From The Daily Beast: Roseanne Barr on Ann and Mitt Romney and the Mommy Wars –
Hilary Rosen should not have attacked the Leisure Class’s women—does Romney pay her, too? What a great opportunity she has given the vast right-wing conspiracy—suggesting that their women don’t work, when everybody can see that the Women of the Right are large and in charge. The picture of Ann Romney “manning” the phone banks in front of a campaign poster that reads “Mitt Romney is good for business” tells me all I need to know about her contributions to her family, her church, and her country—convincing other privileged white women that defeating feminism is necessary to save the confederacy of dunces called the GOP, which steals bread from the mouths of widows and orphans and workers’ retirement funds as it congratulates itself for dismantling all that social-safety-net, entitlement, nanny-state load of socialist insurrection and places that money instead into private hands, so that the filthy working sluts can’t get any of it for their selfish selves. They will just use it to pay for abortions and other fun things if given half a chance.
As my friend Gail Zappa pointed out: what we really need now is a party that likes women.
But why bring out this fake issue again now? Could it be to divert the conversation from the continued restrictions being placed on women’s reproductive rights and make us forget that both parties are socialists for their own causes whose joint policies of redistribution of wealth have made it nearly impossible for anyone to “choose” the stay-home option and not feel that the system is rigged against 99.9 percent of the population, no matter how hard they work?
Let us not be dragged back into the “working mom versus stay-at-home mom” dialogue. Let us stay on topic, working to create new solutions that work for the majority of all people…
Click to see larger version - Roseanne Barr political op-ed placed in Entertainment section
So why has The Daily Beast put this righteous rant in their Sexy Beast Entertainment and Fashion section instead of in their Election Beast Campaign 2012 section? Hm?
Categories: culture wars, ethics & philosophy, gender & feminism, history, parties and factions, social justice, work and family
Hoyden About Town 
Improving life for women == women’s interest == entertainment and fashion == Sexy Beast.
(== is computer programming-ese for “is equivalent to”)
It’s the entire edifice of sexism in a nutshell.
AotQ, I agree with your reasoning, but believe I can get to the same result in fewer steps:
Women == sex => sexy beast
Hmph.
It’s the “women’s interest == entertainment and fashion” that gets me.
@Medivh, oh, me too. Me too.
On a similar note, the SMH’s insistence that the “Executive Style” section is for men irks me incredibly. Or maybe I should say it irks me that the SMH names its section aimed at men “Executive Style”, and then includes in it articles that one might think would be gender-neutral (career-type things) but are written as though only men do certain jobs.