11 Comments so far

1. Anna on January 15, 2008 9:28 am

   F***!!! I read as far as I could – I bailed at the the bit about 4 obstetricians!!!!!!!!! To think that drivel got into print!

2. Rachel on January 15, 2008 10:02 am

   Ugh. I read the whole damn thing.
   I no longer want breakfast.

3. Cara on January 15, 2008 12:08 pm

   Well, I do hae to say that I’m more surprised that someone wrote it than that the Mail decided to print it. The Daily Mail seems to be the answer to the question “what would happen if the reporters at Fox News lost half of their eight collective brain cells?”

4. Alisa on January 15, 2008 12:16 pm

   “Ewwww” kept spewing from my lips as I read this. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Sounds like something out of the 19th century anti-suffragette movement. I really want that woman to realize her own full potential, even to pull a man out of a burning building. Now I need some deep breathing to lower my blood pressue.

5. brandann on January 15, 2008 1:00 pm

   seriously? SERIOUSLY? i couldn’t even finish it! “radical” and not accepted ideology by women indeed! holy fucking shit!
   oh, and FWIW, i am sick of people talking about hillary clinton’s “hormonal crying”, when not one fucking person has mentioned mitt romney doing the exact same thing! guess it’s only weak and emotional when a woman does it. give me a break.

   thanks for posting this cara, and if i made the link wrong, i apologize,,,it’s early here.

6. rich on January 15, 2008 4:21 pm

   This is ridiculous, everything she says contradicts what comes before it. “I applaud female advancement, but when it comes to real power…”, or “it’s not that I take issue with female success, but…”. “I applaud female executives…but when it comes to absolute power…”

   I hope her daughter doesn’t turn out like her, but with her and her husband both reinforcing the male female hierarchy, the outlook is not so good.

   I agree with you on the Daily Mail, it’s not exactly Pulitzer-level journalism.

7. Cara on January 15, 2008 4:35 pm

   Scarily enough, Rich, I think that might have been her version of “pragmatism.”

8. Ran on January 15, 2008 7:43 pm

   It’s really good satire, whether or not it was meant to be. My favorite part is when she asks, “Face it, ladies, if you were trapped in a burning building would you rather be rescued by a strapping bloke or a woman who looked like a librarian?” Since when does “man” = “strapping bloke” and “woman” = “woman who look[s] like a librarian”? Has this woman never once taken a step outside the romance novel she apparently lives in?

9. Ran on January 15, 2008 7:45 pm

   (That, and the more obvious question: What kind of a nutjub gets trapped in a burning building and won’t take all the help (s)he can get?)

10. Cara on January 15, 2008 8:08 pm

    SHE HAS TO STAND BY HER PRINCIPLE, RAN. God, only dirty liberals would abandon their ethics for something as insignificant as not dying. If you let a little burning building that has you trapped inside get to you, what else will you cave into? Probably terrorists, that’s what.

    Hey, think I could get that comment printed in the Daily Mail?

    Also, may the next firefighters this woman meets by a strapping young woman and a man who looks like a librarian.

11. Rebel L on January 15, 2008 8:52 pm

    Well if only teh laydeez wouldn’t get themselves trapped in burning buildings in the first place! ;-)