Who the FUCK is this woman on Colbert Report?

[WindRavenX]

She JUST said she wants women to be back in the 50's and 60's; pregnant and having no choice in working or education :( :cry:

anyone seeing this?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Dominionist? Christian Reconstructionist? Republican? All three?

These are the preachings of the Christian Taliban.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband.
It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.


Nothing would make this administration happier than the rule of a Christian Taliban.

[rpannier]

7. The first quote sounds almost Confuscian.

[genie_weenie]

22. oops

[Marr]

2. Can I assume she's written a book?

And now wants to sell the fruits of her education, as professional writers do?

[JI7]

3. can't she do that today ?

or does she feel the need to have all women live that way ?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. No.

That's the one thing that's not allowed.

[silverweb]

4. So...

Is it safe to assume that Colbert is making mincemeat of her while pretending to be on her side and she's too dense to know she's being mocked?

Can't wait to see it later tonight!

[whometense]

10. Safe to say.

It was a very clever interview on his part. She spent the whole interview smirking and preening.

[LearnedHand]

6. Caitlin Flannagan

She's for real, but she's not a fundy right-winger. She writes for the New Yorker and I think is a correspondent for The Atlantic. You can find some of her essays online. She's a TOTAL kook, the apotheosis of the child-worshipping parent cult. Sometimes her essays are thought-provoking, but mostly she reminds me of that woman in the 70s who wrote that women should greet their husbands at the door wearing nothing but Saran Wrap.

On edit: Here's a short bio posted at theatlantic.com: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/by/caitlin_flanagan

[TahitiNut]

11. Caitlin Flanagan - Quixotic champion of exploited Mary Poppins' everywhere

She's the "anti-feminist" who hypothesizes that 'career women' achieve liberation by exploiting low-paid female labor. I think she's single-handedly responsible for about 5% of Toprol XL sales in the US. :evilgrin:

[SmokingJacket]

44. Wow! She's an idiot!

I've read a few things she's written in the New Yorker, and she writes as if she thinks everyone in the world has a nanny.

You'd think that someone writing for the NYer would have at least enough savvy to know that Colbert is making fun of her -- but I guess she's TOTALLY in cloud cuckoo land.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

53. Uh, I like the Saran wrap idea very much!!

Am I evil?

[seg4527]

8. you beat me to it

I had to ask if she was serious the whole time.

Although to men in the audience seemed to be cheering her, sarcastically or not, there was one point where the audience completely cracked up at whatever it was she was trying to say.

[whometense]

9. She was even more nauseating in person than in print.

Check out this review/essay by Joan Walsh in Salon of her book:

The happy hypocrite

A great read.

[Ms. Clio]

26. Great link, thanks

"'Aren't you a working mother?' I ask.

"'All mothers are working mothers,' Flanagan replies.

"'Working mother outside the home, I mean.'

"'No, I'm never outside the home when I work,' she replies. (Geez, I fell right into that one.)

"'But you do have an office in the house? You're not typing in the kitchen, right?'

"'When the boys were really little I did. I sat at the kitchen table. I sat right there and worked.' And so on.

"I ask her whether she still has regular child care. 'I don't want to get into the specifics of that,' she says, 'because it's so personal, but I would say there's a lot more cleaning help at this point. I have help with the kids sometimes, babysitting.'"

Is Flanagan trying to fool her publishers, her readers, or is she fooling herself with this at-home mother shtick? It's really hard to tell. Lots of feminist writers have rebuked big-name editors for giving the anti-feminist Flanagan such great perches -- the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and now a hyped book. I don't usually bother second-guessing other editors. But it's hard not to agree with Daphne Merkin, who told Abraham she thinks Flanagan is the brainy-mag "it girl" of the moment (and, yes, apparently there can only be one) because she's a "throwback to a less threatening, more reassuring kind of woman writer," one who has infinite sympathy for the troubles -- "call it the 'ache,'" Merkin told Abraham slyly -- of being a man.

[tigereye]

60. this woman is evidently totally full of shite

I wish this kind of crap would go away....

[SmokingJacket]

54. Boy, that is a good article. Thanks! nt

[fishwax]

12. she was nauseating

what an attitude :puke:

She said that date nights were a waste of time because wives should understand that putting out is just part of their daily routine :puke:

[Bitter Cup]

63. Date night is about putting out?

I thought it was about setting aside some time for each other and getting out of the house instead of wrestling with the kids or just watching TV.

Guess I've got somethin new to look forward too tonight!

[fishwax]

70. Who needs time together? That's an entirely modern notion

the man makes money, the wife cleans the house and is always available for sex. What, you thought marriage was about companionship, affection (maybe even love), and all that liberal rot? :sarcasm:

She was really vile :puke:

Welcome to DU, Bitter Cup! :hi:

[gkhouston]

73. does that mean we can only "do it" on date night?

Damn, our baby-sitting budget just went way up...

[Lindacooks]

13. Then what the hell is SHE doing on TV telling other what to do?

Shouldn't she be barefoot and pregnant in a dirty backyard somewhere?

[laundry_queen]

14. oh man, she was awful!

Although I couldn't get over how dense she was, I mean, don't these people understand satire at all? She's a writer for fuck sakes! The funniest was when she apologized for saying "nookie". Good grief.

[bdot]

15. I watched it and I pretty much agree with her. I know women who agree too.

[Neil Lisst]

16. I've got to hear this. Please, tell me about this.

The women who agree.

[fleabert]

18. so you live in fantasy land too?

one where women in the fifties and sixties were happy with their inferior legal and social status?

get the fuck out of here.

[WindRavenX]

21. excuse me?

Are you fucking kidding me??

[pthalomarie]

27. no need to be rude

bdot's entitled to (her?) opinion.

and while i disagree with it, i know many, many women who not only live that way, they would consider the author to be too liberal.

look at the bestseller lists sometime. there are a lot of recent nonfiction books written about how wives should be submissive and housebound, and lots about how men and boys should be allowed to "assert" their masculinity.

this is far from the first book like this, and it's probably the mildest one i've come across.

[MissB]

30. Sure there is a need.

WindRaven is just as entitled to her opinion.

[pthalomarie]

31. manners count

there's a difference between disagreeing, and being crude about it.

[MissB]

34. Welcome to DU!

It doesn't help to be overly sensitive on DU. People use swear words all the time. As long as she doesn't tell someone to "fuck off", she is well within her rights according to DU rules.

My best suggestion is to not try to be Net Nanny right out of the gate. :hi:

[pthalomarie]

41. i just think it's ironic

i've spent most of the last eight years participating in forums where there was a healthy mix of polar opposites, i.e. fundamentalists and atheists, and liberals and conservatives, and I don't think I've ever come across the f-word.

so it's strange that in a forum where everyone's pretty much on the same page, rough language comes more quickly.

shouldn't the goal be to find out why bdot feels the why she does, rather than chase her away?

[gkhouston]

43. rough language doesn't come more quickly, here

Like the poor, it is always with us. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Ms. Clio]

47. LOL n/t

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

51. FYI: bdot's profile says "male"

[Momgonepostal]

56. Not anymore...lol

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

67. In the words of Ed McMahon:

Hi-yo!

[MissB]

61. He was properly tombstoned.

And I've been on discussion boards for at least the last 8 years. I find it hard to believe that you've *never* seen "fuck" on a message board.

If "rough language" such as "fuck", "shit" and "damn" are going to bother you, then I wish you the best of luck around here.

[HEyHEY]

65. Damn! That fuck was full of shit wasn't he?

[MissB]

66. .

:rofl:

[HEyHEY]

64. BS, you've never come across the F-word on a discussion board

That's a complete improbability the odds are like a million to one.

[pthalomarie]

71. fine, don't believe it, then.

that doesn't mean it's not true. :)

[Ms. Clio]

72. "If it doesn't make sense, then it's probably not true."

According to that sage observer of human nature, Judge Judy.

BTW, we are eagerly awaiting more of your words of wisdom re: imaginary social research and devil's advocacy.

[Momgonepostal]

32. There's a difference between choosing to live that way yourself

(which, incedentally, this woman does NOT do) and wanting everyone to live that way. I also know woman who choose to live that lifestyle, but they don't go around writing books about why everyone should be just like them.

And how hypocritical is it for a career woman to tell the rest of us we shouldn't be career women? Why does she think she deserves a special pass? This reminds me a Dr. Laura...women should stay home...unless they are me...and take their husband's last names when they marry...unless they are me...and be all moral and upstanding...unless they are me...etc.

[gkhouston]

45. exactly.

My hat's off to the stay-at-home moms. A walk in the park it is not. But is also not for everyone. I'm glad I have more options than were available to women 40 years ago and will resist any attempt to stuff me back into the role models of the past.

[Momgonepostal]

55. And I certainly have no gripes with SAHMs

I've been a SAHM, I've been a full-time working mom, and I currently work part time. I'm glad we have choices and I don't necessarily have a problem with people who make choices that are different than mine. I DO have a problem with people who think everyone should be just like them. I feel the same way about some FT working moms I've known who are smug about their choices. I think we're all just trying to do the best for our families as a whole.

[whometense]

57. Absolutely.

Everyone's free to choose their own path.

But she's instructing other women, and that is entirely different. Hence the cursing (above). Most of us can manage just fine without her advice, thank you very much. Not to mention the smug self-satisfaction she displayed last night.

[tallahasseedem]

42. You do realize that this isn't Freeperville, right?

[Ms. Clio]

28. You realize she is a complete hypocrite, right?

She works, has household help, including baby-sitters for her boys -- proudly claims to have never even ironed a shirt.

Most ironically and sadly, those pathetic women who agree with her probably don't have cushy jobs writing happy horseshit for glossy mags.

[MissB]

29. Please accept my belated welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. .

:eyes:

[lukasahero]

38. You agree that *ALL* women should shut up, get pregnant

and stay out of the workplace?

Thanks for signing my death warrant as I would surely commit suicide if that was my only option in life.

Why is it so hard for people to accept women as fully functioning human beings with our own dreams and desires?

[pthalomarie]

48. allow me to play devil's advocate

i agree with what you say, but i'm familiar enough with the counterpoint that i think i can answer your question with a hypothetical:

-IF you happened upon something that made you, and a lot of other people, very happy

and IF you found that people who didn't do this activity were much more likely to be unhappy

and IF you believed that social research supported your belief that society was better served by more people living your way

and IF you believed that social research supported your belief that the consequences of our modern society were too grave to ignore

wouldn't you want to tell people about it?

[gkhouston]

50. her book might be a tad more convincing if she herself were

actually doing the thing that has supposedly "made her, and a lot of other people, very happy."

As it is, she has hired help to do most of the housekeeping and baby-sitting chores. She's playing at being a stay-at-home mom.

I'd like to see the "research" before I make a judgment as to its validity. Frankly, even if it showed that the overwhelming majority of the women in this country would be happier if they were stay-at-home moms, I wouldn't care, because I'm not in that majority, assuming it exists. And I'd kind of wonder about her book if it presents women with one career option (teaching) which was socially acceptable in the 1950's. Why is that okay and other forms of employment aren't? Is the teaching just something women do to tide themselves over until marriage?

And she completely ignores the economic reality that many families face today: even if one parent wanted to be a stay-at-home mom or dad, paying the bills on one salary is nigh until impossible for many American families.

[Ms. Clio]

52. No, I would want to live that life myself

So why doesn't she?

[tigereye]

62. don't believe there's any social research

that backs up those kind of claims... on the contrary women having choices (not having them made FOR them) is what improves mental health, health, attitude, even sexual health, and all that good stuff.

sorry, I don't buy it.

[pthalomarie]

74. you guys are living in the past.

the era of objective research ended long ago.

nowadays, even science is postmodern. every cause has its own manufactured "facts," "studies," and "evidence." Think tanks omn both the left and right (as well as governments) fund research with a predetermined goal in mind. Sometimes their motives are political, sometimes they're geared towards increasing donations, and once in a while, they're accurate.

It's so time-consuming to sift through the rubbish that people gravitate to what Colbert called "truthiness."

so there's plenty of research out there that shows that the 50's style family is the happiest and healthiest on average. just as there's plenty of evidence that that's not true.

[gkhouston]

75. actually the era of objective research hasn't ended

and pseudoscience has been with us for millenia. The ability to distinguish the two varies from individual to individual.

[tigereye]

77. no, I think there is plenty of unbiased uni research out there

when I get a little time, I'll post you some.

[lukasahero]

68. No

I would continue to believe that people (even women *gasp*) are human beings with individuals wants and needs who cannot be defined by so simple a statement.

There are a lot of "IFs" in your statement that are not supported by any research.

And finally, as I'm sure almost everyone here has pointed out to you, she seems to believe that this is only true for other people. SHE wants to force HER beliefs on everybody else but doesn't want to live by them herself. Pardon me while I check my dictionary for the word "hypocrite".

[pthalomarie]

78. you're missing my point.

there's a large faction of the American population that firmly believes that what she's saying is true, even if she's not living by it.

and they have their own well-funded organizations that supply them with their own data that validates these beliefs. you can't argue "against" these organizations, because then (in their view) it comes down to the "liberal agenda" vs "common sense."

yes, women should be treated as individuals with their own wants and needs, but they argue that deep down, women really want (and would be happiest) being good little housewives.

the point of my hypothetical "IFS" is to illustrate how they see the issue; they see feminism as something that is manufactured and unnatural, and they have a message that will heal society just as it's healed them.

whether that's true is in many ways beside the point; they're convinced it is true.

[lukasahero]

81. I don't give a flying fuck what they think

I would like to live my life and I am perfectly capable of deciding what makes me happy. They don't know shit about me and I would prefer they stay the fuck out of my life. Did I make my point clear?

[pthalomarie]

82. you should.

only a fool would voluntarily choose to remain uninformed of what the opposition believes, how they come to believe it, how they communicate, and what their strategy is.

the reason liberals are in this bind is because they rested on their laurels and thought "live and let live" would carry the day. conservatives, on the other hand, very patiently learned everything they could about how the civil rights movement was so successful, and they co-opted and updated many of those same strategies.

[Rose Siding]

46. She's a bigot. Steve really had her going.

He could hardly believe she was saying what she did either. :rofl:

[fleabert]

17. I am so mad I could spit fire.

That woman made my blood boil and vomit rise up in my throat.

fucking piece of shit bloodsucker.

but- at least Colbert framed her stupidity so eloquently.

[rucky]

19. At least she's on a comedy show.

she knows that, doesn't she?

[gatorboy]

25. That's the thing!

When I was watching it, I couldn't tell. It was the first time I thought that the guest might be a fake and just part of the show. It was THAT weird!

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

20. "The Happy Hypocrite": Salon shredded her just last week

-snip-

Flanagan, by contrast, bills herself as a happy hypocrite. She readily confesses that although she's an at-home mother (more on her hair-splitting definition of same later), the "home" part of the equation doesn't get much attention; she's not much for cooking or housekeeping or bleaching or mending, or any wifely duties, really, except (we're supposed to infer from a chapter about how feminists won't give their husbands sex) sex. She's had a full-time nanny, housecleaning help, a "household organizer," and now that the kids are in school, no nanny, but a baby sitter. And while she loves to read old texts like "The Settlement Cook Book," with its recipes and its polite solutions for every domestic problem, some of which involve one part bleach, she's honest about having no practical relationship to the book, beyond that of a reader; in fact, she compares herself reading the cookbook at home to a man reading Playboy in a hotel. "I have never made a solution composed of one part bleach and nine parts warm water … I have been married a total of sixteen years to a total of two men, and never once have I been asked to iron a single item of either man's clothing or to replace even one popped button."

---------

She's definitely a hypocrite, but she sure ain't happy. Many more insights in this great read:

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/04/12/flanagan/index.html

[renate]

40. she is one dramatically mixed-up woman

And that is one great review.

My favorite part was what Joan Walsh wrote about how Flanagan pats herself on the back for being such a great wife and building up such a great big surplus in her "marital bank account" that her husband actually (get ready for this) took care of her while she had cancer (can you imagine?):

...all I know for sure is that to credit your own behavior for what is essentially good luck and someone else's kindness is asking for what's called karma, and not the good kind.

SNAP!

[gkhouston]

49. she doesn't do laundry, she doesn't sew on buttons, she doesn't cook

she doesn't take care of the kids. Sounds like she's a mistress, not a wife or a mommy. So her basis for lecturing to us on the appropriate course for our lives (those of us who do all of those things, and work) would be...?

[BigMcLargehuge]

59. that was a great read

[genie_weenie]

23. This strikes towards a deeper problem which...

goes to the mindset of those who view society and culture as a linear progression ala the following:

bad<---.------>perfect

They then place Current 2006 American culture upon the line graph towards bad and as having regressed from when we were closer to perfection in the 50s. Therefore, it is imperative that they take up the struggle and advance culture towards perfection again.

This will be accomplished by banning gay marriage, reintroducing Chrisitanity into the schools, fighting foreign wars against those who threaten their way of life (anarchists, commies, muslims), subjugating woman back to a subserviant role and other measures.

Once this has been re-accomplished society can again move towards the perfect State, to be constantly guarded against future threats.

[SOS]

24. An economics imbecile

She likes the 1950s. Good for her.
The US had won WWII. Europe and Japan destroyed. The largest economic expansion in history. Income inequality at historic low. Top tax rate was around 70%.
Middle class is created and expands. Unions strong. One income could provide for a whole family.
That ended in 1973.
Today it's two parents working 50 hours a week just to stay afloat. Most couples have no choice. They both have to work to keep the kids fed.
I noticed that Caitlin neglected to mention her husband's profession and income level....

[Momgonepostal]

36. That's what gets me about this type...

...the type that says we can all make it on one income if our priorities are in order. Of course we can, if that one income is high enough. I'd like to see that bossy cow and her whole family live even month on what my husband makes substitute teaching and tutoring.

[underpants]

37. LOL fantastic summary

apparently she is a stay-at-home mom ...with a nanny and a support staff for her writing.

I have it on tape. I'll watch it tonight.

[Finder]

39. Her situation is a common one today...

although not for everybody, it is viable for some. I mean her working/home arrangement.

I think a lot of what she says is meant to raise hackles to get a discussion going.

[IChing]

33. She is a major contributing poster here at DU in the

Fiction and Fantasy forum.

[Beelzebud]

58. At first I thought she was satire like Colbert is, but then I realized

she was being serious.

Made the interview that much more funny!

I love Colbert!

[W_HAMILTON]

69. Same...

Well, actually I didn't realize she was being serious till I came here and saw the thread at DU. Hell, I'm still not sure she's serious. She was so out of the loop, it's almost hard to believe that it wasn't satire.

[annabanana]

76. Stephen should have dismissed her with. . .

"You're a woman. Who cares what you think?"

I wonder how she would have reacted?

[Yatar]

79. I missed it

I hope it comes up on Youtube so I can see it...

[LSK]

80. it repeats at 8:30pm EST tonite

I missed it too.