Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

Slap on some make up, will ya!

The ninnies at the NYTimes were asking, “Does make-up hurt self esteem?“, a question that I find particularly grating, for a number of reasons, the main being that self-esteem is meaningless without accomplishment.

No, make-up does not hurt self-esteem. What cosmetics do (and not only foundation and lipstick, but also hair grooming products, skin moisturizers, and nail polish) is show men and the world that you value yourself enough to present yourself in a favorable light.

Which, by the way, is exactly why overdone or unflattering make-up broadcasts a poor message about you.

The Last Psychiatrist says that No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up, and TLP is right;

The evolution from “enhances sexual attractiveness” to “doing it for yourself” is definitely a regressive step, and by regressive I here mean “regressing to age two”, but it’s the next step which reveals the presence of a neurosis: recruiting science as a justification for behavior: “Study finds makeup makes you appear more competent.”  Can’t wait to read about that study in a Jonah Lehrer book.  Ugh.  So here’s the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: “I want to look better” to “I want to feel better about myself” to “I want people to think I am better.”  Madness. 

Go read the whole long rant, and slap on some make up, will ya!

With the POTUS coming up with 23(!) executive actions in one day, using children as props, you’ll need the make-up.

(Yes, I use all the products shown in the Amazon links, and, yes, the Garniers are actually good for your skin, and you’ll support this blog.)

Share

By

The O’s latest gaffe: Pick on Ann Romney

Ann Romney raises five sons, battles cancer and multiple sclerosis, goes on the campaign trail, and yet, gets no respect from the Dems, because “she’s never worked a day in her life,”

Having insulted his wife and every stay-home mom, Hilary Rosen claims Mitt “doesn’t see women as equals,” because in Rosen’s book only women who work outside the home are “equals”.

Ah, the finesse, the subtlety of the Obama advisors. BTW, Rosen has visited the White House thirty-five times during the Obama administration.

Jennifer Rubin beats Rosen with the big stick,

No, this really happened. Honest. But it didn’t stop. Rosen took to Twitter to dig her hole deeper and deeper, never apologizing.

Then Rubin counts the ways,

Needless to say, the “war on women” has taken on a whole new tone. Let’s count the ways this is just awful for Obama and/or Democrats more generally. There are a few, so find a comfortable seat.

First, Obama, as a conservative pundit put it, just went a long way toward solidifying Romney’s base, especially among social conservatives who loathe elites who look down on stay-at-home moms.

Second, it feeds into the cliche that liberals love humanity but hate people. In this case they love womanhood but treat their own employees and conservative women like dirt.

Third, the “war on women” just became Romney’s vehicle for narrowing the gender gap, especially among women with children.

Fourth, this points to the absurdity of Obama’s approach to the campaign — nonstop negativity and gimmicks.When one goes awry, what’s he got to say?

Fifth, there will be a new term in politics: A Rosen. That is a gaffe of epic proportions that is magnified by the gaffer’s own stubbornness and insistence on digging deeper.

Sixth, Hilary Rosen, who makes her living in PR (irony alert), better find other work. She’s really terrible at her job, if this is any indication.

There’s more, much more at her post. Go read every word.

You can follow @AnnDRomney on twitter.

UPDATE,
Tree Hugging Sister released the Kraken on Rosen.


Share

By

Manifesto for unConscious Men

Busy day here, while everyone is blogging about Pres. Obama’s budget speech.

However, an equally interesting subject is this Manifesto For Conscious Men, which starts with an apology for being men. You can watch the YouTube in its full unmanly self-conscious groveling glory here.

Conceived, redacted and read by a guy name Gay. Really.

The whole thing is not only wrong from the get-go (starting with that photo of Dante Gabriel Rosetti’s Beata Beatrix – yes, I know my Pre-Raphaelites – on the Facebook page), it totally misses the point. As Bill Whittle says in the Trifecta,

The antidote to brutal men is not weak, femminine men. The antidote to brutal men is strong, good men.

Now, whether the Manifesto is actually “the most elaborate pick-up line ever”, I’ll leave for Citizen Renegade to decide.

More blogging later.

25896
Share

By

Around the web: Tsunami and earthquake in Japan, Red Arabs, Eva in drag

An 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami hit Japan,

It is the strongest earthquake in the history of Japan. Tsunami waves are hitting areas of the Pacific. Not to be missed, the Communications Minister of Bolivia blames the earthquake and tsunami on global warming, and that people aren’t listening to Evo Morales. Richard Fernandez, however, manages to speak with reason,

Planetary forces are so enormously powerful that attempts to control the environment must often fall a far second to simply being able to survive what Mother Nature throws in humanity’s way. Man has survived on this planet by adapting; by storing away in times of safety the food, energy and resilience that are needed to recover from catastrophes he can neither foresee nor prevent.

Whirlpool created following the earthquake,

Venezuelan crude oil is now at $101/barrel. Hugo Chavez’s going to stay in power for a long time.

The soaring gasoline prices are a War On The Poor.

Jamie Glazov has panelists Michael Ledeen, Pavel Stroilov, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa and Nonie Darwish, in a Symposium: The Red Arabs

Robert Romano writes about The Phony Shutdown Showdown; The Time to Cut Spending is Now

As regular readers of this blog know, I think the compact fluorescent lightbulbs are hazardous, inefficient, a ripoff, and, worst of all, make you look like Lilly Munster. Rand Paul lets it rip on “people who believe in some choices but don’t let the consumer choose what’s in their homes”:

Joy and Stacy are arguing about feminism, again.

Michelle Obama sports a $1,000 handbag, which looks like a $40 tote from Target to my untrained eyes. John Hinderaker proposes, LET’S MAKE OBAMA KING, but John may be a little late, at least in Obama’s mind.

Where’s Mel Brooks when we need him? Eva Braun in drag as Al Jolson.

25429
Share

By

“There is no easy way to right the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy.”

Was reading this article on stay-home moms
(h/t Instapundit), when I came across this startling revelation:

There is no easy way to right the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy.

I did a double-take: Where was it? The National Review? A Republican women’s forum?

No.

It’s the New York Times, that arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Let’s remind them of that statement once Obamacare gets rolling along.

Exit question: Is a government-provided healthcare monopoly “well-meaning policy”, an insidious way to take over a large fraction of the economy and control over people’s lives, or what?

21836
Share

By

American Academy of Pediatrics finally does the right thing

As you may recall, the American Academy of Pediatrics had condoned female genital mutilation earlier this month. Now they (finally!) recognized their error:
Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral “pricking” procedure.

“We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world,” said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

The contentious policy statement, issued in April, had condemned the practice of female genital cutting overall. But a small portion of statement suggesting the pricking procedure riled U.S. advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting.

And cultural relativism scored one, on those who can’t tell an earlobe from a private part:

In the April statement, the group raised the idea that some physicians should be able to prick or nick a girl’s clitoral skin in order to “satisfy cultural requirements.” The group likened the nick to an ear piercing.

By the way, there is a federal law already prohibiting FGM:

The AAP also clarified nicking a girl or woman’s genitals is forbidden under a 1996 federal law banning female genital mutilation.

Through the article you see that term, mutilation, changed to “cutting”, and “circumcision”, as if those euphemisms described the barbaric practice of mutilating a woman’s genitalia for the single purpose of preventing her sexual enjoyment for the rest of her life.

It boggles the mind that the AAP actually went along with FGM in the first place.

And I want to know, where are the liberal feminists? Where’s their outcry?

20585
Share

By

The dress

It’s been two weeks, but Michelle Obama’s dress is still generating commentary, all of it negative.

Now it’s Germaine Greer’s turn (h/t Don Surber):
If Michelle Obama’s such a great dresser, what was she doing in this red butcher’s apron?

At no time would what she wore be more significant than on the night of November 4 2008, when, win or lose, the eyes of the world would be upon the Obama family as the four of them processed on to the stage in Grant Park, Chicago. If Michelle had dressed herself and her daughters for defeat, she could hardly have chosen anything more saturnine. Seven-year-old Sasha was dressed from head to foot in black: black dress, black hose, black shoes. Ten-year-old Malia was just as black about the legs, but her dress was blood-red. Any colour is better than pink, but these robust choices hardly strike one as girly. The girls’ odd outfits were clearly chosen as foils to their mother’s dress, which was all black with an eye-burning red panel that splattered itself down the front like a geometrical haemorrhage, held in by a criss-cross sash of black. The red extended upwards almost to the neckline, and downwards to mid-thigh, petering out top and bottom in a sort of cast-off splatter. The effect of the strong contrast was to turn a mere frock into a poster in the most disturbing colours known to man, the colours of chaos. The juxtaposition of a rectangle of red on a black field is what we might expect to find on a flag or a shield. Coral snakes and venomous spiders signal their destructive potential by the display of similarly violent contrasts.

Ugly dress, and odd choice to pair it with a cardigan. Why not wear a more becoming dress with sleeves instead?

The coral snakes and venomous spiders analogy is bad enough, but Greer is not above being catty,

Her kitten heels make sure that her bigger head never out-tops her husband’s.

Mwwweeewww!

One thing the media (which so touted Sarah Palin’s $150,000 in clothes) is not mentioning is that Narciso Rodriguez’s ready-to-wear dresses retail between $1,500 to $2,000 each.

And that doesn’t even get you the cardigan.

Digg!

Share on Facebook

Share