Anger. Rising. Must. Blog.

Note: Sorry I’ve been out of the blogging loop for a while, it was due to the post-exam blob-out and being too busy in the real-world and then writing about slightly more interesting things elsewhere–I have even avoided looking the news up online–and please forgive that this response to my second favourite Tory Lady Janet Albrechtsen is a little tardy and may have been covered elsewhere. I promise I’ll be getting back into the swing of things again shortly. Oh, and yeah, I get really ticked off here, so you have hereby been given a

LANGUAGE WARNING.

Anti-feminist women perplex me. Conservative anti-feminist women (though I’m hard pressed to name any progressive anti-feminist women) more so. Let’s face it, if a woman it so brainwashed by her context to think her place is in the home and she should never be able to achieve or do anything because she wants to, then I can’t blame her. Heck, if a woman sits down and has a good think about all the issues and decides, for. her. self, that’s what she wants to do, then kudos to her. But how can an educated, apparently intelligent woman of the world think so? I suppose “an intelligent Conservative” is an oxymoron. But, in my humble opinion, so is Tory Anti-Feminism.

In her latest, Janet Albrechtsen suggests that for those weirdo hippie bra-burning crackpots better known as ‘older feminists’, “conservatism and feminism do not mix“.

And rightly so, because Tories like the Luddite “picket-fence, mother-at-home model” of women’s policy in preference to the “oh, shit; quick, put a woman on the High Court even if it’s solely to save us from international humiliation (even though we probably can’t be more humiliated and looked down upon…)” model.

But, surely, if a Conservative woman was all gung-ho for that personal-best-self-interest realist crap, she would be promoting the need to support women though affirmative action mechanisms because it’d be the best way for her to win?

Apparently not!

Which I SO do not get. Doesn’t Jan realise that maybe one day she could be swinging her sensible shoes off the edge of highest park-bench in the country if only she supported giving women a so-called ‘free ride’?

No, she’s too busy pointing out that 30% is a victory.

I know Jess from ausculture hearts Janet Albrechtsen, but I hate her and her smarminess.

According to Jan, ‘real women’ (of which I am apparently not one) should be celebrating (and that does not just mean being pleased with the current progress, but actually congratulating ourselves on this is be-all and end-all achievement) the following:

Women hold 33 per cent of Australian government board spots, well beyond the 8.6 per cent of seats they had on Australia’s top 200 listed companies as at June 2003. For the same period, women held more than 30 per cent of positions at the senior executive service level in the Australian public service. In the private sector the figure is 8.8 per cent. Women fill more than one quarter of Coalition seats and as Howard noted in his post-election press conference, there are more women in cabinet than at any time since Federation.


First of all… 103 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME SINCE FEDERATION, but, more bizarrely… we’re supposed to be proud of THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT?????????????

Fuck. Off.

Oh, pardon me. That’s thirty-three percent of government board spots.

Fuck the fuck off, Jan. Not happy, even.

Apparently we’re not allowed to be ‘angry’ that only SIX women head government departments. That’s SIX out of EIGHTEEN departments. Good things obviously come in thirds, because this fact, according to Auntie Jan, is the. Best. Thing. Ever.

Fuck. Off.

I appear to be repeating myself. But I just can’t help it. I am livid. FUCK THE FUCK OFF, JANET!!!!

On the issue that affirmative action is a ‘free ride’, Auntie Jan argues that:

… merit must come first. Short cuts based on gender will hardly advance the status of women. When you appoint a woman on sex, not talent, you risk appointing the talentless — or at least promoting that perception. And that can only encourage a view that women are not quite up to the job.

What complete and utter bullshit. On first glance, Jan’s point appears relatively rational. (Heaven forbid!)

But let’s have a think about this, shall we? (Phew. Order is once again restored to the world.)

First of all, while we may like to think we live in a meritocracy, oh no we fucking don’t. What’s the difference between appointing a woman to the High Court because she’s a woman and appointing a conservative to the High Court because he (let’s face it, he) happens to be a conservative, for fuckssakes? Because that’s what fucking happens in the fucking real world, as much as it pains me almost to the point of tears.

Second of all, we “risk appointing the talentless”??? Give me a freaking break, woman. Why don’t you just SAY “there are no talented, qualified, quite-up-to-the-job women available to fill these positions”, COUGHBULLSHITCOUGH, and just admit your redicularity (is that a word? I mean it in the same way one says ‘hilarity’). Giving women a chance to enter a male-dominated profession is shitloads more progress than THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT. Can someone please explain to me how the fuck she ever passed highschool (heck, even kindergarten) thinking THIRTY PERCENT was good enough? That concept is just spinning me out right now.

And on the issue of choice… The feminazi version of choice apparently has “a nasty tendency to transmute into the dictatorial and doctrinaire“. WANKWANKWANKWANKWANK. Your point, sweetie? (By the by, what a nice way of appealing to the masses; you go, Jan.) There is so a fucking choice when you support women. When I have children, I will stay at home with them because I’m the clucky type and I want to watch the cute little monkeys grow up. But I also want to do something with my life other than get sprogged up. That’s called choice. It’s only when we have opportunities do we have a bloody choice. It’s only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a fucking choice.

Finally, if it’s not too much to ask, Auntie Jan, would you care to explain and/or give an example of what you mean by “objective policy making based upon impartial research of women’s needs and wants”? I would be most appreciative. Because if that isn’t what the Office of Status of Women is about, well, then, I’m stumped.

So now I’m back to being confused. Confused as to why a woman thinks it’s fine for women to only be 30% of the decision making process which affects 50% of the population, confused as to why she’s not riding the affirmative action train to Success Station herself, since it’s in her go-get-em Tory nature anyway, and confused as to how in blazes she gets stuff published in national newspapers. (No, wait, I so know the answer to that last one: Tinkerbell.) Oh jeez, how is her existence even rational? Is she some sort of über Conservabot sent here from the future to destroy our souls or something? If so, is she from the same lab from which Ann Coulter spawned?

URGH.

Right, back to being angry. Jeez Louise, I am so pissed off right now. I’m just going to stop before I say something which could get me sued. If I haven’t already.

Right-Wing Barbie

Last night I read a post on Ann Coulter, written by an anonymous (hah) Big AC Fan, detailing an apparent example of the ‘hypocrisy’ of the left. The logic of the ‘column’, what little I can garner from it, goes something like this: Ann Coulter is a woman who says some stuff. People (aka Those Mean Lefties) criticise her, but they only point out things about her appearance. Therefore what she says is valid.

Ann (can I call her Ann? I like to keep things a little less formal over here, unless it’s completely necessary) has every right so say whatever she wants to say. It’s in that old Constitution thingy those Americans are so proud of (right after that apparently inconsequential part about separation of church and state, y’know, the First Amendment). And I totally agree that people who just sit in front of their laptops and say “She’s a whore” are not helping anyone.

The thing that confuses me is this: how can people actually read or listen to what dear Ann has to say honestly be able to defend what she says (rather than her right to say it)?

The purveyor of Defend Ann 2004 listed down a bunch of quotes berating dear Annie on the basis of her gender, appearance and sexuality as proof of why the Left Wing is sexist.

If that was the point, then I’d have to agree that that’s just not on. But, kids, let’s not forget context. Maybe we should be able to see if those Ann-haters had something meaningful to say as well? (Subtitles: what are your sources?)

But what about looking at Ann’s work itself and telling us why she should be so admired and revered? What about defending her instead of bashing her critics? “People say mean stuff about her so she should be given a medal” just doesn’t cut it for me.

So, in my dedication to rational debate, and in flagrant violation of context (because these things should not be said no matter what the context), I pulled up another random Coulter-bashing page off Google and I will reproduce some little Annie pearls of diplomacy, wit and wisdom which were reproduced in it…

“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient”—syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”—MSNBC

“I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don’t need any more.” Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, “Well, before the New Deal… [The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start.”—Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

“The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail.”—Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”—MSNBC 3/22/97

And as for gender, appearance and sexuality…

“Anorexics never have boyfriends. … That’s one way to know you don’t have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend.”—Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

“Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.”—Salon.com 11/16/00

“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”—Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

“Clinton is in love with the erect penis.”—This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

“[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks.”—Rivera Live 8/2/99

And, my favourite Ann quote of all time, detailing her anti-terrorism policy at her old job on National Review Online* on 13 September 2001:

“we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

You go, girlfriend.

‘[L]ogic in Miss Coulter’s arguments’ indeed. That’s all I have to say, I’m supposed to be learning about Breach of Trust. But, the moral of the story:

Ann Coulter is a crazy person (ooo! how PC of me!) and deserves to be seen as such.

___

*Sorry, I’m not including hyper-links because those Right-Wing Arses get enough hits, but here’s Google to give you a headstart. Or better yet, go read The Nation. The blogs there are quite excellent. I highly recommend The Daily Outrage and Editor’s Cut.