The obsessive self-absorption of identity politics

"Was 9-11 bad for women?" What? Oh dear, you know what's coming don't you? I don’t know Joanne Lipman, whose op-ed in the New York Times asks the salient question: was 9-11 bad for women? Maybe she is a cagey humorist, a sly provocateur who seeks to remind us that for some victimologists, it’s always about their peculiar gripe. But I suspect Ms. Lipman is serious. She solemnly recounts the many slights and hazards that recently have befallen women (except those who in much greater numbers than men kept their jobs during the recession and those who populate high positions in government). Got it? Things are bad for women. Bad. She finds a significant cause for this sorry state of gender affairs in the 9-11 attack: But, as Jennifer Rubin from Commentary Magazine notes: You can hunt in vain for the connective tissue between “women are getting the short end of the stick — again” and 9-11. You won’t find it. But that's the thing with so much of today's identity politics. Everything has to be about you and your besetting concerns. Stuff just can't happen without reference to you. And so it goes round and around. In an ideal world of course these people and their concerns would end up disappearing up their own arses, but it never seems to happen sadly. Here’s the thing, Ms. Lipman: respect is earned. And you’re not going to get it writing columns that recycle every cliche in the 1970s feminist playbook. You’re not going to get it by suggesting 9-11 was responsible for some women not getting everything they want. And you’re not going to get it by using the New York Times to explain why the magazine you headed failed because of some ongoing conspiracy by chauvinists. via the Instapundit

Posted via email from Garth's posterous