A wise friend of mine once said, "A feminist is a woman with a buck she earned in her pocket, and the freedom to spend it."

It makes me furious when American women soldiers are forced to don the submissive garb of some nation where they've been stationed to help.

I'm glad to see there are people -- especially women -- out there calling "them" on such appalling hypocrisy. Of course feminism in the form of NOW has other important business. They are hard at work trying to bring down the far more anti female world forces known as Hooters restaurants.

What the article points out -- an anti western society mindset -- is the mark of most liberal establishments. They use the "equality" mantra as nothing more than a slogan. In practice what your sex, race, ethnicity and ideology are determines how they view/treat you. I think most thoughtful people know this and is why liberalism is a distinct minority of Americans. If it weren't for college campuses and hollywood/MSM, liberalism would have about as many followers as paganism (and might allow true liberalism a chance to flourish).

In the UK, there have been several reports of women from Christian or secular backgrounds converting to Islam, in many cases to very stringent forms thereof. See for example this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-would-a-woman-convert-to-islam/

"It's Latin for ass-hat" is a coward.

Even a degree in grievance studies can't erase the truth. All places and all people are not equal. Here the whine is free. Other places, protesting the patriarchy can get you lashed, hung, or stoned.

Hips don't lie. They are attached to the legs of people who are coming here, not going there.

> It makes me furious when American women
> soldiers are forced to don the submissive
> garb of some nation where they've been
> stationed to help.

And when our Jewish soldiers are compelled to return to ships offshore to practice their religious rituals (as Qatar, Gulf War I).

Or when our (admittedly loathesome) Secretary of State is compelled to wear scarves as she explains to the primitives, yet again, how modernity works.

(Seriously, has this person's feminine allure ever been a threatening force in any man's life?

Y'ever have one of those weekends where one of those unremarkable chord progressions just burrows through your subconscious and squats over your immortal soul?

And even though you shake your head real hard and have heard it a thousand times before anyway, it doesn't go away?

This is that kind of weekend for me.

The issue I have with NOW, feminism, the ERA and all the rest is that they are not wanting equal rights, they want more rights. This is the same issue with minority rights.

It comes back to the famous quote: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

About the only "special" rights I can support is the right for gays to marry, and the rescission of the "don't ask, don't tell" rules. But even there I look at the "Good order and discipline" clauses of the UCMJ to still apply.

The feminists should be screaming about the abuses inflicted on women in Muslim countries -- we hear nary a peep. I have been slowly working on co-workers who think/thought Obama is the cat's pajamas. I point out some of the crap to them, but you have to ease them into it. Overwhelming them with facts before they can handle it just shuts down the dialog.

Kevin, when you are in another country, you abide by that country's customs. That is the difference between a good guest and a boorish asshole. By the way, that also applies in reverse, to the people who visit our country. If a custom of a place is to much to handle, do not go there. That said, I wouldn't say your friend was right about that woman being a feminist. I'd call her a free woman, one needn't be a feminist to be that.

----------------------

And for the record Crid, feminine allure has brought down some of history's most powerful men, and changed the fate of nations. Its power is part of its charm, it should be no surprise that more antiquated cultures still try to control it to the degree that they do, nor a mystery as to why.

---------------

Your typical feminist is an entitled spoiled brat, with all the cowardice and delusion that comes with it. They can't speak against Islamic oppression because:

A. That would be a tacit admission that the west is better somehow.
B. Muslims would get mad, and those people actually are violent to the point of murdering their critics.

I used to work with a woman who had spent two years in Saudi Arabia (her husband was a consulting geologist). The stories she told just floored me. This was back in the mid-1990s; I wasn't very smart about Islam then, and I had no idea that a place like what she told me about existed in this day and age.

Basically, all the women were more or less confined to the American sector of the oil company compound they lived in. You all know the stories: could only go out in public in hijab and accompanied by the husband; had to walk behind; couldn't drive (couldn't even ride in the front seat), couldn't carry or spend money, not allowed to speak to other men, etc. Sadly, it seems kind of unremarkable now, because we've all been exposed to it so much over the past decade. But the distinct lack of outrage among feminists and other groups in our society makes it seem ordinary, almost acceptable. In a lot of urban areas in North America today, you'll see women in hijab walking with head bowed five feet behind their husbands. No one seems to notice them; no one glares at the guy as they pass by, no one stops to explain quietly to their children that those are bad people.

Anytime I start to feel blase about it, I think back to what I felt when that co-worker first told me about living in Saudi Arabia. And then I wonder all over again: in the 21st century, how can such a place exist?

> feminine allure has brought down some
> of history's most powerful men

Hillary's hasn't... Quite the opposite. She should get a pass, doncha think? "Not a problem, Kitten..,."

A perfect example of O'Sullivan's First Law.
http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp

"has this person's feminine allure ever been a threatening force in any man's life?"

Perhaps, if you go back far enough. Here she is in high school, circa 1965:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/unknown-chicago/2010/06/hillarys-house.html

Fun fact: "She was also politically active - but at this stage of her life, she was a Conservative Republican"

> Perhaps, if you go back far enough.

No.

> at this stage of her life, she was a
> Conservative Republican"

Nobody ever said her life was about principle.

A few yers ago, I told feminist writer/lawyer Ti-Grace Atkinson that my hunch was that if young white middle-class women don't like to call themselves feminists, maybe it's for the same reason that black people wisely never invented a noun to mean "a self-respecting black person."

She said that sounded very optimistic.

Glick's analysis is incorrect in so far as she tries to write off the history of Feminism as a conspiracy to advance some agenda other than one dedicated to women. You have to ignore the entire body of Feminist scholarship, and activism, and culture making, to assert this claim.

In my book, Feminism is right up there with Aryan Science as an intellectual movement, but that doesn't make is a con.

I have been in some bad situations, but I never felt like it was because I was a female. It was because I was free enough to make some bad choices, dumb enough to make those choices, and smart enough to realize the consequences were because I made those choices.

The thing is, you can't force freedom on anybody. You might find a way to open the cage door, but a certain mindset is going to stay in the cage. And if you take them out, they will run right back in.

It happens there, it happens here.

The other day I was driving with a longtime friend of mine when I mentioned a video I had seen of a woman in Ethiopia being whipped for ... wait for it ... wearing trousers underneath of her full Islamic garb. All of the men were laughing as she was writhing in pain.

My friend said: "Yes, that sounds bad but we shouldn't really judge other cultures, should we?"

I don't think he expected my response: "Excuuuuuse me?!? The day that I stop criticizing a culture where women are beaten and girls' clitorises are cut at birth is the day that they bury me 6' under."

He had no response. Though he's a well educated, wealthy fellow, his mind has been so deeply indoctrinated with Leftist BULLSHIT for 30+ years that he is unable to psychologically budge from his stupor.

I judge other cultures every day. I don't understand how people can actually get away from such oppressive bullshit, but insist on bringing it with them and defending it.

They just build another cage to replace the one they left.

Frankly, I think the only thing to be done is to steal all the babies and kill the adults. Old Testament stuff, but in reverse. Then divide the babies up among all the countries involved in eradicating the adults. (This idea is only a few minutes old, so I don't have the bugs all worked out yet.)

Where was all the Progressive outrage when Molly Norris had to go and hide? You can draw a satirical cartoon about the guy burning the koran but don't think about giving the muslims the same treatment you racist, bigot, homo rube dog.
Hey, what did that snowbilly Palin just say? Let's get her, instead! Burn her church down.

I meant to say where were all the Progressives...

Wrestle-mania is on the teevee and my grammar goes to hell.

> maybe it's for the same reason that
> black people wisely never invented
> a noun to mean "a self-respecting
> black person."

I don't think women need to be venerated for heroic insight... It's plenty good enough that so many of them —and I've worked closely with a LOT of young women over the last thirty years— just don't find enough to admire in contemporary feminist rhetoric that they need to attach themselves to the chatter.

They're plainly aware that civilization has made great strides in recent centuries, and so now they're enjoying modern life and handling problems as they become clear, Palin-style.

Being concerned for the sisters doesn't make one a wordy, timid, politically-mundane academic any more than caring for black people, or gays, or the mentally retarded does.

Robert W..."My friend said: "Yes, that sounds bad but we shouldn't really judge other cultures, should we?""

Several years ago, I sat in on a college philosophy course in which the professor raised some serious questions about this kind of cultural relativism. Many students seemed surprised, even shocked to the point of being almost disoriented---the idea that there was any possible ground for moral judgment other than "what my culture expects" seemed to be entirely new to them.

There really isn't much of a philosophical basis to cultural relativism. But it's a useful device for leftists who want to condemn the west. You'll notice though that their tolerance of otherness only extends so far as the other is willing to behave otherly - once they choose to adapt traits of the west, they are corrupted and no longer authentic. Basically cultural relativism and multiculturalism are updated forms of white supremacy.

It's because of the wars. Remember the 90s, when the feminists were passing around books like "Not Without My Daughter" and "Princess... Life Behind the Veil"? We heard a lot about the Afghani Women in Black. School feminist groups were passing out fliers about Afghan women whose windows were painted black so they couldn't see out.

But now we're at war with them, and the feminists are thinking, "Whoa, hey, this isn't what we wanted". One of the excuses for the war was the degradation of women, so now feminists are afraid to speak out for fear of making things worse. Feminists, as a group, don't tend to see war as being beneficial to women.

From the MS blog...

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/07/01/got-oppression-saudi-kingdom-keeps-women-in-the-stone-age/

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/05/19/meet-one-kick-ass-saudi-woman/

From the magazine...

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=11350

Comdemnation of the Taliban:
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=5953

Criticism of Indian Muslims:
http://msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=12544

... ok, I'm sick of copying and pasting. But go ahead and do a search for Islam at the Ms. Magazine website and you'll find plenty of reporting about anti-feminist things done by Muslims.

> Feminists, as a group, don't tend to
> see war as being beneficial to women.

Nic, that's a great point. I could quibble and say it's the academic weenie-woman feminists who see things that way... The ones who join the organizations and whine about things. There are plenty of quietly-practicing feminists who don't see things that way. (Again Sarah Palin comes to mind, as does her beloved son in Iraq.)

But the irony of your point is profound. When you move back for the big picture and see that blood needs to be shed to defend girls and women from oppression, those most eager to demand admiration as feminist heroes seem timid and uncertain.

> One of the excuses for the war
> was the degradation of women

In a parallel matter, consider this tweet. See also this one, which which was just kinda funny.

Another great Judith Martin column:

Dear Miss Manners:

Those of us working for women’s rights have been advised to take a “ladylike” approach. We tried emulating the behavior of our opposition, but this hardly seemed ladylike. Could you provide a precise definition of “ladylike”?

Gentle Reader:

A lady is, above all, someone who is passionately concerned that others be treated with dignity, fairness, and justice. It has always been considered ladylike, for instance, to fight for these things on behalf of children, animals, and one’s husband. The difficulty you are encountering on the subject is that many people do not consider it ladylike to fight that battle on one’s own behalf. Therefore, if a woman truly wishes to be ladylike, she will fight for dignity, fairness, and justice, not for herself, but for all other women.

(end)

I'm assuming, of course, that MM would say that if you're female and there is no one else to protest the SPECIFIC injustices done to you, and others frown on your "fighting that battle on your own behalf," in that case, that would be THEIR problem.

BTW, MM was interviewed for Ms. Magazine - I think it was in 1997. She's always called herself a feminist. Her daughter had picked up the idea that feminists are "rude people," to which she said that she was not about to let the word be co-opted, because of all the sacrifices made by feminists of the past. Something like that.

Later in the interview, she said: "People ask me: 'Aren't manners just about making people comfortable?' No. There are times when you have to upset people. There are times when you have to upset the whole society. A lot of people were upset at the women's movement because men had all the toys and women wanted some."

Incidentally, I HAVE suggested more than once to men's rights activists Glenn Sacks and Robert Franklin that they interview MM or at least complain to her IF they feel she doesn't sympathize enough with men, but so far, to my knowledge, they haven't.

The first time I heard of female genital mutilation was in the mid-1980s, care of Gloria Steinem's new book. To my knowledge, she did more than anyone else to publicize the issue at that time.

So maybe she isn't working on eradicating it - or honor killings - now. Well, shouldn't EVERYONE be putting such things on their top ten list, maybe?

My point is, does Camille Paglia or any other semi-conservative do that? Amy, you may be the only one right now.

> does Camille Paglia or any other
> semi-conservative do that?

I believe she's mentioned it a few times. She's explicitly noted that it was living in the modern United States which allowed her, as a single woman, to pursue a life of the mind... And often on contrarian footing, at that. She was out, WAY out, years before Stonewall: She's not the sort of person inclined to be glib about how freedoms are awarded and claimed.

I'm glad Steinem is aware of what's going on overseas, and feel the same for the editors of Ms., whatever their circulation happens to be this week.

But we feel no sense proportion from academic feminism, at least the branch evinced by Amy's new friend the other day, or in the branches who publish magazines. And it's not just because of the bogus claims about beatings on Superbowl Sunday, or workplace compensation, or fat jokes.

To worry about people because they are women is to be essentially unconcerned with the United States... Our sisters here, even the ones from less-supportive families, can bust out and chip away at life again and again until their needs are met. The physical and psychological torments faced by women in other cultures are orders of magnitude more debilitating.

Let's not pretend it's all of a piece.

Karl von Clausewitz wrote "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means,"
The feminists are of like mind with the other liberal socialists in failing to understand this basic tenant. If you want someone to do something (or stop doing it)and they say "no", it doesn't matter if you are dealing with a petulant child or a country like North Korea. The liberal will talk themselves blue in the face thinking that reason alone will win the day because everyone ultimately WANTS to do the right thing. The libertarian pragmatist believes no such nonsense and know that children, adults and countries stop behaviors only when the price for continuing them becomes too heavy. Therefore you rarely have to go to war when people believe that you have both the means and the will to do so.

For the record, Clausewitz was wrong: Men will go to war for reasons that have nothing to do with their political or financial interests. Also, U2 is overrated.

The rest of your comment is spotlessly correct. You're a Sister.

It is possible that Clausewitz was wrong but it is equally possible that Keegan was wrong. Fighting and killing the other guy is one small aspect of war. Modern warfare is designed primarily to destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war, and can be done more easily by targeting his industry and his supply lines than by killing his soldiers. In fact, what is going on and went on in Iraq and Afghanistan (battling insurgents) does not even meet the classical definition of a war. However this is a semantics game. I agree that mankind is programed through evolution to be a fighting animal and the better you are at it the more likely you will survive to pass on your genes. The liberal socialists also believe that nothing is hereditary and they can remake mankind into a bunch of wimps with the backbones of a banana. It ain't happenin. :-)
I was an army officer in the 80's and worked with tactical nukes. I probably should be best buddies with Radwaste. :-)

> However this is a semantics game.

Nay, femme blog-cadet!! It is not "equally possible" that they're wrong. One's right and one ain't, and the odds are by no means even. Why would you think they are?

> the better you are at it the more likely
> you will survive to pass on your genes.

Phrasing like this is incredibly hokey, a fresh scourge of imaginary motive for which my generation will be held accountable (see also 'cellulite'). There's more to human life, and much more to our motivations in any moment, then rugrats who won't even squeal for another thousand years.

> I probably should be best buddies with Radwaste

Don't come cryin' to me.

"ok, I'm sick of copying and pasting. But go ahead and do a search for Islam at the Ms. Magazine website and you'll find plenty of reporting about anti-feminist things done by Muslims."

Yeah, they're good at complaining about it, but... The problem is that modern feminists, like a lot of other leftist groups, specialize in turning the mores of civilized people as weapons against them. When faced with uncivilized people, who are not constrained by any such mores, the feminists fold like a pair of threes in a high-stakes tournament. Their only "contribution" to civilization is to convince civilized people that they are chumps for being so.

OK. I pick Keegan as wrong. Keegan is to military experience and knowledge of war what John Maynard Keynes is to economics. Long on theory and short on any actual participation. I fail to see how Keegan's claim that war is cultural invalidates Clausewitz's statement about it being an extension of politics. Are not politics cultural also? What do the motives that men fight for have to do with classical war as waged by nation against nation, that Clausewitz was describing? Two guys in a bar is a fight. Viet Nam was described as a "Police Action." A rose by any other name? What happens when the reasons given for the fight are pretextual? The Arabs claim it is about the right of return, and a Palestinian homeland, but we all know that if that were really the reason it would be over by now. The real reason is that Arabs hate Jews and want to drive the Israelis into the sea. This is the reason all the Arab countries backed the Nazis during World War II. The Arabs have tried at least three times to destroy Israel in the last 65 years and have gotten the shit kicked out of them all three times. My father in law believes that if Israel didn't exist everything in the middle east would be fine and dandy. Only a liberal who willfully blinded themselves to the realities of Arab culture could believe that.

Keegan is the most respected war historian of this generation, maybe the next, and we're not done counting.

> What do the motives that men fight for have
> to do with classical war as waged by nation
> against nation, that Clausewitz was describing?

No fair, you're upping the ticket price in the lobby. Clausewitz is usually reduced to and beloved as a fortune cookie / pop song sentiment, and by that measure, he just ain't right.

We never save the articles that mean the most to us, right? A favorite piece a few years ago talked about how Israelis insure their property, and someone asked a Palestinian Arab if he'd insured his, and he replied (paraphrase) of course not, we don't do that kind of thing.

And I'm all like, why not? Why CAN'T your culture create wealth by tending to the needs of its fellows by its wits?

There are all sorts of impulses to dominance of the region that gladden the hearts of Israel-haters, but to call them "political" is grandiose. They don't want Israel's wealth, they just want its failure.

"Keegan is the most respected war historian of this generation, maybe the next, and we're not done counting."

Sounds to me like a classic "appeal to authority" rather than arguing the merits. Keynes was respected too and dead wrong on many counts.

"I have to say, I really, really hate the "give everyone's opinion credence" school of thought."

I hate it too because usually a lot of people with bogus opinions about any subject have either cherry picked their facts or mischaracterized the argument of their opposition. Then in order to end the debate they resort to an ad hominem attack or an appeal to authority. :-}

An indication of NOW's priorities for you, Nicole:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/12/17/now-hags-target-hooters-claiming-the-restaurant-sells-sex-to-kids/

Previous attempts to shut Hooters down by filing discrimination lawsuits having failed, they've taken a new tack and filed papers with police & prosecutors demanding that Hooters be declared an adult entertainment venue & forbidden from selling their chicken wings or anything else to minors.

Where do Hooters Girls rank on a sane person's list of threats to women's well-being?

> a classic "appeal to authority" rather
> than arguing the merits.

Right. Read the book linked above (only 432 pages paperback) and get back to me. I like fortune cookies too, but....

(By the way, U2 was wrong in "In the name of love", too... King was killed in late afternoon. Power rhythm section, though!)

OK, lemme try it this way... Are we in Afghanistan for money? For the political score? When does it pay off? OK, Grenada? 'Nam?

"I am exceptionally lucky to be a woman living now in the USA."

I feel the same way. Certainly I remember people trying to abuse me but I would just fight back. "Damnit", I would think, "I'm an American woman don't you dare think I wont fight back. "

I agree that the Hooters protest is silly.

Crid, back to the war issue... the problem is, war tends to come with rape and blowing people (including women) up and things like that. Iraq has gotten MORE conservative... it was a secular socialist state and now is leaning more towards Islamic. It hasn't really helped Iraqi women as a group (obviously some ethnic minorities fared so ill before the war that anything would be better, like the lake people). Now, maybe in the long term it will. Maybe Iraqi women (and men and children) will have great lives 10 years from now because of this. But for now, things aren't so hot.

I think groups like NOW would be more in favor of military intervention if somehow the women of the places invaded had asked for military assistance. It's hard to justify killing women and children and their menfolk in order to advance things for women and children and their menfolk. Which is why feminist groups are less vocal than they were in the 90s.

Though they still complain about them plenty. But honestly, that's what NOW does... they "raise awareness". They write to politicians and stuff, but really, that's all they do. They aren't CARE or Save the Children, going and setting up shop in these places.

> war tends to come with rape and blowing
> people (including women) up

Yeah, I hear you.

It was in Saddam's last decade (post GW-1) that Iraq began its sanctioned swing towards holiness. The fact that there are bad social forces at work there was never in doubt. This artificial nation, a creation of British mapmakers, was always going to be a problem, and war was always in the future there.

And we have permanent interests there, and we were always going to have permanent interests there.

> It's hard to justify killing women and
> children and their menfolk in order to
> advance things for women and children
> and their menfolk.

I think you've kinda slipped a gear there... That's got no more insight than saying that bloodshed sucks, which I readily concede. You don't have to like war to admit that sometimes in needs to happen.

(At no point do I want to have to argue that GWB had a good plan for how this would go. In the America of my dreams, there'd be a broad, ongoing focus in American public life –including the education, entertainment and fashion industries• to bring Iraq into modernity. Afghanistan too, although that's an even bigger challenge. We're sending a tiny, tiny sliver of our young men to go there and die or be maimed for no advancement of anyone's interests, and I hate that.)

More

> groups like NOW would be more in favor of
> military intervention if somehow the women
> of the places invaded had asked

Well, yeah, sure... Because such organizations, tend to be technocratic and hierarchical (even if impoverished), the first rule of that particular sisterhood is that you have to pass some candy to the earlier sisters (Steinem) or the ones higher on on the totem poll... They don't actually want Iraq women to do better until the Baghdad office of NOW calls and asks to do better.

> they "raise awareness".

Or not.

__________________________

Shower! Work!

(This is the part where I take off my clothing.)

(For the shower, not the work.)

"I think groups like NOW would be more in favor of military intervention if somehow the women of the places invaded had asked for military assistance..."

I agree. What can we actually do for these women, other than try to inspire them to organize a significant revolution within their own ranks first? I would not want to send my son over to an Islamic country to fight for women, only to have them cower back into subservience because of years of cultural and religious influence.

Just as in the way we're trying to "teach" them democracy, it's not worth fighting for if it's not going to stick. We still don't know if democracy will stick in any lasting way, much less women's rights.

I mean, it seems to me that the problem we've been having with these wars is that you can't fight someone else's revolution for them. If there's already a sizable revolution, with enough sentiment behind it to keep it rolling, you can add force to it and help it be won. But you can't just go in and create one where there's ambivalence or no consensus on the purpose.

And we have women in these places turning over their own daughters to be killed and/or mutilated. The civilized person believes she wouldn't do that if only she were free to choose otherwise, but that's not very apparent. Afterall, it's happening here, and in other modern places, not just in Islamic countries.

Me:
> does Camille Paglia or any other
> semi-conservative do that?

Crid:
I believe she's mentioned it a few times.
____________________

What I SAID was: "putting such things on their top ten list." Paglia's "mentioning it a few times" is hardly the same thing.

I would dare say that Katha Pollitt talks about FGM and honor killings more often and with more sobriety than Paglia does. (Let's face it, Paglia comes off like an entertainer more often than not.) What Pollitt does outside of writing her column, I don't know - I haven't investigated. (She does, however, give addresses of organizations and ask readers to fund them - probably at least once a month.)

Cathy Young and Christina Hoff Summers are other semi-conservative types who claim to care about women, but I certainly don't remember the last time THEY talked being part of a movement to abolish honor killing.

> Paglia's "mentioning it a few times"
> is hardly the same thing.

Well, jeez, of all the criticisms that people have brought to this woman over the years, this is one thing for which I can offer no defense: This single intllectual didn't bring modernity to a huge swath of the human enterprise.

And I don't know that she's ever published a list; who knows where this would land on it.

I don't know that anyone's ever asked the question: 'Cammy, what do you want most of all?' The answer might be closer to what you're looking for than you think.

Pamela Geller (blogs at atlasshrugs2000) has been out in front on this for a long time:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/honoring_the_victims_of_honor.html

Likewise Phyllis Chesler, who Amy has linked to on a number of occasions:

http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence

And I don't know that she's ever published a list; who knows where this would land on it.

I don't know that anyone's ever asked the question: 'Cammy, what do you want most of all?'

Posted by: Crid
_________________________

She doesn't HAVE to publish such a list. It's easy enough to tell what's on your top ten list simply by watching your ACTIONS - or at least by hearing what you talk about most often.

In short, no one has to ask her what she really wants - they already know from what she does or doesn't talk about. (And if she's involved in some political movement, I haven't heard of it.) She's hardly one to keep silent on any issue she cares about.

BTW, I just did a quick search on "honor killing" in the sites for Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Women. Last I heard, the former organization (conservative) is about three times the size of the latter (liberal). Yet.....when I did the search, there were almost three times as many results in the latter! The disparity was even greater for genital mutilation (without quotation marks, in that case).

It makes one wonder.

No bustle in this hedgerow...

Tough room.

Oh, yes. Remember what I said about Katha Pollitt upthread, Amy (and everyone else)?

From her current column at "The Nation":

"Studies show that experiences, not possessions, are what make people happy. So this holiday season, make yourself happy by experiencing helping others through year-end donations to these fine groups."

(10 groups follow - here are two):

2. National Center for Reason and Justice. It's great that courts take child molestation more seriously these days, but what if the accused is innocent? Jesse Friedman, Bernard Baran, Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen are just a few of the unjustly convicted defendants—male and female—who have received crucial support from the NCRJ. This scrappy group operates on a shoestring, but even a shoestring isn't free. NCRJ, PO Box 191101, Roxbury, MA 02119.

8. Equality Now. EN is the banner organization for the global cause of women's rights as human rights. It works with grassroots groups around the world to fight female genital mutilation, trafficking into prostitution and domestic servitude, forced marriage, child marriage and unjust laws, like ones permitting domestic violence, denying women the right to inherit land and dropping charges if the victim marries her rapist. EN is a big reason you even know these things happen. Equality Now, PO Box 20646, Columbus Circle Station, New York, NY 10023.

(snip)

So now I'm off to see if Carolyn Glick mentions Equality Now! in the article.

Nope, no mention at all.