Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Wait, did Hirschman call you a pig?...Ann, yes, she's jealous of you, or at least couches her phrases as if that was her motivation. It would be cute, if it weren't boring.But about the topic, I think the first commenter hit the nail on the head:Women--even those who are as politically over-informed are you could possibly desire-- are not inclined to listen to people who seem to mainly want to make individious generalizations about how stupid we are based on 17 year old studies. -- "Katherine"But she's not going after this Katherine lady, because she's not famous, like you.Bottom line, it's not feminism that motivates people like this, but snobbism.Cheers,Victoria
Hirschman writes: It’s probably not the most prudent plan to do dueling paragraphs with a Straussian-trained scholar like me.With a sentence like that, Hirschman is catching up big-time in the diva department. She's got her bruised ego on her sleeve and the man's got to pay.What is most amusing (or appalling) about Hirschman is the way she casts her small net and always catches the same fish.Last time it was stay-at-home moms. And so it is again.
Hirschman calls you a "conservative diva." Ha! I don't see it. (Sure, you criticize liberals, but that doesn't mean you're on the right.)Isn't the "full promise" of the feminist movement for women to be able to do what they want to do without being restricted by their sex/gender?Doesn't that include being conservative or whatever?
Chicago Dem's comment on Linda Hirshman's piece says it all. Anecdotal report on a woman voter:My wife has a graduate degree in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. She graduated from UC Berkeley and studied at the Sorbonne and the University of Cologne during her years living in Europe. She's worked in Washington for the U.S. Government in a policy development area. She gave up her government career to work in publishing, where she has been, among other things, a Senior Development Editor at a major U.S. publisher. She speaks four languages and plays the violin.Her political views can best be characterized as liberal but informed by progressive, American Catholicism.Not exactly a dingbat, eh? "Politically over-informed?" You bet.She voted Republican in '06.Was that "irrational?" Was that "voting like a man?"No. She considers it voting her conscience and her interests. She dislikes John Kerry intensely as a poseur and a fraud. She is unhappy with the way the Democratic Party has been hijacked by elements of the alleged left who seem unwilling to take national security seriously. She dislikes the way so-called "progressives" spout stupid, knee-jerk anti-Christian and anti-religious attitudes, when they obviously don't understand anything about it.Sound familiar? Welcome to the land of Disaffected Democrats. My wife will very likely vote for Sen. Clinton in '08, and is quite happy with the new crop of fairly conservative Democrats in the House.This may not be as "progressive" as Linda Hirshman would wish, but these views are solidly based in a lifetime of intellectual and personal cultivation.My wife's attitudes and choices as a citizen are at least as well-informed and intellectually honest as mine. She is an autonomous, intelligent individual, whose political views and choices are not driven by the fact that she's a woman, but by the fact that she's a thoughtful human being living in this time and place.
It seems Ann's hair keeps getting shorter and shorter.Any shorter and Ann will be indistinguishable from Hirschman.Peace, Maxine
Still - I like the quasi-Italianate nickname she bestows - "la divina."
Yes, and her Italianate theme could be summarized as la donna é mobile.
why do liberals have such a hard time accepting that women are not living up to the full promise of the feminist revolutionTo disagree with Hirschman's narrow, unsupported, baffling conclusion (that women are unreasonable voters because they vote nearly the same as men) is to claim that women are actually living up to "the full promise of the feminist revolution"?Who said anything about "living up to the full promise of the feminist revolution"?If you disagree with her oddball, minority-held idea (that is, by the way, insulting to women) then you're a denier of reality and no friend to feminism?That a respected analyst like Schmitt could be caught so easily in error trying to rebut the facts reflects a kind of frantic refusal to accept the conclusion.And if--heaven forfend--you rebut the facts she brings in support of her idea, you're even worse than a doubter, you're a heretic?The only reason not to dismiss Hirschman out of hand is that she's living proof of her own thesis: among all of the "Straussian-trained scholar[s]" I've ever heard of, it's only the woman who can't help but argue hysterically.And don't try to argue with my conclusion. I will just take that as hostility against my chauvinist belief system. Why are you so hostile to my chauvinism, Ann? I will be the first to admit that I'm not living up to the full promise of chauvinism--why can't you accept that?
Hirschman is right about the Giant Wurlitzer, just how many women succumb to it narcotic effects versus men I couldn't say. The idea the Democratic Party has been hijacked by progessives who don't take national security seriously is ironic as we are in dire straits with no sight in end from Republican national security. Hawk Democrats are part of the problem, not the answer. Just think if we'd have listened to Feingold, instead of Hillary. But the Wurlitzer said he was a kook, or a terrorist coddler back then, and a ton of people just took it for granted.
Naked Lunch -- Feingold takes Natinal Security seriously. I totaly don't agree with him, but he has principles and is willing to stand up for them.What's the story with the rest of the national democrats? They posture, but what do they stand for? What did they stand for last year? Five years ago?
While I only attempted an example, Daryl has provided a very good analysis of Hirshman's logical foibles.Hirshman postulates a kind of Rousseauian "general will" for women. Of course women would unanimously choose and vote the way she thinks they should because that would demonstrate they had full information, good reasoning, unclouded judgment, etc. Anyone who doesn't agree must be acting on emotion some other basis, and should submit to the feminist general will, which cannot be wrong.After all that has happened in the past two and a half centuries, how can anyone think this way?
Last night Mrs. Joe Baby was on a rare mini-rant about men being children (due to some friends + acquaintances losing their head of late).But then I put her on notice that if we even say "President Hillary" in this country it will be thanks to the womenfolk.
Post a Comment