Monday, October 28, 2013

The Strange New Feminist World Of Rebecca Schoenkopf

At Wonkette,  or more properly at their new "arts and culture"(sic) site "" is this extraordinary article: "Sad Whore Website* Can Do Better Than Sydney Leathers As Its New Spokesbaby" 

As is usual, the post's author one Rebecca Schoenkopf, self-admitted as "the worst journalist (sic) in the world" gets her basic facts wrong (it's all sadly detailed in the article). But the point at issue here, one of much mystification, is where are we at with feminism?

Are we (I am a Palglia-ite-feminist for the record) at a moment in time of feminism, post-feminism, feminist pre-feminism, post-post feminism? Are women "wymn" now (again), has "S.C.U.M." come back into fashion?

It's all so confusing and Schoenkopf's article on the charming Sydney Leathers only adds to the confusion.(sexist attack alert-I know I'm not allowed to call wymn/women/beings with ovaries in such chauvinistic terms but to be fair I call all variations of gender whom I find charming-charming) 

Under the present state of feminism it appears to be perfectly OK to use this terminology about another woman;
"You have all heard of Sydney Leathers, because she is a sad whore who is really good at publicity." Of course if a person of gender possessing a scrotum made such a statement they would, presumably, have the wrath of Juno or some other Goddess of feminist wrath descend upon them.

Or would they? Perhaps in the new feminist paradigm it is perfectly OK to call someone one only knows through the media as a whore. Yes, I'm terribly old fashioned and have not caught up with the new freedom to denigrate another in such terms, nor am I up to date with where condemnation of a female by a female is allowable. 

Surely for that to happen the condemned female must have done something super terrible-are we talking Lizzie Borden or Aileen Wuornos sort of mass murderer, or more probably given Wonkette's bent about Sarah Palin?

No, the terrible crime against feminism appears to be being a "kept woman" or rather being a"sugarbaby" in the possession of a "sugar daddy."

"We at and our sister are unabashedly pro-whoring, paid or unpaid. Except when it is wrapped up in the execrable terms “sugardaddy” and “sugarbaby” and promises girls it is totally not sex work and just, like, a super cool way to buy important things like awesome handbags, in which case fuck you, gross, just be honest and be an escort, dude.)"

Leaving aside the other puzzling aspect of whatever feminism Schoenkopf and ilk subscribe to-the apparent need to use curse words as being as much required in sentences as "the, and, if" etc ( I don't know any men who feel this need, perhaps feminists see it as some sort of "ballsy" affection-who knows?) can we dissect the above paragraph for clues?

No we can't. The thought process appears to belong to an arcane world view-a mixture of some sort of view of feminist liberation with an almost Victorian prudishness. Actually therein lies a clue. If we note that Schoenkopf is "commiegirl" raised in that milieu we note that the Bolsheviks possessed exactly that dichotomy.

Lenin's wife was an ardent pursuer of women's rights whilst both her marriage, and Stalin's, were exemplary instances of middle class fidelity and steadfastness. So Leathers can be called a whore in a radical leftist site which condemns women for some sort of apparent hypocrisy if they have a relationship which garners them wealth, but not direct payment for selling their bodies which is perfectly OK with Wonkette's philosphy.

What has not (as far as I know) been addressed in this new world retro-progressive feminism is, is "sugar-mommyism" OK? That is, can a wealthy lesbian buy Coach handbags for her inamorata without being condemned by Wonkette? So many questions in our brave new world.

And what do do with the likes of Marion Davies-a classic "sugardaddy" case if there ever was one? Marion never married her man, got a lot more than handbags as a glance at Hearst castle shows. Yet she remained dedicated and loyal to the irascible Hearst all her life which was devoted to philanthropy. But is Davies condemned by the new feminism as "an escort dude"? We really need to have these puzzling matters defined so everyone knows what not to do so the stern glare of the progressive eye doesn't alight on one.

From Wikipedia
Marion Davies (January 3, 1897 – September 22, 1961) was an American film actress, producer, screenwriter, and philanthropist.
Davies was already building a solid reputation as a film comedienne when newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, with whom she had begun a romantic relationship, took over management of her career. Hearst financed Davies pictures, promoted her heavily through his newspapers and Hearst Newsreels, and pressured studios to cast her in historical dramas for which she was ill suited. For this reason, Davies is better remembered today as Hearst's mistress and the hostess of many lavish events for the Hollywood elite. In particular, her name is linked with the 1924 scandal aboard Hearst's yacht where one of his guests, film producer Thomas Ince, died.
In the film Citizen Kane (1941), the title character's wife—an untalented singer whom he tries to promote—was widely assumed to be based on Davies. But many commentators, including Citizen Kane writer/director Orson Welles himself, have defended Davies' record as a gifted actress, to whom Hearst's patronage did more harm than good. She retired from the screen in 1937, choosing to devote herself to Hearst and charitable work.
In Hearst's declining years, Davies provided financial as well as emotional support until his death in 1951. She married for the first time eleven weeks after his death, a marriage which lasted until Davies died of stomach cancer in 1961 at the age of 64.

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.