Thursday, August 04, 2016

Faux Liberals Dine Free Forever

The Washington Post seems very confused about why Susan Estrich would defend Roger Ailes:
Why is this feminist hero representing Roger Ailes?

A minor shock wave coursed through feminist and legal circles when Susan Estrich’s name surfaced as the defense co-counsel to the former Fox News chief executive, who faces a sexual-harassment lawsuit and is accused of predatory behavior stretching over decades...
I dunno. Maybe because Roger Ailes has kept Ms. Estrich's in-house Merlot lagoon fully stocked for the last 20 years?


Cirze said...

That's good enough for the D.C. crowd.

Come onnnnn.

What? You gotta a problem with dat?


anonymous said...

You've got to be a real live woman to understand this. You've got to have lived through the criminalization of living while female that was the 80's till now in the USA. The last living reporter of that time published "Backlash".

Susan Faludi got everything stolen from that book, including the title, except anything that mattered. Which is that women faced, and face, a cultural onslaught of meticulous, calculated, effective bigotry that influences everything from our court systems to the goddamn cost of our deodorant and dry cleaning.

From the 80's forward, women were fleeing the basic identity of simply being a woman like cockroaches scattering under a flicked light switch. There is no clearer example than Barbara Erherinrich. Her beloved-by-progressives "Nickeled And Dimed" failed to address anywhere at all the one root cause of the desperation of the women's lives she so lovingly depicts at arms length: the refusal of the courts and of employers to allow women into men's jobs. She goes on at length about hotel maids and waitresses, and spends not a little time on how aweful the -women- supervisors in these jobs were (apparently never having heard of horizontal aggression), but never, ever, once addresses the sexism and the Reaganized courts that forced women into these jobs. That would have brought her into conflict with her alternate identity: working class, union males, who have always opposed women (but not black men, so liberal of them) having the right to try for their jobs.

The Blue Wall of Silence stands aside so predictably when a man wants to kill a woman that a special provision had to be made in gun laws to account for the heightened percentage of male law enforcement personnel that beat, terrorize, and murder their wives. That Blue Wall of Silence allowed David Brame to achieve Police Chief status because he had only beaten his wife and only threatened to kill her numerous times, he had only raped a subordinate. Then one day he put an end to a woman's life and his worthless own, and all the male-owned media is calling this yet another "tragedy" and asking "What, oh what went wrong?" And another woman that fled from her own life, her own body, her own identity, Christine Gregoire, as governor of Washington State declared (and ruled, since she took personal charge of the "investigation") that nothing could have prevented this.

Carry on, liberals. We women will continue to be invisible to you. (Did you know that the one humanitarian case decided in international court in decades, if ever, against the U.S. was solely on behalf of the majority of the citizens of this country? "Lenahan v. U.S" ruled in 2011 that the United States is in violation of the treaty of the Organization of American States because it will not protect its female citizens from male violence)

Charlesdillon said...

Excellent post. Why anonymous? Be proud sister!

bowtiejack said...

I believe Alexis de Toqueville solved this little conundrum for us almost 200 years ago:

"As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Alexis de Toqueville
Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, June 9, 1831

Green Eagle said...

Susan Estrich has been a Republican tool for years, living off her long gone history of feminism.

Robt said...

Just as interesting,
Why would Rodger Dodger Ailes agree to having such a feminist brought on board as legal council.

Where Oh where is Rodgers's conservative Principles?

I bet if Scalia was still alive, Rodger might handle this differently......

RUKidding said...

Money talks. Estrich has no principles. Not unusual in this day & age. No doubt she soothes her conscience - if she still happens to have one - by saying that even crooks deserve counsel in our system of "justice." Of course that big fee also eases any potential misgivings. Screw your sisters. Money talks. Bullshit walks.

dahlgren said...

Susan Estrich. Susan David Brooks Estrich. Fine 1988 campaign there