This passage caught my feminazi eye (see, this post really is about politics...sexual politics, not just beach read trash):
In a startling display of rugged Slavic candor, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russia's Liberal and Democratic Party leader, this fall revealed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized his country's policies in Ukraine only because she's single. In an exclusive Pravda interview delicately headlined "Condoleezza Rice's Anti-Russian Stance Based on Sexual Problems," Zhirinovsky explained that "Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement ... because she is a single woman who has no children ... Such women are very rough ... They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: 'Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian!' ... If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from, she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened."
Incidentally, I am totally not making this up. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers," Zhirinovsky continued. "She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied. On the other hand, she can hardly be satisfied because of her age."
Am I alone in thinking that what this dude needs is one hour as a guest of Oprah Winfrey?
In December, Zhirinovsky picked up some surprise support from Laura Bush, who declared in an interview with People magazine that "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate [for president], is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job." Bush's eyes then briefly came into focus and she was able to spit out the words "Help me!" before being reconnected to her sedative drip.
But here is the paragraph that has me really thinking that, no matter how much things change, they just stay the same (sigh)...
At Forbes, Michael Noer earned himself a fan club by arguing that men should not marry career women because they will be less likely to vacuum the Cheetos off the floor, take care of you if you're six -- I mean sick -- or bear you hordes of children. Ex-New Yorker writer Caitlin Flanagan agreed, letting women know that if they just quit their jobs and gave enough BJs, their husbands might love them enough to support them through cancer.
Go read the articles linked. Forbes is not The National Enquirer or Hustler. I work (more than 30 hours a week) in a very male professional business world. The fact that Forbes would publish an article entitled "Don't Marry Career Women" - when, as Salon's Rebecca Traister puts it, what the author really means is "If You Are Really Self-Loathing and Weak, Try to Find Someone Who Doesn't Work and Will Consent to Live With You Out of Financial Desperation for the Rest of Her Life" - is pretty damn discouraging.
I haven't read Caitlin Flanagan's book, To Hell With All That, which is the subject of the Salon review linked above. But if, in fact, her premise is that her husband took good care of her during her cancer treatment because she (a writer for the The New Yorker, so how is that a stay at home mom, anyway?) had submissively subverted her career desires and goals to his in order to fulfill some Ozzie and Harriet fantasy of hers, thereby earning his love and care, that is just pathetic. It's enough to make any self-respecting working mom (and cancer survivor like me) even more tired than she is already trying to be all things to all people.
On that note, I have to go - at the Prince's repeated request - and call the parents of some proposed teen party for tonight and make sure they're not going to be shooting heroin or anything, like the good working mom I am.
Happy New Year!