« Is it fall yet? | Main | Live the photos. »

April 27, 2004



"Haven't you ever seen Dirty Dancing?"

I think the new movement has found its rallying cry...


i was so proud whenever i heard about how many people there were. i wish i could have been there. now, if all those people will help us vote bush out of office...


ok. enough with the pithy one-liners...i read the whole article and was left with a profound sense of "meh"...much like the author, i'm wondering what it's all about.

unless these rights are acutally taken away, the sense of urgency just won't be there. lord knows noone wants to allow it to get to that point, and if it does, those who want to remove these rights are going to be damn sure they're harder to win back than they were the first time.

so what's the answer? or, more rightly, WHO is the answer?


OK, if you're feeling "meh," try this on: What it's all about is defeating Bush. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a very real possibility if this administration sees another term. The issue of choice is the most potent motivator for those 22 million women (under 30) who didn't vote in the last election.


Yeah, I have been meaning to bitchslap you, Mark. Like, what does this even mean? How can you feel "meh" about this? GOD! Slap!


You want to feel enraged? Think of those young, upscale, more-or-less Republican women. You know who I'm talking about. They're the ones who come up with boneheaded tripe like: "I support Bush because he isn't an appeaser," or "I'm voting for Bush because he really believes in freeing up business," or "I'm voting for Bush because he thinks the same way I do about people being self-reliant," or "we don't want another Clinton in there, do we?" The outrage is that even though they're fertile and fuck like everyone else they don't make the connection that, if they ever got preg., George Bush would force them to have a child (even if it's not part of their career plan). Confront them with the fact that Bush surrounds himself with men who believe they'd even have to have the child of a man who raped them and the typical response you get from Republicans is along the lines of: "yeah, well...". Is it that these twits really believe Democrats would never let Bush do it (never mind that Pelosi and Daschle are totally powerless to stop it), or, is it that if they did need an abortion, they know they'd have the money to just hop on a plane to some liberal state and have it done there? And what about those Republican guys -- those young Bushies working on their MBAs? How many of them would tell their pregnant girlfriends: "No, honey, having an abortion is taking a human life. Instead let's get married and raise the child that Jesus intended us to have"? Instead, I think the response would be more like: A.) "you stupid bitch I thought you were on the pill," and/or B.) "Let's get this taken care of. What's the number for Planned Parenthood?" These are the people who need to be bitch slapped. Of course, I'm open to other opinions.


OK. I don't think I worded myself very well in that last comment.

I _GET_ it. I absolutely understand the need for the march. I understand the need for increased vigilance. And while i'm glad to see that a sense of urgency IS indeed present in some, my point in the last comment, and I think the point that the author was trying to convey, is that this sense of urgency ISN'T shared by a majority of those who were born after a certain date...say, 1980.

THEY'RE not getting it. Because to them "womens liberation" is something in an Amercian history book, "feminism" is euphamism for "liberal lesbian" (which is sort of redundant, but when are conservatives NOT redundant?), and, as the article made mention of, they know Steinem as "some crazed old militant bat pushing 80 but dressing like she's 40".

What you gyus (jilly and sarah) are forgetting is that YOU'RE already the choir that these folks are preaching to...and you always have been. My comments were directed toward the question that the author posed: WHERE is the movement getting its new life? WHO is the new Steinem for the 21st Century? WHERE is the dynamic leader so desperately needed for her to hand the torch to and open the mission up to a new generation of women? And IS it going to get that new life before it's too late?

You know the feeling you get when you hear the Iraqi "June 30th deadline"? That feeling of "OK, so what are we handing over and to WHOM?" That's the feeling I got reading this article.


What made the march such a success was that it did mobilize so many young feminists. I think the fact that the media hasn't ordained anyone a new Gloria Steinem has a lot to do with the fact that, unlike the early 70s, there are more women today who exercise real power as elected leaders.


I think it is funny that people who don't really, you know, become active in the feminist movement think that there are no feminist leaders. Uhm, well, maybe if you got involved in the movement, you would realize that there are a ton of feminist leaders, but none covered by the media in the same way that the very media savvy and scorchingly hott (said hottness making her palatable to the male-gazey-media establishment, of course) Ms. Gloria. There are a lot more feminist leaders, coming from all walks of life (not just white, rich, thin, beautiful women) and bringing all sorts of woman-positive agendas to the movement, and many of them are powerful in other arenas in a way women were not able to be in the 1970s -- people like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer in politics, for example.

I mean, I just wonder how many of these people who are "concerned" about the lack of feminist leadership have actually looked for any feminists outside cable teevee talk shows. They are out there, and they are why the march last weekend was one of the most successful EVER.

You know, I am always happy to provide reading lists, if anyone requires it!

The comments to this entry are closed.