As with Bill Clinton before him, Anthony Weiner has managed to spotlight the ironic discrepancy between what feminists say and the things for which they stand.
A NY head of NOW remarked to the New York Daily News that the group is “trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner‘s sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group’s support.
“I wasn’t happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy,” said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.
“But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we’re in a bad position. We’re trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Feminist Amanda Marcotte, who previously carried water for John Edwards, called the reporting of a congressman’s lewd photo scandal “new standards” of which we should all fear. She was taken down eleventy notches by The Other McCain:
Note how Ms. Marcotte deploys “ideologue” as an epithet against Breitbart when she is herself an avowed adherent of the ideology of feminism. Indeed, if it weren’t for her idolatrous devotion to feminism, Ms. Marcotte would have nothing to write about. Her entire raison d’êtreas a writer is to filter the world through a feminist lens.
She is one of those writers who, despairing of achieving notoriety in the larger literary world, seeks a readership in some ghetto niche occupied almost entirely by third-rate talents, so that her occasional second-rate contributions appear conspicuously impressive by comparison. And in her feminist niche, the only standard by which anyone may be judged is according to their zealous devotion to The Sacred Cause:
Weiner has an outstanding record supporting sexual rights of others, with100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and has a strong record of support for gay rights.
See? He votes the right way. And isn’t that what really matters?
[…]
Amanda Marcotte is her own insoluble problem, and the appeal of politics to such an irreparably warped personality is that it appears to make sense of her alienation from society. All she needs to do is to re-frame her grievances in an ideological context — to say that “sexists” or the “right-wing smear machine” or some other such politicized bogeyman is to blame for her own unhappiness — and suddenly she is no longer a whining malcotent, but a heroic crusader for social justice.
Maybe she’s just waxing fangirl to score a spot on Weiner’s mayoral campaign? She asserts that investigation into or reporting on Weiner’s acts constitutes a “violation of sexual privacy.” Two tough lessons progressives have to learn here:
1. When you open the door of sexual investigation you can’t close it again. It was fine for the left to absurdly question the parentage of Trig Palin; it was fine to make hay out of the GOP perverts, so it’s newsworthy to report on Weiner. These are the standards the left themselves set.
2. There is no expectation of “sexual privacy” when there is a possibility that you Tweeted photos of your schlong from your congressional office or congressional gym.
Jill Stanek notes that Feminists for Choice and Slate both defended Weiner. Feminists for Choice gushed over him and referred to him as “badass.”
In situations like these, I think feminists are in a bit of a hard place. As women, we’re sort of grossed out and annoyed by the fact that he would send anyone a (hopefully solicited) picture of his junk, but ultimately, I think we realize that it’s just another part of the role that patriarchy has created for men.
The patriarchy? No, it’s the matriarchy facilitating the excuse for this particular incident because feminists have chosen party over ideology. You are creating that role for them in the 21st century by saying that it’s OK that a sitting congressman exploited his office so he could have sexxaytimes chats with chicks.
The penis is obviously a source of pride for men, and Weiner is no exception. They’re supposed to be strong, virile, and take great pride in their reproductive organs. Have you been around a man lately? They can’t keep their hands off of it – from infancy on!
This translates into the “hound dog” stereotype that many men seem to want to fill, and Weiner is no exception. He was participating in a little safe, easy dalliance – something I’d say more men and women participate in than we’d like to think do.
Nothing says “girl power” like defending the males who perpetuate the misogynist stereotypes that women like these pretend to oppose!
I heard this exact same defense on the Reelz channel’s “The Kennedys” miniseries. Joe Kennedy was sitting on the front porch with Jackie and he excused his son’s philandering by summing up the inability to keep it in his pants to being a man. That’s just how they are, the men! I feel bad for feminists if the only men of their acquaintance are men who bear them no loyalty and respect. I don’t understand why they have such low standards for how the male sex should treat them, but it’s both sad for them (because they apparently believe they don’t deserve better) and insulting to the male sex to indict all men just to save one from taking responsibility. That itself is sexist.
Feminist Janeane Garafalo:
During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Janeane Garofalo said, “Anthony Weiner deserves to be supported and hopefully he will be mayor of New York one day. I’m serious. He is a Democrat [who] actually fights for the things liberals and progressive and rational people care about.
So she has no problem with Weiner apparently using publicly-funded facilities (and possibly resources, as been reported) from which to send his photos?
There was also Joan Walsh, who did her part in highlighting the dichotomy plaguing today’s feminism: she attacked conservative females like myself for daring to report on the matter. She insinuated that I orchestrated the #Weinergate story and said that the Big sites first outed the women of #Weinergate, which was blatantly false and addressed here. To date I’ve received no apology.
Walsh did her party for misogyny by attacking conservative women and defending the male congressman. In the end, she did no favors for any of the women involved; it was all a grand act designed to protect the progressive male in the story.
And just what is it these progressive male congressmen learn from this scenario? That no matter what, women like Joan Walsh, Amanda Marcotte, Feminists for Choice, NOW, etc. will rush to their defense, thus ensuring the cycle will continue and more women will be disrespected and exploited. What a great lesson of female empowerment.
*Editor’s note: The headline is sarcastic. Of course I, nor anyone else, finds the double-standard shocking anymore. Just sad.