since JFK. Clinton continued the Supply-Side revolution that Reagan started and Bush Sr followed.

I LOVED his signing onto Gingrich's Welfare Reform.

I didn't like the tweaking of the SEC rules that allowed far too many IPOs to enter the stock market in the late 1990s creating a faux, or manufactured "Tech Bubble," that never should've existed.

I didn't much care for his push for "gays in the Military," as I believe the Military should establish its own parameters.

But overall, he was, like most Presidents (with the exception of Carter - a disaster in every way) a mixed bag. Certainly the same as G W Bush (a mixed bag) - Bush has been excellent on the economy and the WoT (both internatrionally & domestically), but poor on the porous Borders issue and on reckless spending (the NCLB Act & the Prescription Drug boondoggle).

Nope, people who don't recognize that MOST politicains are a mixed bag, are generally pretty unbalanced.

I didn't know that the President got to set all of the SEC rules. Is that true? Hmmm, let's check out the facts:


[i]The SEC was established by the United States Congress in 1934 as an independent, non-partisan, quasi-judicial regulatory agency following years of depression caused by the Great Crash of 1929. The main reason for the creation of the SEC was to regulate the stock market and prevent corporate abuses relating to the offering and sale of securities and corporate reporting. The SEC was given the power to license and regulate stock exchanges. Currently, the SEC is responsible for administering six major laws that govern the securities industry. They are: the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, most recently, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.[/i]

Oh, so congress created the SEC a long time ago, after the last set of robber barons were allowed to destroy America because of their greed.

I see that it was not actually changed from 1940-2002, meaning the Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., and even Chimp apparently went along with it for a while ... or wait, maybe the president doesn't make laws or create agencies ... is that possible?

[i]Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-Oh.).[/i]

Well damn, JMK. How did a dirty, pinko-commmie DEMOCRAT get his name first on the Act to reform corporate greed (on July 30, 2002 ... hey, wasn't Chimp president in 2001? Why did he let corporate felons continue to operate, just like Ronald Reagan did, for another year and a half?

Clinton didn't tweak anything, liar.


Wow, not one mention of Clinton or "tweaking" the rules!


Hmmm, again, they forgot to mention that it was Clinton, not the fraud of Chimp's buddies like Kenny-boy Lay, that really caused the problem!

Damn JMK, you have everything but facts on your side. Just turn off Rush, you'll recover eventually.

The Clinton administration, like every previous and succeeding administration appointed the head of the SEC.

Those rules changes occurred in late '96 and returned to their default positions in January 2000, which is why the Tech Bubble burst by March of 2000.

The "Tech Bubble" was an artificial construct, that NEVER should've existed, just as it created "investors" out of wait staff whose investments bottomed out after the implosion, it created tons of tech Jobs for guys who should've stayed window washers.

The "Tech Bubble" was an artificially created mirage, that shouldn't have ever existed. I suppose I should mention that a fair number of Wall Streeters (including a cousin who is a Broker) disagree strenuously with that assessment....well, not that it was artificial, not that it was caused primarily by loosened IPO rules and more lax margin rates, but they disagree with my view that "it was a mirage and it never should've happened." Of course, my cousin (full disclosure) made a lot of money shorting the market in 2000 and 2001..."shearing the sheep," (all those wait staff investors) as he called it) says, "It was NO mirage and it needed to happen, in order to let off some steam from those over-heated markets."

That's the "Tech Bubble" in a nutshell, Barely.

"Both feminisms still seem a bit strange to me..." (BNJ)

I don't understand how or why feminism, in general, has morphed into the mirror image of the "He-man woman-haters club."

Don't we already have a movement for THOSE kinds of people???

The....uh...damn...uh, uh...oh yeah!....The homosexual movememt!

So why did we need another movement where folks like Andrea Dworkin (man, there's an apt name - the dwork) to naval gaze and ruminate about how much they revile men?

I mean seriously, did we really need that?

I mean it's sort of like being tag-teamed by the same Lesbians.

I know, I know Jill, "In my dreams," right?

Close, try nightmare and you've nailed it.

The "Conservative Facts Champion" once again squawks out baseless Limbaugh Lies against factual, researched, linked and verifiable information.

Don't worry JMK, your nitwit followers will believe anything you say, especially since Rush said it all first!

Post a comment