read this embarrassing piece in the new york times. i won't get into all of the reasons why i think this piece is a whiny and clueless waste of bandwidth. i think it speaks for itself. [also, others have articulated why the article misses the mark on so many levels better than i ever could.] but this part is the kicker for me:
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.so women are obligated to vote for hillary or else be backhandedly shamed by gloria friggin' steinem for not being "radical" enough? pwahahahaha! ooh, i'm shakin' in my ballet flats.
hey girls! if you vote for obama, you've sold out your gender and you're totally not radical! gloria steinem says so!
[oh, and to be fair... hey ms. paglia, the 90s called and wants you to get a new schtick. that article could have been written by an ann coulter with a larger vocabulary. paglia is normally entertaining, but this article is just mean spirited and juvenile.]