Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Liza Featherstone wants to destroy feminism

Liza Featherstone, member of the brocialist ladies auxiliary, who writes for the Nation among others, finally blatanty admitted she wants to destroy feminism. She calls it "neoliberal" feminism (aka "bourgeois feminism") but that's just a bullshit adjective. The kind of feminism that brocialists like her and her husband believe in isn't actually feminism at all because it isn't about women.

Liza Featherstone wants to destroy feminism. Period. That's why you see her doing things like calling the author of a Ms. Magazine article on rape "bitch" because the article dares to suggest that rape is rape no matter what a woman's socioeconomic status is.  This is a typical expression of Featherstone's war on women - instead of acknowledging that rape is both horrible and common for all women, Featherstone seeks to minimize the impact of rape on women who are not in the most extreme circumstances, apparently out of some intense bitter hatred of privileged elites, like Ivy League school students.

And of course the incredible fact is that Featherstone herself and her husband attended Ivy League schools and live elite and privileged lives. How is it possible that these two can make careers out of whining about elites and the privileged without heads exploding - if not their own heads, which are protected by being completely up their own asses - then at least the heads of people around them who are not completely blind to the total un-self-aware hypocrisy?

The screen image above from Featherstone's Facebook page also demonstrates the disdain for accuracy that Henwood and Featherstone share. Krugman doesn't say we haven't paid any attention - he says:
Which is more amazing: the fact that a long-serving Republican speaker of the House sexually abused teenage boys, or how little attention this revelation has received?
It seemed to me too, odd that Hastert's crimes haven't been discussed more in the media. Especially when you consider what a big fucking deal is made out of Bill Clinton's consensual affairs with adults. But then Hastert is a Republican and so doesn't have a big target on his back the way the Clintons do.

But you have to wonder why Featherstone is making such a big deal about Krugman's comment about Hastert. So Krugman thinks not a lot of attention has been paid. Why does she care enough to remark on it?  No doubt because the rest of the column is Krugman discussing Hillary Clinton's plans to "improve both the affordability and quality of U.S. child care" and even Featherstone isn't a big enough hypocrite to bitch about that. She had to find something to attack Krugman for.

But why does she want to attack Krugman, a self-declared liberal, so much? Of course it's because  Krugman does not support Sanders and provided well-reasoned and fact-filled analyses of Sanders policy proposal weaknesses.

And she hates Krugman because he's one of the privileged elites.

Go back to destroying feminism Liza Featherstone. Your efforts there are about as significant as your attacks on Paul Krugman. You and your husband are pathetic enablers of the Right in your bitter hatred of non-extremists on the Left.