Dahlia Lithwick is in the New York Times, doing the old feminist scam about feminist=woman. Start with this one:
She shocked me again in the fall of 2000, when I was covering oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Justice O'Connor, 70 years old at the time, was listening to an argument about how to count the notorious "butterfly ballots" that had confused Florida voters, especially the elderly. Her characteristically tart reaction to the voters' difficulties- "For goodness' sakes, I mean it couldn't be easier" - crushed any liberal dreams that some heightened feminine compassion would decide this case for Al Gore.
You see, "heightened feminine compassion" means making excuses for people who do not bother to read a ballot if it gets your man elected.
But I especially like this:
Suffice it to say, Justice O'Connor is a huge mystery to most women of my generation. . . . Ruth Bader Ginsburg made more sense to my female colleagues.
Do you notice that little switch from "most women of my generation" to "my female colleagues"? The second one I believe. Lithwick hangs out with academics, writers, intellectuals. Of course they prefer the more aggressively left wing Ginsburg. I have heard academic feminists say they will not hire a woman who is not a feminist. Hell, I have seen them do it. But then they turn around and pretend that the interests of feminists, mostly well off and overly schooled women (Lisa Sliwa called them "Women in limousines who give each other awards") are the same as every other woman.Posted by sjostrom on July 02, 2005 11:04 AM
Comments:
I am fairly well off and overly educated, but I'm not what feminists would call a feminist.
Regardless of that, I agree with your noting the difference between women and feminists.
Posted by: Suzi on July 5, 2005 08:01 PM [Permalink]
