By Lydia Sargent
I know many of you are asking: "Why didn't you write your column last month?"
Two reasons: (1) I was being interviewed for one of those many mainstream media Mothers Day articles that answered the question "What Do Mothers Want?" A lot of mom gals said they wanted a day with the family or a day in the garden. But I think you'll agree that what really says "We love you, Mom" is flowers and a facial, once a year in exchange for virtual chatteldom the remaining 365. So that's what I picked. (2) I was busy reading The Women's Quarterly, a new magazine put out by the Washington-based independent (yeah, right) Women's Forum (IWF). The IWF was formed by a group of 400 conservative gals who agreed with Dan Quayle about the truth about unwed motherhood and Murphy Brown and all that.
These gals are part of a different group of feminists "the angry white female," according to a Boston Globe article. They believe that "radical feminist dogma threatens women, families, and the very future of our society." These are professionals--lawyer gals, business gals, economist gals, who believe in the empowerment of women vaguely defined as free market economics, and end to the feminist emphasis on women as victims, a return to family values of the 50s (when gals stayed home and were excluded from becoming lawyers, economists, and business people). An early issue of The Women's Quarterly carried a vehement indictment of Marlo Thomas's early 1970s recording for children, "Free to Be You and Me," because it encouraged mothers to neglect their children's' welfare in pursuit of personal satisfaction and social acceptance. Whoa, when I read that my blood really started to boil.
Before reading this magazine, I'd never realized how pissed off I was--at Marlo, at Murphy Brown, and many other fictional TV gal characters as well. But after reading it, I realized there was lots going on that pissed me off. Yes, I have joined that new group "The Angry White Female." There's nothing like adopting a new party line to protest knee-jerk PC feminism.
Yes, I'm angry about a lot of things, now that conservative women have told me I should be. But there's one thing that happened recently that's made me extremely angry, more angry than anything else.
It's not the presence in our society of lots of (mostly male) people trained by the military to bomb, strafe, maim, and kill; who kill innocent civilians and drive around with vanity license plates like "SIG HIL" (read Sieg Heil) and AK47. Rather, their existence makes me feel more secure and safe, inspite of recent events.
It's not the toxic chemicals spilling into our environment, in our neighborhoods, on our highways. Those who are bothered by this are PC ecologists concerned with the sex life of fish.
It's not the proposed Counter Terrorism Act of 1995 that would broaden FBI powers to investigate suspects through telephone wiretaps and easier access to documents such as financial records, telephone bills, and hotel registers. In fact, it doesn't go far enough. I think the FBI should be able to have TV cameras in all homes, workplaces, and offices of radical left groups. As long as they leave the SIG HIL people and the NRA folks alone to do their thing, the Act is okay with me. Pass it, the sooner the better.
It's not the fact that Disneyland, California is tearing down gender barriers, although this did tick me off a bit. "The whole park will be unisex," predicts attractions supervisor Bruce Kimbrell. Until recently, only men have been hired to play boat jockeys on the Jungle Ride, where guests pass water squirting elephants and stalking tigers. Gals have staffed Storybook Land, a children's fantasy ride where they point out miniature homes of Disney characters. Park officials are looking into hiring women to work in other male bastions--train locomotives and the steamboat.
This is shocking, but not what's got me really really angry.
It's not the news that women at the Strand night club in Boston are getting their own mosh pit. Moshing, in case you've missed this activity, is slam dancing, a hard core rite of angry white males. Fed up with watching guys bash one another to the beat of the music, the club's disc jockey now invites women to mosh exclusively by announcing, "I would like to create an all female zone -- Guys, stay out of the women's hair." Male moshers usually circle the gal mosh and cheer; this is all too liberated and has to go.
While this clearly threatens western civilization, it is not what has me so ticked off.
It's also not the news that at Lexington High School in Massachusetts the gals took top honors in their regional science fair, working on such projects as "Decaffeination using Cyclodextrin" and "The Effects of Growth Factors and Antioxidants on Glutamate Neurotoxicity." This is disgusting news, as is the news that a British woman has become the first women to climb Mt. Everest alone, without oxygen supplies. Or the civil rights law, Title IX, to help women collegiate athletes. This law is forcing the cutting of male wrestling, swimming, and gymnastic teams, say many, to make way for women's teams. It may even cut into some of the football and basketball team perks. Anything that cuts off male perks deserves a violent response or a new repressive law, in my view.
But these are perturbations compared to what's really pissing me off. What I'm angry about is that incredible social problem, that threat to free market capitalism and the family as prime consumer unit, that affront to society--lesbian professional golfers, and their boobs.
I'm sure you gals have been following this latest controversy over whether CBS golf analyst Ben Wright actually said, in an interview with Valerie Helmbreck, that lesbians on the LPGA Tour hurt cooperate sponsorships; and that the quality of women's play was hindered by their breasts. Wright denies making these remarks; the newspaper (the Wilmington News Journal) stands by their story. Wright was quoted as saying the LPGA "is not reticent" about lesbianism. "It's paraded." He claimed that, "Lesbians in the sport hurt women's golf. When it gets to the corporate level, that's not going to fly. They're going to a butch game, and that furthers the bad image of the game." On the breast question, he's quoted as saying, "Women [golfers] are handicapped by having boobs -- It's not easy for them to keep their left arm straight -- their boobs get in the way."
I, for one, do not care whether he said these things or not. I'm sure he was thinking them. Also, they happen to be true, and that's the real issue isn't it? I can't tell you how angry I am, as a white gal to have my gender/race degraded by these so-called gals who make a living smacking a small white ball around. How dare they? Plus, watching them try to swing that club butch-like past those protruding boobs is more than any viewer or potential sponsor should have to stomach.
In order to get sponsors and TV coverage, gals need to perform activities that affirm their sexual availability. Beach volleyball in string bikinis yes. Club swinging lesbians in pants no. Get these gals and their lesbian boobs off the greens and into the protective custody of a male. Put them where they can be decorative and servile, like nature intended. Where they won't be an affront to corporations and their attempt to maximize profits. Let these gals perform tasks where the boobs do not get in the way, the left arm doesn't have to be straight, and the lesbianism doesn't show--like vacuuming, dish-washing, bed-making, chauffeuring (as opposed to actually driving) cooking, sewing, shopping, and hoisting numerous offspring.
Now if gals want to swing a club as part of a night club act where the boob/club interaction is a turn on, then okay. This is permitted and is a nice contribution to the free market system.
Now many of you may be asking yourselves, if boobs get in the way of swinging golf clubs don't the male genitalia also get in the way of some sports activities? The answer is yes, but who cares. Cover that member with a tough plastic, virtually bullet-proof, cup, and let the guys get on with it. Just because the male member, if struck by balls and other projectiles, puts guys out of commission, temporarily or permanently, does not mean that guys should be restricted in any way. The fact that the "thing" hangs there and swings about, easily smacked, grabbed, and squeezed when running, jogging, jumping, kicking, biking, wrestling, moshing, throwing, tackling, slam dunking, etc., is in no way an impediment to anything, except lifting a finger around the house.
Many of you are also asking, if lesbians who golf are off putting to corporate sponsors, why aren't heterosexual, predominantly males, who murderers, rape, and sexually harass a problem, ad-wise? Don't be silly.
I'm so ticked off about these lesbians who golf, that I'd like to start my own movement to put a stop to it/them. Of course, I can't. Why can't I. Cause my boobs would get in the way.