(Thanks to Deepa for alerting us via the Tip Line!)
Back in college, a single guy friend had a taxonomy of the type of women attracted by the different bands of the political spectrum.
He argued that the average attractive & approachable gal on campus was a soft lefty. She’d advocate things like national healthcare out of a semi-fashionable, prima facie concern for her fellow human beings. Of course, she felt this concern naturally extended into politics & was blind to the economic logic.
Angry, granola gals oppressed by the patriarchy often filled out the far left, weren’t exactly the most dateable & he avoided them like the plague. Being famously politically incorrect, he’d remark that these gals were “either angry cuz men always treated them like sexual objects or angry cuz men never treated them like sexual objects.” I’ll reserve my comments.
By contrast, the few & far between campus Right Wing gals tended to be a tad too country club / prep school for our tastes.
But Libertarian activists? Well unfortunately, a libertarian rally is possibly the only gathering that scares gals off faster than a Star Trek convention. As a self-described libertarian, ’twas a pity.
BUT, enter the first, and possibly the most attractive Desi libertarian female activist I’ve seen in a long time. Govindini Murty was recently profiled in the Washington Post for hosting a Conservative / Libertarian film festival in the People’s Republic of Hollywood –
The festival was organized by a husband-wife duo of young filmmakers, Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, and underwritten by the Foundation for Free Markets, which likes privatizing Social Security, cutting taxes and issuing school vouchers. …Murty, an aspiring actress, says the impetus was, in part, the cool reception she and her husband have received in Hollywood for their own screenplays and their film “Terminal Island,” which premiered at the festival.
You can read more about the film festival here and the surprising press coverage here. If all you want to do is ogle at Govindini a bit more, you can skip to the photos here.
She also writes sharp-tongued movie reviews for the Hollywood Republicans – for ex – her take on Troy –
Someone’s given Hollywood the dangerous idea that it can actually make historical epics the way it once did back in the 1950s. The result is Wolfgang Peterson’s expensive turkey “Troy,” which has more in common with “Dude Where’s My Car” than “The Ten Commandments.” The central love story is shallow and insipid. Orlando Bloom’s Paris and Diane Kruger’s Helen come across as teenagers fumbling in the back seat of a borrowed car, not epic lovers. And when the two actors stand together, I can’t tell them apart. Which one’s the female?
Heh. She sounds like quite the character. Rock on Govindini.
UPDATE – the Govindini’s IMDB entry. This gal rocks!
Govindini and her younger sister began working in their early teens in order to help their mother, and made a number of financial sacrifices in order to keep the family going…When Govindini was fifteen, she lived a year on the island of Borneo, Malaysia… Govindini next received a scholarship to attend Yale University. In addition to working two jobs to pay for her education, Govindini wrote a column for the Yale Daily News, and served as Chair of the Women’s Caucus and Vice-Chair of the Independent Party of the Yale Political Union. …Govindini speaks English, French, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, and some Hindi and Malay. She has also studied Latin, and spoke Bengali and Manipuri as a child.
Oh, and of course, more photos
I went to college (in Canada…where they call it university) with Govindini’s sister.
Re: the IMDB bio…it’s written by Ms. Murty herself. Not that that’s a bad thing…I’m just saying.
-D
“Angry, granola gals oppressed by the patriarchy often filled out the far left, weren’t exactly the most dateable & he avoided them like the plague.”
It’s so presumptuous of you to put the link to the parody about the South Asian ‘Facist’ Sisters here…
I’m glad I avoided people like you back in college. You wouldn’t have been worth it, and you’re still not now. You f**kin’ loser…
You f**kin’ loser…
well, didn’t you just kind of illustrate the belligerence that vinod was alluding to?
Although it is selfish, opportunistic, and in poor taste, I feel compelled to announce at this moment that I LOVE “Angry, granola gals.” Call me.
My two cents:
“Angry granola gal” comments aside, I’m glad that SM tries to highlight different political perspectives.
But, as a friendly moderate, please allow me to say that it really doesn’t help your political point of view to denigrate a feminine perspective – leftist, Republican, libertarian, or otherwise – to silly questions of physical appearance. Granted, it’s fun to talk about our personal experiences of the political…….including funny college incidences with said granola girls (would it really surprise you all to know that I was once a granola-lookin’ Republican with butch-short hair? hmmmm, doesn’t that defy stereotypes?). Just trying to say: be a leetle more sensitive about your approach.
desinar
((It’s so presumptuous of you to put the link to the parody about the South Asian ‘Facist’ Sisters here…
I’m glad I avoided people like you back in college. You wouldn’t have been worth it, and you’re still not now. You f**kin’ loser…))
You just vindicated every point he made in his generalised rather crude, but strangely funny and in a peculiar way, accurate satirical dig. Its not a parody when you are there to make posts like the above.
The greatest sin in many peoples eyes is not to have a sense of humour about oneself and the world. As much as anything, that is what the parody is based in. Your response adds to the comedy.
Peace and Love
it really doesn’t help your political point of view to denigrate a feminine perspective – leftist, Republican, libertarian, or otherwise – to silly questions of physical appearance
Oh, please. Men will make fun of a loser like “desinar” b/c he can’t handle a joke by SuperJagjit (who’s prety bipartisan with the slams).
On the other hand, women will make fun of a guy if he’s short, or uneducated, or stupid, or has a dead end job. All the feminist brainwashing in the world isn’t going to make women date guys who are shorter than them (and isn’t going to make them respect guys who are way less educated than them or who make half their salary). And, conversely, OF COURSE the looks of a woman are fair game.
besides, the south asian “kill kal penn” sisters ARE humorless far leftists. v-dawg is just calling a spade a spade…
and given that feminists actively oppose the idea that women should try to look good for men, and furthermore actively oppose the idea that men should try to appeal to women (“In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine. andrea dworkin“), they can’t exactly say that hygiene/grooming/lipstick is their forte.
bottom line: appearance is fair game, and you’re denying humanity itself if you think it’s not a factor. the first thing every guy does when he meets a new girl is assess her attractiveness – you just can’t get around it.
my boy v was just pointing out a fine example of a hot indian libertarian chick, and contrasting that to the unshaved womyn on the far left. if you find the comparison unflattering, perhaps you should reassess your support for an ideology that instructs women not to care about their appearance/hygiene/style…
btw Amelie Freak, if you really are a moderate (haven’t been reading long enough to see), my apologies for misconstruing your position.
But if you are a member of the South Asian sisters, or you consider yourself a feminist, or if Ensler/Steinem/Dworkin/Friedan (or desinar for that matter) have any appeal to you then no apologies 🙂
He argued that the average attractive & approachable gal on campus was a soft lefty. She’d advocate things like national healthcare out of a semi-fashionable, prima facie concern for her fellow human beings.
soft being the operative term. a HUGE number of them haven’t really thought about politics and are just going with the flow – all the brainwashing that starts during freshman orientation (american pictures, crossing the line, “diversity” indoctrination, etc.) defines the political climate and girls are on average more conformist & less likely than guys to step outside the boundaries of “what is allowed”.
but once they’re married & have kids, that soft leftism sloughs away once the decision is between an abstract “save the world” ideology and her kids. The thoughtless universalism of the left necessarily means that the welfare of her family and friends – and her children – is put on an equal plane with some anonymous guy in Timbuktu. Given that choice, she’ll generally choose to take care of her family and expect others to do the same…which is why so many of those soft lefties swing hard to reality (and thus the right) when they become parents.
A mini sturm und drang here..
Going back to Govindini, she’s smart, attractive and got some interesting viewpoints..
Quibble) I would feel awkward writing the sort of bio that Govindini’s written about herself on IMDB? Seems a tad over the top to write such stuff about oneself. Maybe it’s sine qua non in Hollywood.. or in sales.. and maybe a meek FOB geek like me doesn’t get it?
Dont confuse a feminist perspective with a feminine perspective. The two are mutually exclusive.
y boy v was just pointing out a fine example of a hot indian libertarian chick, and contrasting that to the unshaved womyn on the far left. if you find the comparison unflattering, perhaps you should reassess your support for an ideology that instructs women not to care about their appearance/hygiene/style…
GC –
First of all, your attitude and approach are COMPLETELY offputting. You’re taking my comments as personal attack on your friend, and by no means did I intend that. And for your information, NO, feminism does NOT instruct women to not shave, be unattractive, etc. Contrary to popular beliefs, the feminist movement is not composed of a bunch of a bra-burning, “angry” granola chicks. How can you reduce a movement to something so miniscule, yet another stereotype? Again, it seems like you’re the guy with the “ideology” problems, not me.
Pico – I intentionally used “feminine” instead of “feminist” to denote the fact that I’m not talking about “feminists.”
Finally, before this discussion even goes back to the realm of a previous post discussion regarding “Kill Kal Penn” (which I don’t espouse): I DO consider myself a feminist. In fact, I’m a long-haired, makeup-wearing, armpit-waxing feminist. I’m a pretty feminist that likes men. I’m a happy feminist that doesn’t think feminism is a dirty word. Just because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean that I’m a soft lefty. Being a feminist encompasses far more political perspectives than commonly perceived. I don’t doubt Govindini is a feminist on some level – I’m sure she wouldn’t have quibbles with equal job opportunities and pay standards.
Therefore I really don’t want your apologies, GC, because frankly, they wouldn’t be genuine.
I am really sad to see the number of South Asians that look up to conservative and extremely right wing political activists/politicians. Not that I don’t believe people of color cannot be conservatives, I do believe that we (South Asian community in America) have not reached a point in our civil rights agenda to be completely in support of conservatives (like Jindal et al). It further alienates our community from coalition building and political blocks with other communities of color.
On another tip, great job with this blog/website.
All the feminist brainwashing in the world isn’t going to make women date guys who are shorter than them (and isn’t going to make them respect guys who are way less educated than them or who make half their salary). And, conversely, OF COURSE the looks of a woman are fair game.
This is hilarious. I’m loving this.
Additionally, I don’t think I’ve ever dated for or against politics or political leanings. I’m a moderate with somewhat acute dislike of the R party and shamed disappointment in the D party. Moot, but really, I don’t think it’s too terrible.
You can argue, but who doesn’t love making up after a good fight?
Amelie Freak:
hey, if you’re a Susan B Anthony equity feminist I’ve got no problem with you. But if you think that Dworkin, Steinem, Friedan, or Eve Ensler have spewed anything other than cultural Marxist hate unmoored from reality, then I’d have to disagree with you. As for this:
feminism does NOT instruct women to not shave, be unattractive
I wonder how to reconcile that with this, where the typical sleight-of-hand is apparent, to wit: “if you care about staying in shape, the patriarchy is forcing you to have an eating disorder!”
Now, that kind of thing is par for the course in Womyn’s studies. I could quote about a thousand more things like this on how the ostensibly feminine idea of beauty is actually a function of patriarchy and anorexia, and how true feminists must reject the “beauty myth”.
But here’s the comical thing: no straight guy wants an anorexic chick . The guys who’re putting up those androgynous anorexic girls in fashion shows are primarily gay fashion designers!
Don’t believe me? Try a google for “anorexic babes” some day. With every bizarre variety of porn on the web, there is one which is distinctive by its absence: images of bone thin women. If straight guys wanted that stuff, yeah, you’d see it online. But you don’t.
Note also that everything is phrased as exploitation, which is the root of cultural Marxism. Just as Marx believed that workers had to be “exploited” by their employers, cultural Marxists believe that all heterosexual male-female relationships will be “exploitative” until the “patriarchy” is overthrown (presumably ushering in an androgynous paradise, where the withering of the sexes accompanies the withering of the state). Some illustrative Dworkin quotes:
The idea of reciprocity is not even entertained: it would be considered woefully retrograde for a woman to expect an ambitious, intelligent, tall guy in return for the guy to expect a beautiful, nurturing wife. That’s not to say that intelligence isn’t a factor (assortative mating for intelligence is very high), but rather that most women don’t want to hook up with guys who are much dumber than them.
Anyway, I could go on about the fallacy of equating “staying in shape” with anorexia, especially given research in cross-cultural appreciation of waist-to hip ratios and their correlation with fertility:
But I’m tired. You might also check out this article at the Lancet .
Bottom line: you may have a particular reading of feminism that tosses out the feminist incitement to dress in a sack, eat like a whale, and act like a man. (again, Naomi Wolf: “If women cannot eat the same food as men, we cannot experience equal status in the community”).
But that view is certainly not the view of feminists at large.
rversde23:
I do believe that we (South Asian community in America) have not reached a point in our civil rights agenda
South Asians are one of the best educated and most wealthy income groups in the US. This is why so many of us don’t listen to professional angry ethnic leftist “activists” whose whole shtick is about how oppressed we are and how every white guy is fixing to commit a hate crime against us.
As for building bridges with the Sharptons and MECHAs from other “communities of color”, you might want to talk to some NYC cabbies or Korean shopkeepers to see what they think about that…
gc–
“besides, the south asian “kill kal penn” sisters ARE humorless far leftists”
if you had any brains, you would have noticed that the ‘Open Letter to the Community’ sent out by the South Asian Sisters wasn’t a critique of Kal Penn (as an individual or actor), but a take on the film and the character Penn plays in the movie… so f*** you. ha ha!
razib…
“well, didn’t you just kind of illustrate the belligerence that vinod was alluding to?”
exactly… aren’t we all full of contradictions?! that’s the fun in all of this!
Punjabi BOY…
“The greatest sin in many peoples eyes is not to have a sense of humour about oneself and the world. As much as anything, that is what the parody is based in. Your response adds to the comedy.”
Good, I’m glad you found it comical. I laughed too when I posted it!
Maybe boys like you don’t approach “angry granola girls” because you’re intimidated to do so. And you should be. If you can’t handle our rockin’ politics, try your luck with the “soft leftists”, who are probably just as likely to diss you. I’m sure Govindi would not be impressed by a chump like you.
don’t approach “angry granola girls” because you’re intimidated to do so
anjali, i agree. the women who equate physical fitness with patriarchal oppression are often intimidating…intimidatingly bulky.
So let’s make a deal. Why don’t you take all the women who’re angered by the nerve of men who expect women to look attractive? Clasp unto your breast the shapeless sacks, the mustachioed mamas, and the angry androgynes of the world.
We’ll take the ones who wear lipstick, skirts, and makeup…and who don’t think it’s “oppressive” to stay within 10 pounds of their ideal body weight.
gc–
“We’ll take the ones who wear lipstick, skirts, and makeup…”
what makes you think that we’ll even come near you, with your small prick and your 2-second f*cks? dang…. think again, punk-ass.
You know, it is very revealing that GC sees an ideology that preaches that women shouldn’t be reduced to their appearance as one that dictates that women should make themselves unattractive to all men.
Feminism argued that women should be judged in the professional realm according to the same standards as men, and that how ornamental they are should not be a component. Think about it — a man can go make a professional presentation without wondering what people will think about the size of the bulge of his pants. He can be skinny, or fat, and still be judged according to what he has to say. A man doesn’t have to be freshly coiffed before he speaks to a large group, he just has to look neat and presentable.
These are all priveleges that were hard won, GC. That’s what Naomi Wolf writes about — that female rhodes scholars had to be just as accomplished as the men, but then they also were prepped on how to be properly ornamental as well.
Fair is fair. If you want to enforce the norm that women have to be pretty to advance professionally, you should accept a similar rule yourself 😉
desinar
(what makes you think that we’ll even come near you, with your small prick and your 2-second f*cks? dang…. think again, punk-ass)
Yuck. What a nasty misandrist mind you have.
epiphany
i get it!
desinar is gc’s ex-! that’s how she has carnal knowledge of him! (since she comments so expertly on his…shortcomings.)
😉
Punjabi Boy– thanks 🙂
EOFIA– “shortcomings…” i like how you put that!
desinar
It wasnt a compliment, please dont be proud of your degeneracy.
desinar is gc’s ex
sorry, no…I only date women without noticeable drool marks around their chin. judging from her* diction, desinar’s still struggling with the challenging task of disembarking the short bus. Did the aide leave her unattended at the keyboard again?
*- or should I say “its”? you never know with these LGBTQ “fellas” 😉
ennis:
That’s what Naomi Wolf writes about — that female rhodes scholars had to be just as accomplished as the men, but then they also were prepped on how to be properly ornamental as well.
Uh, no. Naomi Wolf is not writing high minded defenses of equity feminism. (In case you didn’t notice, those battles were won sometime in between the advent of the miniskirt and the first majority female class at Harvard Medical School.)
No, Naomi Wolf is going to bat for the right of women to scarf down Hungry Man dinners like no tomorrow!
That’s not exactly equal pay for equal work. She wants equal BMI for equal Big Macs, estrogen & testosterone be damned! Why…it’s like she’s protesting metabolism itself.
Next up: gravity!
gc’s ex? hell no… everyone, i’m his mom. i saw the little prick gc was born with (what a disgusting sight!). feeling sorry for this thing, the dr. did the measurement thing… it ended up being below the standard penis-size that make babies male, but he felt sorry for the organism and placed the “male” gender on it. gc’s been coping with his inadequacies ever since. hence, his sorry-ass self exists pathetically in this world.
PB:
“It wasnt a compliment, please dont be proud of your degeneracy.”
I’m proud of my degeneracy. Thanks!
Please, everyone. A little maturity all around wouldn’t hurt. This is like sticks and stones stuff now. Surely there are more important issues?
C’mon Abhi, we’re South Asians, we’re supposed to argue about petty things :-p
ducks and covers
oh, come now…if desinar had a scintillating, wicked wit and were more clever with her fire, would you really mind as much Abhi? ;~)
Note: Commercial, profane, or abusive comments may be deleted. Unless they’re viciously funny. It’s all good then.
guess whose blog THAT is from? i like to use it as a general principle when commenting on blogs. :~D
if desinar had a scintillating, wicked wit and were more clever with her fire
Yeah, seriously. I mean, I respect ennis, abhi, etc. even when I disagree with them b/c at least they can write passably well. And so long as my interlocutor can craft a fine comeback or two, a flamewar is all in good fun & an entertaining way to while away time while my processes run. But jeez…desinar’s just stupid.
It’s as if the director of Intolerable Cruelty had cast George Clooney alongside a deaf, blind mute. All his best lines would be wasted because his witty repartee would be met with either a dumb stare or an inarticulate gurgle of incomprehension.
but anyway…
I did want to comment on this point of Ennis’, which I missed initially:
He can be skinny, or fat, and still be judged according to what he has to say
Gotta disagree. Physical attributes – particularly height and athleticism – are key for male advancement in the business world. Yes, there are a few Napoleons, but they are the exception rather than the rule. You should google “height income”…as I recall there’s a study that shows that each extra inch of height is (statistically) worth several thousand dollars of income.
But you don’t see feminists complaining about heightism…b/c they’re blind to the fact that there’s also a caste system within males. The alpha-males that they bash so much are the only ones they actually want to hook up with. What heterosexual fem studies PhD wants to date a short guy, a high school dropout or a functional illiterate?
The point is that you’re never going to have a situation where men aren’t judging women – at least in part – on their physical attractiveness. Similarly, you’re never going to have a situation where women aren’t judging men on their ambition and accomplishment. Since when are losers without money or degrees considered catches?
That’s just biology talking. The feminists don’t have the courage of their convictions: they attack male preferences for neoteny, passable waist:hip ratios, etc….while maintaining their own preferences for hard charging alphas. Case in point:
Another case in point, w/ some killer quotes:
Bottom line: women do not want to earn as much as their spouses. They will not respect them if they do. This never seems to be taken into account, but why should guys be the only ones enjoined to reprogram their biology? How can normal guys repudiate their biological preference for neotenous, slim, good looking women when the feminists – as committed to Lysenkoism as can be – can’t even fight their biological urges for a broad shouldered provider?
Let me tell you this: when feminists are hooking up with hobos and special ed students rather than the entrepreneurial alpha-males (“South African entrepreneur!”) they pretend to detest, maybe then I’ll take them seriously. But I think that’ll be a long time coming…
GC wrote: “alpha-males (“South African entrepreneur!”) “
you’re just jealous because you aren’t fine, south african-born, nor an entrepreneur, and your a f**king loser… Yeah for Gloria, she scored!
Note: Commercial, profane, or abusive comments may be deleted. Unless they’re viciously funny. It’s all good then.
Good! I’m glad you all are enjoying this as much as I am!
GC: How important are height, musclarity, rugged features, and a full head of hair in your field? Do you spend 2 hours a day working out because your looks are critical to your career advancement prospects? I know women who do, but far fewer men (even on wall street).
Does anybody ever make cracks about your secondary sexual characteristics in a professional or semi-professional environment?
Do you think that women receive the same treatment? (Ask some if you haven’t).
I’m just irritated about how the post is primarily about how Govindini is a ‘hawt & sexee libertarian desi chick” rather than female desi libertarian. Really, you wouldn’t be profiling Ms. Murty if she looked like the “angry granola girl” and had libertarian politics, no? On the other hand, if you were profiling a desi male libertarian you wouldn’t be going on about how he looked like Shah Rukh Khan even if he happened to appear so. Just give us the hawt and sexee photos of Govindini if that’s all you care about.
Uh, actually, most of the post is about how she’s a female desi libertarian and context on just how unique that actually is. The fact that she’s “hawt” is a very pleasant surprise – esp. given practically negligible female membership at this little corner of the political spectrum.
Pointing that out in no way detracts from my admiration of her politics and what she’s doing. Hell, if any desi were involved with a libertarian film festival, it would be SM-blog-worthy. If Shah Rukh Khan or Aishwarya came out in support of Kerry, you don’t think Saki would’ve made at least some hay of it?
Still, it’s interesting that quoting a joke calling the far left “granola” (a moniker many eagerly adopt for themselves) & “angry” generated far more bile than derisively calling Libertarians a “Star Trek convention” or Republicans a “country club”. Jokes about RedState Rednecks are fine, I guess, as long as you don’t make fun of the PC left.
Govindini was featured on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country last week. While I probably share most of her views politically, she did tend to interrupt other panelists. But, that could also be due to having four other panelists, plus the host. Plus, it is hardly a surprise that Hollywood is leans left, but they cannot seem to put much into effect. The only time celebrity makes a difference in an election is when the candidate is from show business, like Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood – all of whom ran as Republicans (of the more liberal California variety). But if all the celebrity is doing is campaigning for someone else, it does not seem to make that much of a difference.
Vinod, didn’t you know a picture is worth a thousand words? Too bad there aren’t more of them. Only a little more than of your original post is about Govindini being a desi female libertarian, with the most generous reading including that random quote from her movie review (which takes nearly a hundred words). You don’t even mention her name til halfway through.
You spend a little under half the post with some bizzare 3 bears political-hotness spectrum thing going,and that part is frontloaded, which is odd, if you were really interested in the libertarian angle. Only 119 words of your post have anything to do with Govindini being political at all.
Word count analysis aside, her looks and politics are irrelevant if her movie sucks. Good-looking, opinionated yet talentless people should not be forgiven for making crap films. (Boom anyone?)
Vinod, you mentioned in a comment that it’s interesting that people get offended when joking about the PC left. And this is from your original post:
He argued that the average attractive & approachable gal on campus was a soft lefty. She’d advocate things like national healthcare out of a semi-fashionable, prima facie concern for her fellow human beings. Of course, she felt this concern naturally extended into politics & was blind to the economic logic.
Angry, granola gals oppressed by the patriarchy often filled out the far left, weren’t exactly the most dateable & he avoided them like the plague. Being famously politically incorrect, he’d remark that these gals were “either angry cuz men always treated them like sexual objects or angry cuz men never treated them like sexual objects.” I’ll reserve my comments.
Yes, I took offense to the original post, and it’s not just about calling the left “granola”. Good for you that you found a desi libertarian to post about, but you do MUCH more than that.
Your “soft lefty” comments about women who really know nothing about health care issues but who advocate for national health reform are offensive. The CATO Institute, which you link to, has a very different, but not necessarily BETTER economic logic than a lot of more progressive think tanks. I believe strongly in health care reform and universal health care of various approaches, and have a very strong economic logic to back it up, and am not a SOFTY lefty. “Hard” and “soft” are such bullshit terms used by conservatives to fend off real critiques and discussion of their theories.
In addition, the link to the jagjit white castle picture is offensive for the Nth time. I don’t know how many places that stupid picture has been advertised, including the mahoot media site and their emails, but it’s a really lame response to some good discussion that occured around the Harold and Kumar movie.
I’m not sure what Sepia Mutiny is supposed to mean, and how bringing up jagjit’s mock ad or the fallacy of soft lefties is supposed to work with that, but i’d rather see a discussion of libertarian issues framed a bit less disparagingly. And yes, making fun of college republicans as country club goers is also poking fun, but not to the extent that you intend to about others.
It’s also hard to make good libertarian entertainment. Movies are about sentiment and schmaltz, libertarianism has little room for either.
Ennis – There is certainly room for a Libertarian ethos in entertainment. BUT, where it parts ways with Hollywood is that such material is usually along the lines of an almost Ayn Rand-ish ideal. Stuff like the heroic, and yet everyday individual striving for stuff like constructive enterprise, non-violent cooperation, economic gain, faith in the market, etc.
Alas, there’s a pretty all-pervasive cynicism in Hollywood towards almost all of these themes. When the market is mentioned, it’s always about its failure and eeeeevil big businesses. When someone’s trying to build something, it’s usually an eeeevil Developer or polluting industrialist. Money is an almost prima facie evil force. Comic books aside, Hollywood prefers heros who buck the market and Fight the Power rather than exercise the Libertarian brand of it….
For ex., a nearly “classic” libertarian-themed movie of recent times is “Dead Poet’s Society.” It’s clearly entertaining, sentimental, and has a dose of schmaltz.
How important are height, musclarity, rugged features, and a full head of hair in your field?
In my area of science there are fairly few women, and even fewer attractive women. But science is atypical. In the world of work, obviously physical features are tremendously important for men. You aren’t going to find too many CEOs under 5’10, for example. You’ve seen the height-income studies (unless you want me to link them).
Do you spend 2 hours a day working out because your looks are critical to your career advancement prospects? I know women who do
Hey, I spend 12 hours a day WORKING because my career is critical to my hookup prospects. If I didn’t have the job and degrees that I do, it’d be tougher for me. That’s not true for women, who can kick back and take it easy if they marry the right guy. Unfair? Nah, it’s how the world works.
Point: this street goes both ways. I can’t exactly shed tears for the women who have to look good at work for the benefit of shallow men, because for every woman doing that there’s a guy working hard to get enough money to impress fickle women! Even the granola leftists on this thread aren’t going to hook up with illiterates or guys w/o ambition.
As for me, I work out consistently b/c I want to stay in shape. No one needs to exercise “2 hours a day” unless you’re a pro-athlete, so that strikes me as a straw man.
Besides, you’re just not going to be able to eliminate the fact that men will treat women differently based on their appearance. That can work to their benefit as well as their advantage – there is a reason that many successful sales reps tend to be attractive women.
Fundamentally your “ideal of equality” is based upon an idea of fairness that is antithetical to human nature. If we were all sexless androgynes, then we could entirely divorce the world of work from the world of sex.
I should also point out that intelligence, like looks, is strongly genetically influenced. I don’t particularly see why it should be more laudatory to esteem someone for one genetically influenced attribute rather than another. If a hot saleswoman uses her looks to bring in more revenue than a frumpy saleswoman of equal intelligence, I see nothing wrong with promoting hot one.
Anyway, I note finally that you avoided my original point: Naomi Wolf and the cultural Marxists like Anjali are not about equity feminism, but about a bizarro world in which women should be able to be as fat as they want without facing any social consequences.
gc wrote: “…a bizarro world in which women should be able to be as fat as they want without facing any social consequences.”
there’s nothing to say except that gc’s a f***king loser! it’s hilarious that he actually thinks this way, especially since his own mama’s so fat.
gc, many angry leftist granolas aren’t even attracted to men, so your economic exchange doesn’t quite work! 🙂
Movies are about sentiment and schmaltz, libertarianism has little room for either.
I think the Incredibles had a subtextually Randian, libertarian message (bad guys = lawyers and regulators, good guys = family members working to realize their potential). [Note: I do not agree with Rand on most things, but Rand is certainly preferable to Marx.]
More generally, any movie which stomps on lefty taboos (like Team America, for instance, or many episodes of South Park & the Simpsons) can be funny.
Heck, this very thread has a few example of unfunny thought control leftists ripe for a libertarian puncturing. Case in point – Anjali:
the link to the jagjit white castle picture is offensive for the Nth time.
Ooooooh, it’s “offensive”! If the Anjalites had their way, the only movie humor would be directed against rich straight white Christian Republican males (who happen to be considerably less than 50% of American society). As for the canonical one liner re: the number of feminists needed to change a light bulb, well…too hot for Hollywood.
Libertarians like Trey Parker and Matt Stone just don’t care about such modern taboos, which are enforced by angry leftists with all the ferocity of religious ideologues. Had Anjali been born in India and raised in an RSS household, I have no doubt that she’d be going around with Bal Thackeray squawking about how Fire was “offensive” and shouldn’t be shown in theaters.
Ooooooh, it’s “offensive”
Heh… GC – you forgot to mention the “offense” of linking to a Cato report on health care economics. 😉
As for the canonical one liner re: the number of feminists needed to change a light bulb, well…too hot for Hollywood.
wait…how many feminists does it take? i’m a feminist, and i’ve never heard this one… 🙂
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!