I am not a woman. I can continue to dress like them and I will continue to do so (#StoleThatFromDennisMiller) but I always am intensely interested when women’s issues come up in the media. Actually I am not really interested in the issue itself but the nuclear fallout that surrounds an issue. For instance, I love it when a progressive feminist holds to the view that laws should remain off her body while petitioning a group of CongressMEN to establish laws to pay for her birth control. Or, lets say your a feminist pillar of the community and because you agree with Bill Clinton, it’s perfectly okay to give an intern a “One Free Grope.”
Personally I think guns have done more for women’s rights than birth control. When I think of a modern woman, I think of Queen Gorgo taking dispatching justice to her rapist and the betrayer of her husband.
Ten years ago (#NotReally) Candace Bure wrote a book entitled, Balancing It All: My Story of Juggling Priorities and Purpose. In this book she stated that she takes a submissive role in her marriage so as to support her husband and her family.
To be honest, I haven’t read the book nor do I intend to. What interests me is the reaction to her choice in life.
Enter Jane Velez-Mitchell from CNN. Yeah, I have never heard of her either. During one of her shows, Ms. Velez-Mitchell is taking Bure’s “submissive” stance in life with some ire.
In order to express my reaction to her reaction, let me take you an excerpt from the book Godless. Yes it is Ann Coulter and yes you probably don’t like her and make Ann Coulter tranny jokes… we get it. But if you are one of the many that react to Ann Coulter like Dracula to the Cross, then at least take a gander at her WORDS. Remember, unlike sticks and stones, words cannot hurt you.
At a January 2005 conference on women in the sciences, then-Harvard president Larry Summers commented that men and women might have different innate abilities in math and science, which led to fainting spells by women in attendance and raised questions about a whole different set of innate differences. In a perfect world, the women’s histrionics would have triggered a discussion on women and irony.
Summers began his rather tepid remarks by saying he intended to be “controversial” and “to provoke you.” He even laid it on thick about “passive discrimination” against women, which—according tohim—no one can deny. But then Summers said, “[I]n the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude.”
That was the phrase that kicked off the trial of Galileo. The effect was roughly that of telling a room full of gay men that Judy Garland couldn’t sing worth a damn. It turns out that innate intelligence differences between the sexes is a topic that may not be discussed on university campuses for fear of giving distaff professors the vapors. Summers ran “continuing discrimination” around the block again, concluding that he “would like nothing better than to be proved wrong.” But it was too late. There weren’t enough fainting couches in the room to deal with the response from nauseated female professors forced to contemplate the possibility of innate differences in ability between men and women.
Some of the women paired off and went to the ladies’ room to discuss possible responses. Others went on eating binges. Most chose to just sit there sobbing. A quick show of hands revealed that every woman in attendance needed a hug.
The Best in Show award went to MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, who told the Washington Post, “I felt I was going to be sick.” She continued, “My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow.”35 (Some might describe Hopkins’s response to Summers’s re-marks as “womanish.”) — Godless: The Church of Liberalism
Fast forwarding back to a Ms. Velez-Mitchell’s response to Bure’s statement about being a submissive wife. In order to be taken seriously as a progressive woman that has evolved beyond the shackles of the past, make it a point to try very hard not to respond to ideas that you do not agree in a, shall we say, womanly manner.