August 8, 2012
Back in the 1970s, when Ms. Magazine was the new thing and all the rage, I read it. Billie Jean King was once on the cover. The interview took place before Maria Sharapova was conceived. Perhaps before her mother was conceived. BJK was ranting about how irrelevant a woman athlete’s looks should be to her public acceptability. “Does anyone judge a linebacker by his looks? Does it matter if he’s ugly, as long as he can tackle?”
I was reading the magazine in the lunchroom. A black female colleague looked at her picture on the cover and said, “Who is that?” I replied, “Billie Jean King.” Lillian said, “She is a moose.”
These arguments about beauty are endless and circular. In fact maybe they are not even arguments. It’s just one side ranting, the other side saying, “Yes dear….yes dear…..”
Feminists rage against physical beauty (often in theory not practice) as part of their perennial campaign against femininity. But beauty is also an offense to the Marxist mentality as it raises one person above another and enforces aristocratic values. That’s why you see some very pretty women proletarianizing themselves with tattoos and jeans.
— Comments —-
Does anyone care if Paulina Porizkova can bring down a 250-pound fullback carrying a football?
Has anyone even thought to ask?
Joe Long writes:
Of COURSE Paulina Poriskova, if appropriately unscrupulous, could bring down a 250-pound football player – or, in the right circumstances, a kingdom. Morality aside for a moment, it’s odd how feminism’s “empowerment” of women would seem to disarm them of their most historically effective weapons…
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized