The absence of feminist outrage over David Letterman's long-running sexual exploitation of his subordinates hasn't elicited much commentary--probably because the people who might wonder about it have already attributed it to the liberal-conservative double-standard.

I have no doubt that the dearth of press conferences called by NOW has something to do with that, but the larger issue may simply be a case of feminism having become a tradition rather than an active philosophy. Put another way, women have apparently forgotten why many of the legal and cultural protections their mothers and grandmothers worked so hard for, were put into place in the first instance.

As far as we know, Letterman's affairs with staffers were consensual. Workplace canoodling happens all the time, and so are young women frequently drawn to male superiors. Many find power imbalances to be very sexy -- and more power (or less, as it were) to 'em. There is nothing inherently wrong about a sexual relationship between two adults who are at different points in their careers. It would be awfully patronizing to suggest that women aren't capable of meaningfully consenting to sex with a workplace superior. That isn't to say I don't pass personal judgment on Letterman for sleeping with young women who were from the sounds of it at the starts of their careers -- oh, judgment abounds, believe me! But is it illegal, is it sexual harassment?

Ah! The tyranny of political euphemism. The law was made possible by the term, which arose from an image created to foster an solidarity among women and demonize--Salinsky-like--the white male power structure.

Anyone who has been in the work force in the last thirty years, is much more familiar with the female sexual predator in the workplace, than the iconic lecherous boss. I can count dozens of colleagues who've either recounted stories of worrisome flirtations by a female subordinate, or asked for advice about it. Even among the horndogs I've known, most have had the good sense to engage their libidinous natures outside the workplace and leave the help alone.

That doesn't stop young women from trying, and when they succeed, they create all manner of havoc, but particularly among their sisters who can't help but learn a very anti-feminist lesson--a woman needs to whore to get ahead. No doubt someone will argue that these women are just exploring their "sexual power", but if sex is currency, what happens when a woman gets older? The larger dynamic is devastating to women as a gender.

It really doesn't matter whether Letterman was single or married, or whether the relationships were "consensual"--the sexual congress between superiors and subordinates pretty much insures that women in the workplace will be judged first on their sexual compliance, and only distantly on their relevant talent.

I'm not a woman, but I think that would suck, and I wouldn't want my daughter to have to endure that kind of prejudice.

Feminists.

I've never actually met one. Oh, I've seen them on television and read their work, but they seem more like a mythical beast than a serious movement. I mean if its really a movement, shouldn't I--full of years that I am--have run up against two or three of them? I regularly meet supporters of gay rights, 2nd amendment firebrands, ecofreaks, open-land nuts, unionists, free-enterprisers, war supporters, anti-war activists--but no honest to goodness, man-hating, baby-killing feminists.

Its a paradox; one I was reminded of again after reading a Salon article about the righteous anger of feminists over the health care bill. Of course they aren't upset the way you or I might be about the consequences to the economy, the quality of healthcare and the assault on our personal freedom to make our own medical choices in concert with our health providers, without some pencil-necked bureaucrat second-guessing the whole game plan.

Nah. They're upset about the Stupak-Pitts amendment. What's that? Well, apparently the legislation the House passed has language in it that forbids federal funds to be used for abortion. Baby-killing feminists will be able to buy their own supplemental insurance policies to cover that eventuality.

Mythical feminists are outraged and are contemplating liberal fratricide.

Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?

There is an almost comical quality to the complaint and the threat. This mythical feminists actually seems to believe that her "movement" has the power to make or break Democrat politicians--yet the very act of accepting Stupak-Pitts is a clear-eyed assessment by Democrat officials that the feminists are a politically irrelevant force.

In a very real sense, abortion has always been a losing issue. Since the days before Roe v. Wade, feminists have had to use carefully constructed language to "sell" abortion. The nation learned to refer to unborn children in clinical, dehumanizing terms--as foeti (foetus, plural). Supporters spoke of "reproductive rights" as if birth control as a technology did not exist. A turd in a fancy wrapper is still a turd, and Democrat politicians eventually came to the conclusion that it was better to discuss ways and means to reduce "unwanted pregancies" than to keep juggling the abortion grenade.

Its no real surprise that Democrats were willing to throw abortion under the bus in order to pass healthcare, after all, "universal health care" sounds so great, doesn't it? Unlike abortion, you don't have to dress it up with stealthy language. Its health care, you need it, and its free. Its a beautiful political product and you be hard pressed to find even the most die-hard conservative who would seriously disagree. If more Republicans had been convinced that there was some legitimate role for government in the health care field, we might not be looking at a massive power grab and looming national bankruptcy.

...but I digress.

The lesson here, for mythical feminists and mythical theocrats alike, is that political power comes from commanding majorities, not forming single-issue political action committees and calling them "influential".

In the final analysis, abortion is a political loser, and if forty odd years of trying (and failing) to sell this Edsel isn't enough to convince you of that, then you're a moron.

ESPN has apparently suspended Tony Kornheiser for criticizing fellow host Hannah Storm's wardrobe choices.

“Hannah Storm in a horrifying, horrifying outfit today,” Kornheiser said on his Washington, D.C., radio show last week. “She’s got on red go-go boots and a Catholic school plaid skirt way too short for somebody in her 40s or maybe early 50s by now. She’s got on her typically very, very, very tight shirt. She looks like she has sausage casing wrapping around her upper body. I know she’s very good, and I’m not supposed to be critical of ESPN people, so I won’t. But Hannah Storm, come on now. Stop. What are you doing? She’s what I would call a Holden Caulfield fantasy at this point.”

Not everyone is endowed with a fine esthetic sense, and many talking heads benefit from the ministrations of a professional stylist. ESPN should consider the investment as it concerns Storm. That is one awful looking ensemble.

On the other hand, I think ESPN was probably correct to suspend Kornheiser--what kind of idiot creates this kind of controversy for his employer? A private aside to someone in a position to deal with this would have been far more effective--unless the point was to embarrass Storm in the first place.

Gloria Steinem, 76 years old, is disappointed that women haven't achieved "equality" after the long struggle of the feminist movement.

No fool like an old fool.

American women workers still earn only 70 cents to men's $1, women are barred from combat, women's health care premiums are higher and raising children is not counted as productive work, she says.

I don't think Gloria Steinem is really a feminist. She apparently doesn't really, truly believe in the inherent value and competence of women, demanding male subsidies to create--not a real equality, but a social system that treats men and women the same in spite of their obvious differences and more importantly, disregarding the differences between individuals.