Susan Douglas speaks to launch Women's Week

See if it gets published/stays there:

"'According to Douglas, women’s achievements are overrepresented in the media as a way to promote fantasies of power. These attempts are transparent, she said, because gratifying images of success “mask how much still remains to be done for women.”'

'Heads we lose, tails they win.' With feminists, they are always (claiming to be) losing in some way. They use this then to justify their insistence on using fascist-like tactics to attempt to silence others who point out their ludicrousness. Failing to succeed they attempt to get the gov't (ie, men) to do their dirty work, then have the nerve to complain that the gov't is made up mostly of men. This is not unlike how certain people complain about the trash collectors (who happen categorically, ie, with very rare exception, to be men) who remove their garbage because they come too early in the AM and it disturbs their sleep, all the while not thinking about the "garbage men" who had to get up at 3:00 AM to do the dirty work the homeowner didn't want to do for him- or herself.

Feminists are not categorically ugly, awful, man-hating witches. However they are categorically bigoted, self-absorbed, and hypocritical. Anyone who actually follows their lines of so-called reasoning may be any number of things, but for sure they are missing the skill(s) of analytical thinking. But the good news is that for such a person, there is always hope they will learn it and then recognize feminism for what it is: bigotry."

Women gain power by not having power. If you gain power by not having power, you can never admit you have any power.

Thus, feminists insist all women are victims all the time. It used to be women would be rescued by the nearest man in the white hat. Today they are rescued by the government from men, which is what Obama is doing by giving women free contraceptives--just another entitlement for women. What's interesting about that debate is the number of women that argue traditional rights--such as freedom of religion--must be abolished to give women rights. If you don't have a womb, you don't have rights--just the obligation to pay for women's choices. Or so they argue.

"... may say something about women’s prominence in media, ... , the message is not always positive."

Is it supposed to always be positive? Is it acceptable to portray men as dictators, rapists, abusers and pedofiles in virtually every feminist driven campaign for women's issues out there, but heaven forbid there ever be a negative portrayal of women... is THIS feminist equality?

"“I grew tired of seeing the attitude of ‘I’m not a feminist, but …’” as though it’s something to be avoided,"

When radical feminists are relegated to the extreme fringe of the movement, but truely egalitarian and self critical feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, actually get cast out and attacked, (IE, she is seen as more of a threat to feminism than the likes of Dworkin, MacKinnon, Solonas (and her Sweddish government sponsored theatrical performers) and Valenti)... Is it not reasonable to consider, maybe feminist's are something to be avoided?

"According to Douglas, women’s achievements are overrepresented in the media as a way to promote fantasies of power."

How is this different than feminist promotion of male power, overrepresenting the male power of the top 1% to promote fantasies of male power/privilege?

"she said, because gratifying images of success “mask how much still remains to be done for women.”"

In much the same manner as gratifying images of male power mask how much suffering, oppression and discrimination men face?

" and enlightened sexism, a more subtle form of sexism that embraces achievements on the surface but ultimately repudiates feminism."

Perhaps if feminists could point to a benchmark of "achevable" success that people could look to to say "hey, goal achieved", instead of expecting people to take feminist's word on what is a success, which has been shown to be unreasonable (such as the fact that 50 years ago, 44% female attendance in college was unacceptable and proof of discrimination. Today, 60% female attendance is still unacceptable, and efforts are being made to ensure MORE women enter into the only remaining male dominated course, the STEM fields. Is success in education only gained when men are completely removed?), then people wouldn't be forced to measure success on their own, in a manner that feminists don't like.

"Douglas showed students statistics that placed women’s median income at $32,000 a year"

I pesume that statistic is based off the math of comparing female dominated part time jobs against CEO's, entrapanuers, engineer's, etc?

That was an awesome post kratch. I was about to repost it here till I saw you aleady posted it here.