The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Bitter Fruits of a Bitter Seed: Envy, Feminism, Maureen and Meghan

Posted on | January 8, 2012 | 66 Comments

HOLLIS, N.H.
Time constraints have improved my ability to ignore Maureen Dowd. Many months now often elapse between my ever bothering to notice anything she’s written. Today, however, Pete Da Tech Guy called my attention to Ms. Dowd’s unseemly assault on Rick Santorum’s family. And then Pete sat down and wrote a rather stunning contrast of the parallel lives of Ms. Dowd and Mrs. Santorum, for the benefit of Meghan McCain.

The feminists will never forgive Pete for this, of course.

It is my experience that feminists, when angry, revert to predictable arguments about the ignorance and prejudice of their critics. Yet when I recommend to them books written by women critical of the feminist belief system, these supposedly knowledgeable and open-minded women can never be bothered to read the books I recommend.

No feminist can ever concede that any critic could have a valid argument. Thus the starting point of the debate is that there can be no debate: The anti-feminist critic is simply presumed wrong, and all that needs be explained is why the critic is wrong. The Soviet “show trials” of the 1930s were less predictable than the arguments of feminists.

If ever feminists permitted doubt to penetrate their ironclad worldview, the whole ridiculous egalitarian house of cards would instantly collapse, and they would be left without an ideology to justify their folly. They should therefore be hated less than they are pitied.

UPDATE: It is unfortunate that some of my conservative friends, including Dan Collins (in the comments below) and Sissy Willis on Twitter, insist on attempting to rescue the term “feminism” from its deserved opprobrium. Here we return to Little Miss Attila’s frantic efforts to define a conservative feminism — an oxymoron — and above all I regret that, having wasted part of my day taking notice of Maureen Dowd, I must now briefly reiterate an argument that all honest and intelligent people would concede I had already decisively won.

The originators and leading advocates of feminism have always seen themselves, and properly so, as part of the Progressive Left. Feminists have therefore contested any and all attempts by conservatives to co-opt and redefine the term “feminism” as something compatible with conservatism. Yet there are many soi-disant conservatives who, desirous of seeming fashionably modern and perhaps insufficiently knowledgeable of feminism’s leftist origins, persist in claiming that conservatives who reject feminism — as all actual conservative do — are guilty of throwing out the good feminist baby with the bad feminist bathwater. (Of course, true feminists would insist that the baby must be aborted, lest womyn be compelled to submit to the institution of partiarchal oppression known as “motherhood.”)

Conservatives who defend feminism are not merely wasting their own time, but wasting the time of those of us who are required to leave aside useful work in order to refute their misguided arguments. It’s as if free-market economists should be compelled to waste their time arguing with conservatives who claim that Keynesianism is not entirely bad. And I am weary of trying to talk sense to these peddlers of “conservative feminism” nonsense. My first extended iteration of this argument was in a November 2008 column about the hateful fury of gay-rights activists that accompanied the Proposition 8 controversy in California:

The gay rage in California can be traced directly to the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which voided a Texas sodomy law because, as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared, “our laws and traditions in the past half century…show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”
The Lawrence ruling was the culmination of what Justice Antonin Scalia called “a 17-year crusade” to overturn the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision (which had upheld Georgia’s sodomy statute) and, as Scalia noted in his dissent, the Court’s “emerging awareness” argument was a disingenuous way to avoid actually declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy. The legal effect was the same, however, and Lawrence was repeatedly cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision five months later mandating the legalization of gay marriage in that state.
If homosexuality is a right, and denying legal recognition to same-sex marriage is a violation of that right, then the rage of gay activists against their opponents is entirely justified. Proposition 8 does not deny tolerance, safety and freedom to gays and lesbians, whose right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is as secure in California as anywhere in the world.
Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via “rights talk.” Gay activists do not construe their “rights” in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex relationships are identical to — entirely analogous to and fungible with — traditional marriage.
Common sense resists this assertion, perceiving something fundamentally false in the gay marriage argument. Yet it seems common-sense resistance can only be justified by resort to religious faith, through the understanding that men are “endowed by their Creator” with rights. Eliminate the Creator from discussion, and it becomes impossible to refute the activists’ indignant demand for equality.

This is what the self-declared “conservative feminists” refuse to acknowledge: Feminism has no meaning outside the context
of rights and equality. Once you begin defining the roles and relations of men and women in such terms, you have taken an irretrievable step down the slippery slope toward radical egalitarianism.  The very fact that people who call themselves conservatives are incapable of recognizing what should be self-evident — that the radical conclusion of the egalitarian argument is implicit in its premises — should profoundly trouble those concerned about the future prospects of conservatism in America. In January 2009, I expanded my argument in controversy with Conor Friedersdorf:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man.

Americans have been so rigorously indoctrinated about the sacredness of equality as a political, legal and social principle that one fears they’ve actually begun to believe that this kind of equality is possible or desirable, which is lunacy.

Men and women are different, and the differences are so obvious, intrinsic and profound that to prohibit “discrimination” between the sexes is to require people to pretend to believe in a transparent falsehood. No sane person could actually believe that men and women are equal — that is to say, fungible — in this way, and therefore the entirety of the feminist worldview is premised on a susceptibility to insanity.

Comments

66 Responses to “Bitter Fruits of a Bitter Seed: Envy, Feminism, Maureen and Meghan”

  1. Dan Collins
    January 8th, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

    There is a difference among feminists, though, Stacy, no matter what you say.

  2. richard mcenroe
    January 8th, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

    Yes indeed: should we be gelded with a cigar trimmer, a cleaver or a meatgrinder?  Profound and spirited differences of belief.

  3. Anonymous
    January 8th, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

    All egalitarianisms are created equal.

  4. Mary M.
    January 8th, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

    Dan, not really. There’s a difference of opinion between average women who might still consider themselves, ‘feminists’, and the hardcore feminists who consider those average women, as sheep to be exploited.  As one of those formerly naive average women who grew up considering herself a feminist, but who didn’t hate men, only believed in the premise of equality, not surpremacy, but equality, I have first hand experience running into the brick wall that is the attempt to voice an opinion that disagrees with the feminist collective mindset, and it’s not pretty. 

  5. ThePaganTemple
    January 8th, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

    And this is one of the main reasons I supported Bachmann, and even more so Palin before her. The idea of having a conservative woman be the first woman President, a Republican woman at that, and the impact that would be likely to have on these feminist asshats, men as well as women, would be its own reward. But alas, twas not to be.

  6. Anonymous
    January 8th, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

    It is a great article and I am linking it.  http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/maureen-dowd-is-big-fat-liarand-meghan.html

  7. Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Meghan McCain: Mrs. Santorum or Ms Dowd: Your choice » Datechguy's Blog
    January 8th, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

    […] McCain suggests I will not be forgiven for this piece, The feminists will never forgive Pete for this, of […]

  8. JeffS
    January 8th, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

    …there is such a thing as objective truth and Ms. Dowd, in her attempt to paint Rick Santorum as a bigot, fails to reach that standard.

    MoDo does not desire “truth”.  MoDo desires relevance, attention, and above all, justification that her life choices were the best possible. 

    If, in the process of obtaining her desires, she has to lie, she will lie, and lie vilely if need be.  Especially when another woman, clearly happy with her choices (Mrs. Santorum), threatens to pull MoDo’s self-image down. 

    Because there’s nothing worse to a leftie than having their private fantasy world ripped asunder. 

  9. Bob Belvedere
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

    As with all -isms, Feminism is an ideology.  In other words, it is a system of ideas and thinking developed in the sterile laboratories of Leftist minds, away from the real world.  As with all ideologies, therefore, it is destined to cause nothing but false and fragile hopes to be believed in, suffering, and misery.

    I fail to understand why any sane woman [ie: conservative woman] would want to apply a label to themselves that is based on such destructive thinking, that is the exact opposite of the Right Reason they apply in the rest of their thinking.

  10. DeborahL
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

    You forgot machete.  Given Maureen’s world-view, it must be included, and would probably be her choice.

  11. Liz
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

    I have no problem with Maureen Dowd’s dating life. Marriage and/or children aren’t for everyone.

    I do, however, have problems with Dowd’s self pity, and the antagonism she has for women who make different choices.

    She did some media coverage in the British and Irish press a few years back and…wow. She is not a happy woman. Or a sane one.

    She spent her time whining that men apparently hate “strong women”, which is something that every female journalist and professional (almost all married) found puzzling. Are married women not “strong”?

    I get so sick of that “strong women” excuse. I’ve never met any man who said, “Oh, I want a little girl with no opinions or abilities. Really, I want to have to do everything myself, y’know?” It’s always coming from unhappily single/divorced women who refuse to take responsibility for their own predicament.

    Maybe, just maybe, marriage to someone who openly says that men are not necessary, might not appeal to most guys. (She’s also meant to have oddly slimy, greenish looking skin.)

    Personally, I believe that the govt should limit itself to not restricting peoples’ rights, then leave us all alone. (Equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome, if you like.) I’ll let the leftists take the f word itself. It’s been damaged beyond all recognition by them.

  12. DeborahL
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

    As a recovering liberal Democrat, it doesn’t matter what the gender of the president is. but whether they are Conservative. It would be great if the first woman President is a Conservative Republican. Let’s pray and work for that.

  13. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

     Stacy, your argument is based on the false notion that “alike and equal are the same thing.”

    There is such a thing as “equal but different.”

    It’s a shame you are unable to grasp this.

  14. Liz
    January 8th, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

    I’m a conservative libertarian, and I’ve given up the label. It’s been destroyed by its associations with the left.

    Plus, there are only so many times that you can hear shrill harpies whining that individualism is baaad, freedom is a chimera and the only way to the good life is to give all power to Daddy Gub’mint before you just walk away. It’s all yours, sweetie.

    It’s like those student discussions about what is really Marxist, and what did Engles *really* mean. Either admit it’s a religion, or shut up.

    I’ll still fight for what is right, and slap (real) sexism down. But if feminists want to kick out any non-leftist, non-socialist/Marxist, non-annoying, pro individual liberty (ie, sane) women, then they can enjoy being despised by most women.

  15. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

     Also, I’d be more willing to get into this with you if these public broadsides weren’t sometimes accompanied by private notes accusing me of “sadism,” and of “attempting to destroy [your] professional reputation” for having the temerity to respond.

  16. DeborahL
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

    Well put, JeffS. The lies and deceit that drip from the mouths of DNC lap dogs like MoDo exceed “vileness” on my meter.  Lack of critical thinking and curiosity leads impressionable people to conclude that what they spew is the truth.

    Having a leftie’s “private fantasy world ripped asunder” is my hobby. As pundit Larry Elder states, “Truth to a Liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.” To stay with the sci-fi vein, when a liberal’s view begins to crack and crumble under the weight of facts they first do the deer-in-the-headlights look and then, flail about like Daleks screaming.

  17. chuck coffer
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

    Private no more. Stay classy.

  18. chuck coffer
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

    Private no more. Stay classy.

  19. Zilla of the Resistance
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

    Conservative feminist is an oxymoron. You do not need to embrace cultural marxism to support women, and feminists DO NOT support females – when was the last time NOW stood up against “honor killings” and clitoretomies? 
    What feminsts support is an agenda that is anti-female, an agenda that degrades women and girls unless those women and girls embrace what the LEFT deems worthy of esteem. Why would any self respecting female or male who isn’t a left wing weenie want to embrace such a hateful movement as “feminism” ?
    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is a better way, stop playing the left’s game, screw feminism, forget feminists, the correct word for a right minded self respecting female or non-liberalweenie male is Femininican.

  20. DaveO
    January 8th, 2012 @ 6:45 pm

    “Different” means not equal. Same logic went into “Separate but Equal.”

  21. Quartermaster
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

    There are differences in terms of time. Susan B. Anthony for example would hold the modern feminists in contempt.

    The various stripes of Feminism are corrosive. I’ve had to deal with the idea of “Evangelical Feminism” in my church, and it is not a pleasant thing because of women living in the modern age can’t seem to wrap their heads around the order that God established in the church and society. While God sees men and women the same before Him, they have different assigned roles in life, roles which designed us for. God is an “egalitarian” in a sense in that we will be held responsible for what we do where we are planted, and not whether we are a man or woman, something we have no control over.

  22. Reactionary
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

    the problem with post-civil rights movement liberalism is the idea that if something is innate it’s of no consequence. because they won that argument back in the day with regards to race, they seek to apply the same equality principle in places where it doesn’t necessarily belong.

    therefore since being a man or a woman isn’t something people have a choice in, we have to abolish all semblances of gender roles, and because homosexuality is innate for most people, there’s no reason to prefer a mother-father family over a same-sex parent one, not even slightly.

    personally as far as i’m concerned self-proclaimed conservatives who accept every tenet of the ’60s cultural revolution should take to calling themselves Liberals for Tax Cuts.

  23. DeborahL
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

    Sarah Palin taught us that not all feminism is the same. Palin’s example as a self-made woman in a loving committed relationship as a partner with a man, and role model mother to her children is the antithesis to the Left’s version that is based on disgust of men.

    Most -isms stemming from the Left diminish , whereas Conservative forms enhance. The Left fails to recognize that in their quest to free the so-called oppressed, oppresses. They don’t want to true equality, but rather an equality without responsibility. They want the cake and eat it too. The man can’ t the baker either, since it would take a job from a woman.

  24. Reactionary
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

    also modern-day feminism is entirely about unrestricted (and taxpayer-funded) abortion as a part of what McCain correctly calls out as a fanatical gender egalitarian project, not selling out to The Patriarchy by being a stay-at-home mom, and criticism-proofing being a general slut as part of “sexual empowerment.” just because back in the day it may’ve been concerned with women getting the vote or loosening/ending workplace restrictions doesn’t give “conservative feminists” grounds to complain that what it currently has quite naturally evolved into is a mischaracterization, any more than paleoconservatives should be taken seriously when they complain that even cautiously interventionist conservatives aren’t really conservative because they’ve betrayed Robert Taft or something.

  25. Quartermaster
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

    Call those moonbats that want to take the label of Libertarian, Libertines, because that’s what they are. Libertines are essentially amoral.

  26. Quartermaster
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

    Take a quick peek at what I wrote above. Men and women are not the same. Period. If my wife were the same as me, then one of us superfluous.

    Like it or not, men and women were created to be different. They are complimentary.

  27. Quartermaster
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

    I don’t think he minds you having the “temerity” to reply.  RSM seems to like toying with you.

  28. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

    No. Not at all. One quantifies; the other describes.

  29. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

    He cannot have it both ways–tweaking me in public, and then privately accusing me of malice when I respond. I have kept this private for over six months, but he still comes back for more, and then imputes bad motives to me, and plays the victim.

    This started out as a playful, respectful difference of opinion. But Stacy won’t fight fair.

  30. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

     It’s a question of who is toying. That’s all.

  31. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

    Oh, for crying out loud. Now we’re going to get into such a hissy fit over the excesses and silliness of self-appointed leaders that we’re going to make up a new word for an old concept?

    If you think women should be able to vote, you are–one some level–a feminist, even if you don’t agree with the radical extremists. 

    This is a tired, tired argument.

  32. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

    Wow. That was quite a sentence–as long, in its own way, as Stacy’s interminable blog entry.

  33. Father Abraham
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

    If you’re for the Electoral College you’re a conservative on some level
    If you think some zone of privacy exists you’re a liberal on some level
    If you think there’s select areas of the economy where the government should have some influence you’re a socialist on some level
    If you’re against the complete government takeover of industry you’re a libertarian on some level

    I’d say your argument ends up being the sillier one here

  34. Reactionary
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

    shorter: i tend to associate an ideology with whoever’s currently the loudest voices associated with it. i’m just crazy like that.

  35. Reactionary
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:51 pm

    well maybe “loudest” is the wrong word. let’s say the most “respectable” and prominent.

  36. Anonymous
    January 8th, 2012 @ 7:56 pm

    Why is it that some people imagine that critics of feminism are attempting to compel women into stereotypical roles, so that if Sarah Palin pursues a political career — a non-stereotypical role — her success is attributable to “feminism”?

    This attempt to hijack the Left’s trademarked “-ism” on behalf of conservative women seems to me ill-advised. Phyllis Schlafly is one of the most important women in American history, yet was always hostile to feminism and never tried to claim she was a feminist.

  37. Can One Be a Conservative Feminist? | The Lonely Conservative
    January 8th, 2012 @ 8:26 pm

    […] nose at Karen Santorum, inspired a long post by Da TechGuy, which in turn prompted a response by The Other McCain. There’s a bit of a debate over whether one can be a conservative and a feminist.It is […]

  38. Datechguy
    January 8th, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

    Stacy has a good argument in terms of history but the accepted meaning of words change, by using common parlance I would have to be with Joy

  39. Stacy McCain on Freedom and Equality « Andrew J. Patrick
    January 8th, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

    […] intrepid reporter takes another journey through the concentric circles of feminism. The old boy must be feeling his oats. No feminist can ever concede that any critic could have a […]

  40. Zilla of the Resistance
    January 8th, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

    You seem awfully defensive of feminism,which was created by leftists for leftism.
    Feminists are a bunch of man hating, self loathing, family opposing bitches and whores. Why would I want to wear their nasty label when I don’t have to? And I believe the word for women who advocated for female voting rights were called suffragettes. 
    I am not interested in aligning myself with a bunch of  hypersensitive, perpetually offended people who think it is a thought crime to shave one’s legs and armpits, wear a bra,  or to be happily married to a man, have children, and even (gasp!) be a stay at home mom.

    Also, the person in this thread who appears to be having the biggest “hissy fit” is you. Some “feminist” you are, using such a misogynistic term to express your derision towards me. Better not let your “sisters” see that.

  41. richard mcenroe
    January 8th, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

    Stacy, I gotta say, rounding out your otherwise substantials arguments with “because women are prone to the vapors” doesn’t help.

  42. ThePaganTemple
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

    I’m really looking forward to National Offend A Feminist Week.

  43. Anonymous
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

    And, like the Daleks, when they scream “Exterminate!”, they mean exactly that.

  44. 1389
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:26 pm

    Scripture tells us that men and women are of equal value in the sight of the Lord. Jesus had both men and women friends and disciples. That said, men and women are not the same in earthly terms, and are called upon to serve the Lord in different ways.

  45. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

    So, you don’t agree with me, and therefore want to describe me as a “bitch” and a “whore,” and cast aspersions on my marriage.

    That’s nice, Zilla.

  46. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:34 pm

    “Why is it that some people imagine that critics of feminism are
    attempting to compel women into stereotypical roles, so that if Sarah
    Palin pursues a political career — a non-stereotypical role — her
    success is attributable to ‘feminism’?”

    Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Governor Palin attributes it to feminism.

  47. Joy W. McCann
    January 8th, 2012 @ 11:38 pm

    Yes. This is exactly right, with the caveat that the state shouldn’t dictate those roles, and that some flexibility is warranted for women of extraordinary abilities–society gets itself into trouble when it declines the help of talented people because they are chicks.

  48. Dodd
    January 9th, 2012 @ 1:26 am

    I submit that the problem isn’t that the meaning of the word “feminism” has been distorted. It’s that “equality” has been. Men and women, regardless of their undeniable differences, are equal before the law. Which is also the only kind of equality imperfect human institutions can ever hope to come within shouting distance of achieving outside the inevitable gulags that accompany every effort to impose the other sort (equality of condition).

    The problem with feminism as a movement is that it is shot through with the latter notion. And is so obsessed with it that it’s purveyors are incapable of seeing the inherent contradictions you delight so in detailing. But that doesn’t mean that “feminism” has to be understood that way. I’ve read your posts on its history. The word is irrelevant. All conservatives believe men and women equal before the law (which, in its majesty, can manage the differences between them without debilitating the fundamental rights of either, which leftist ‘feminism’ cannot) and suffer no cognitive dissonance thereby.

  49. Feminism By Any Other Name… Please | Goldfish and Clowns
    January 9th, 2012 @ 2:11 am

    […] nest — noreallyImenthat — I’m throwing in my two cents worth to the debate among Stacy McCain, Peter Ingemi (a/k/a Da Tech Guy) and Joy McCann about whether feminism can be a philosophy to […]

  50. Meghan McCain
    January 9th, 2012 @ 3:08 am

    OK listen guys and listen good because I can tell the GOP is headed for an epic loss: if you want things to go better next time, here’s my suggestions: support gay marriage, support women in all military positions, be pro-abortion in all circumstances, don’t get all weird when teachers are educating your kids in elementary school about homosexuality and transsexuality cuz they’re just trying to open their minds, and don’t you dare criticize any part of the Sexual Revolution, prudes.

    Follow my advice and I guarantee you will win a 49-state Reaganesque landslide so long as you continue to support upper-class tax cuts. Thank me later!