Excuses, Excuses

There seems to be a movement afoot to send women back to the kitchen, happy, barefoot and maybe, unwillingly pregnant.  Now, I could be seeing bogeymen in the bushes, so to speak, but, this “women need permission to make decisions, men don’t”  developing theme bears watching.  Between the Barackulator’s backtracking on selecting a woman to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, (which really doesn’t count as backtracking since he’s only responded to that trial balloon floated in the Omedia by advocates, like the Wimpy Wishy Washer he is) and “Michelle’s Got The Whole World in Her Bare Arms” articles all over the place, one can be forgiven for seeing a typical Axelrovian AstroTurf campaign in the making.   Add the feminist-endorsed-by-their-silence, “FOCA is not a legislative priority, because women usually do the right thing when they talk to their Daddies” happy crappy recently uttered by the Face of Feminism, and, I think it’s past time to worry.

Then there’s the GOP’s latest Pussy Pelosi prickian push.  The only thing Nasty Pancakes and Ian Fleming’s male fantasy Lipstick Lesbian character have in common is gender, so demeaning Pelosi as a dykey ballbuster simply because she’s strong enough to take them on is especially onerous, since it indicates a conviction on their part that such a comparison is, or should be, enough to take her down.  So what if she was a dykey ballbuster?  Perhaps that’s exactly what’s needed to take on a bunch of misogynistic pricks.  It doesn’t take much imagination to see that these throwbacks to the Flintstonian caveman era have no problem with strong women as long as those women limit their fighting spirit to taking on their Golden Ladies of Politics, mudwrestling style.  The Lady Donkeys against the Elephant Girlz is just fine; “my Hillary can beat your McCain with one hand tied behind her back,” or “our Sarah’s tougher in rented 3-inch heels than your size-10’s-in-mouth Biden any day” is a package shrinking no-no.

An Associated Press article Friday debated the merits of overly feminizing, or making princesses of, little girls in today’s era of empowerment.  What the fuck?  Is this a real problem?  As a childless woman who got much more pleasure from her Annie Oakley Shoot ‘Em Up costume, complete with Greenie Stickem Cap-loaded 6-shooter with holster, and stitched, chin-stringed cowboy hat when she was a little girl, I don’t know from the “happily ever after” frilly pinky preoccupation.  I hated petticoats and sparkly shit; my baseball glove was a prized possession, though.   So, I think it’s safe to say, I’m no expert on girly-girl stuff.

But, some of the stuff in the AP article makes my ass itch.  Nobody quoted asks the question that first came to my mind, why princess?  Why not queen?  And, if Mom is the reigning queen of a home’s domain, what’s wrong with endowing her daughters with matrilineal entitlement?  Why do the article’s writers equate princess fixation with Barbie/Bratz doll idealization?  More disturbing is the author’s conflation of “princessness” with narcissism:

“It just encourages parents who put their kids on a pedestal — and who encourage their kids a lot and rarely criticize,” says Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State who’s done research on the way parenting affects children. “You could label that kind of parenting ‘princess parenting.’”

Twenge, who is herself the mom of a young daughter, talks about some of this in her new book “The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.”

Among other things, she and co-author W. Keith Campbell found the rate that college-age women were developing narcissistic traits was four times that of men, when analyzing surveys taken from 2002 through 2007. It should be noted that, overall, men of that age group still are more likely to exhibit narcissistic traits, including the belief that “If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place.”

Now, I know for a fact that if I ruled the world, it would be a much better place, and, like I said, I’d rather shoot hoops underwater in a jock strap than serve tea to baby dolls in a tutu.  What the hell are these people trying to prove?  What’s wrong with pink panties if that’s what a woman prefers?  Who says you can’t kick righteous ass with a tiara on your head?  And, what do you call it when you raise your sons, regardless of their real potential, to believe that inheriting the world is their due?  Obamanism?  Does the fact that he has daughters really offer us hope that he might actually be symapthetic to women’s issues, as this research suggests?  Are they princesses?

Michelle Obama’s capitulation to Obarfme’s “better judgment” really burns my toast, too.  In Time’s “Meaning of Michelle” (?) piece, complete with a photo array of her “fashion diplomacy,” her social schedule, her pride in being the newest member of the FLOTUS girl’s club, and her Maxim rating, Michelle says that as Mom-in-Chief, she’d rather leave the important stuff to Baby Daddy:

Ask anyone in the East Wing how Michelle sees the role of First Lady and you hear a lot about “supporting the President’s agenda.” But what happens if she disagrees with her husband about some policy he’s embraced? “I’m sure I do what every spouse does,” she says, as though their potential disagreements are in any way like any other couple’s. “We’ll have conversations, and we’ll share our opinions over the course of the conversation. But I don’t want to have a say. Really, there are a lot of times when I’m like, Don’t tell me what happened today at work. I just don’t want to hear it, because I want the home space to really be free of that.” Unlike in the Clinton White House, when a member of the First Lady’s staff was in nearly every important meeting, Michelle does not send an emissary to key policy debates or the 7:30 a.m. meeting in chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s office. But no one who heard her on the campaign trail can imagine for a minute that she doesn’t have strong views on many issues, or that her husband doesn’t know what they are.

Obviously Nancy Gibbs and Michael Scherer weren’t aware at the time they wrote this article assigning imaginary reality to Michy’s totally contradictory to their interpretation words, that her husband would say with conviction that his wife’s butt out attitude indeed prevails in their White Household.  When asked during his recent C-SPAN interview about Michelle’s opinion regarding his upcoming court nomination, Obiteme basically said her position is, “whatever you think is best, dear:”

SCULLY: Let me conclude with the U.S. Supreme Court. What would you tell your wife, your mother-in-law and
your two daughters if it weren’t a woman that you are about to appoint?

OBAMA: You know, it’s interesting to me. Actually I can’t tell you the number of women, including Michelle, who
say chose the person you think is going to be best. If I end up having more than one nominee, I am pretty confident
that it would be reflective there of some diversity.

I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and
look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don’t feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court
Justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the
incredible variety of the American people.

Somehow, I think this whole media marginalization of womanhood as cover for a disappointing, Roe-threatening conservative Supreme Court pick is the whole point in a nutshell.

Even worse, I still think it’s a setup for a black, Leah Daughtry-type Christian, female.

Color my woman’s intuition paranoid pink.