February 24, 2005
The Estrogen Monologues
Catherine Seipp takes on Susan Estrogen:
Here's one for the No Good Deed Goes Unpunished file: On Feb. 13, the Los Angeles Times published a special Sunday opinion section featuring exclusively women writers in the first few pages. Two pieces were from the left: Science writer Deborah Blum regretted that that there are too few women scientists, while academics Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barrett coauthored an argument against the notion that men are generally attracted to young, pretty women over high-achievers. Two were from the right: I suggested that perhaps women shouldn't be pushed against their will toward science careers (a longer version of this is up now at the Independent Women's Forum), and IWF coeditor Charlotte Allen lamented that feminist ideologues have replaced public intellectuals who happen to be women. In response, USC law professor and Fox News pundit Susan Estrich sent an angry mass e-mail the next day to her rich and powerful contacts; she urged them to complain to Times editors and boycott Times advertisers until the paper includes more women in the opinion section.
At this point you might be wondering: How, exactly, is a special all-female editorial package an affront to feminism? Apparently because the most prominently featured piece in Sunday's section was by Charlotte Allen, who, as Estrich explained to her e-mail list, is "a feminist-hater I have never heard of...her only book was about Jesus and religion" — ergo, she's obviously a wacky redneck fundamentalist. Actually, Charlotte Allen is a pretty well-known religious scholar. Early Christianity is not exactly one of my areas of expertise, but even I had heard of her book The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, years before I started writing for IWF.
Oh... I get it now. It's not that there aren't enough women on the pages of the LA Times. It's that they're not "the right kind of women". Apparently ideological purity is more of an issue than gender or intellectual diversity. Seipp comments:
What's more, Estrich continued, Charlotte works for the dreaded IWF, "a group of right-wing women who exist to get on TV and get in newspapers attacking the likes of us...a lot of them turn out to be the wives of guys you see on right-wing talk shows." As opposed to the wives on Susan Estrich's Hollywood-heavy mailing list — like the ex-Mrs. Jerry Bruckheimer, Mrs. Larry David, Mrs. Jonathan Dolgen, Mrs. Peter Norton, Mrs. Richard Riordan, Mrs. Haim Saban, and the ex-Mrs. Bud Yorkin — every one of whom is of course fiercely independent of any income or name recognition provided by men.
Odd that the women's movement, ostensibly all about diversity, inclusiveness, and expanding choice for all women, tolerates no dissent from its rigid orthodoxy. But then who can blame them: as one of its leading spokeswomen reminds us,
...right-wing women, the spiritual descendants of the Women’s KKK, are far more overtly hostile to feminists than to any racial or ethnic 'others'...
Apparently, in the clamor to hear more 'women's voices', some voices are more equal than others.
Posted by Cassandra at February 24, 2005 09:53 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
If there is to be any litmus test for the proper "female" journalists, I do not think it should be based on "right" or "left" wing ideology. That does not allow for diversity of thought. I think it should be based on looks, with a releavling photo accompanying all female written columns. Then, I don't have to care about diversity of thought.
Posted by: KJ at February 24, 2005 11:26 AM
Gee KJ...great minds...
And here I was just getting my 'revealing photo' ready to help boost my traffic since no male bloggers will link to me...
Posted by: Cassandra at February 24, 2005 11:29 AM
Diversity of thought is anathema to the left. You could sport twenty sets of male genitalia, but if you spout the usual litany of government ownership of the means of production, how evil men are, how evil whites are, how evil America is, and how we should just let Islam take over and accept Dhimmi status, then the so-called "feminists" will take you in as "one of them".
Posted by: Ciggy at February 24, 2005 11:58 AM
>>maybe nice white fur lady prefer to link to revealing 'lectrons at big-tribble-with-legs pless instead...hzzzz.
Posted by: name muffy at February 24, 2005 12:14 PM
muffy is playing with her life... :)
Someone had way too much fun with Photoshop.
Posted by: Cassandra at February 24, 2005 12:27 PM
And here I was just getting my 'revealing photo' ready to help boost my traffic since no male bloggers will link to me... - Cass
...'cause we all know revealing pictures ward off the cooties from linking to girls.
Posted by: Masked Menace© at February 24, 2005 12:47 PM
>>nice holodeck wet lady hold pose, plizz. name scout working up portfolio for magazine name penthouse.
Posted by: name scout at February 24, 2005 01:03 PM
>>name scout, name muffy says hustle scrup'l buns back to holodeck. white fur lady meandering aimlessly through posts and bigfoot hollering photo op. also all torqued cuz name scout has pentax and canon both. name jake is...hzzzzzz. chok'lit...
Posted by: name kc at February 24, 2005 03:50 PM
Ahh--the LA Times.
I once read a feminut article in the LATimes in which a husband was chastising himself because he used to bring his wife a glass of water if she said she was thirsty. What an evil man, solving her problems for her! Now when she says she is thirsty, he replies, "That must feel terrible. I was thirsty once."
*sigh* they were not joking.
Posted by: MrsPurpleRaider at February 25, 2005 08:55 PM