Sargent

 

Gals. Welcome
to Hotel Satire
where gals learn (through rigorous training) to be the true gals they were
born to be. We gals have been confused of late about feminism—what
the heck is it? Sometimes, everyone and everything seems to be feminist, even
when clearly not. For instance, is Hillary Clinton a feminist witch (because
she had a career and speaks in complex sentences) or is she a true gal,
standing by her man, and, as First Lady, only engaging in activities relating
to children, illness, and pets? How do we ferret out this evil so that we can
achieve a society where true galness reigns? We have called in Wendie, our
resident expert in galness and nongalness to explain things for us.

Hi, everyone.
I’m Wendie. Let me make clear at the outset that everything I’m writing in
this column I learned from my husband. I haven’t had an independent thought
since 1964. And what a relief it’s been. Now, what was the question? Oh,
yes. How do we ferret out the feminists? How do we achieve true galness?

First some background. Before there was
feminists, there were only true gals, i.e., decorative appendages. Then,
around 1969 came feminists. There are basically three kinds of feminists. (1)
Radical feminists are gals who don’t want to be decorative appendages
anymore, and will do whatever is necessary to avoid it. These gals were
inspired by a hatred for men and their institutions, which they claim are
oppressive—how duped can gals be? Fortunately, according to gal magazines,
there are none of these left; they all died off in the 1980s / 1990s. (2)
Liberal feminists are gals who want the freedom to choose between being just
decorative or just appendages. These gals were inspired by a desire to be
equal to men and to be CEOs in the very institutions they say have oppressed
them. (3) Lipstick feminists are gals who feel that the radical feminist
demand not to be decorative appendages is totalitarian as it prevents gals
from wearing lipstick and looking sexy, activities which, they feel, are
empowering and feminist and have nothing to do with pleasing men or being
decorative appendages. These gals were inspired by a Revlon commercial
sometime around 1981.

How do I know all this? From my husband who
read it in gal magazines, true sources of information about feminism, whose
purpose is to advertise products to make gals sexy and decorative, if not
appendages. Are you getting this?

How to we ferret out the feminists who, these
days, often pass undetected among us? Let’s start by looking at three gals:
Hillie, Madie, and Tippie. (Note that whenever possible famous and infamous
gals should be referred to by their first names, preferably with the
diminutive “i-e” ending.)

Time
magazine of March 1, 1999 features an article about Hillary Clinton (see
cartoon) called “A Race of Her Own” (a play on Virginia Woolf’s A
Room of Her Own). Hillary wants to be a Senator rather than a Senator’s
wife (or mistress). Hillary has selfishly pursued a career as a lawyer, earned
her own income, and given birth to only one child.

The same issue of Time titled,
“Packing Heat.” It’s all about Secretary of State Madie Albright’s
threat-filled diplomacy re. Kosovo (see cartoon). This gal is traveling the
globe, serving on the cabinet, carrying out policies.

An article in the Boston
Sunday Globe of January 24, 1999 titled “The Repackaging of Tipper”
says the following about Tippie: “…Mrs. Gore…seems to have a natural
gift for making human connections, whether it was giving a child with stage
fright a reassuring hug, buying carry-out chicken for her Secret Service
agents, or insisting that New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen skip a
reception to ‘go home to your children’—which she did…

“Political observers say that the trick for
Tipper Gore will be striking the right balance for 2000: Having substance and
causes without projecting any ambitions to be co-president, being smart
without being threatening, and…being the poster-parent for family values.

“No offense to the first lady, they say, but
given the way Mrs. Clinton has at times polarized public opinion, it probably
helps that Tipper Gore isn’t a lawyer and doesn’t have a career.”

Now let’s ferret out the feminist.

Many of you may feel that Madie Albright is the
feminist, what with being secretary of state and all. But gals who are past
their child-bearing years (over 50) and are presumably no longer sexually
available and/or attractive to men are not feminist because they aren’t
really gals. Enough said.

Hillie, by virtue
of the fact that she has made some choices about her life, is a liberal
feminist and a danger to us all. True most of her choices have been in
relation to her man, but no matter.

Tippie Gore is a
true gal. Everything Tippie does is in relation to her man, to enhance her man
and his offspring. She has no life or existence on her own as far as we can
tell, and this is true gal behavior. If it were up to me she’d be First Lady
right now.

Regarding lipstick feminists— how do we
ferret them out? It isn’t easy. For instance, there was a recent article in
the New York Times titled “The Artist Is A Glamour Puss.” It seems
that a wave of young “girl” artists “would rather be seen in nail polish
than with paint beneath their nails…. For some it is a declaration of power
and self-confidence. For others, exuding glamour or sexuality is an extension
of the themes of their work….

“Today, women who might once have felt
obliged to masquerade as scruffy, macho types in order to be taken seriously
in an art world dominated by men, now flaunt the feminine.” Says Tracey Emin,
whose best-known work is a tent inscribed with the names of all the people she
has slept with, “When I go out, I show an amazing amount of cleavage because
I’ve got really nice breasts, and it makes me feel glamorous.”

I know you’re thinking that Tracie is not
feminist. That showing cleavage to sell paintings is degrading and typical of
what gals have had to do for over 5,000 years. Well, you’re wrong. Because
being sexy, according to the media, is being feminist. Why? Because gals are
being sexy just for the heck of it (and to annoy radical feminists) and it has
nothing to do with pleasing men even though, from the dawn of time, being sexy
has everything to do with pleasing  men.

Let’s look at an ad for Opera Australia
featuring a woman’s erect nipple. The caption asks which is more stimulating
(and therefore the cause of the erection), “Winter? Or Opera? Reaction from
gals who were shown the ad has been positive, according to Helen O’Neil,
marketing director of Opera Australia. “They immediately understood the
ad’s message.” Males reacted to the ad’s sexual connotation and tried to
guess the model’s cup size.

You’re probably thinking this ad exploits
gals. Well, you’re wrong. Because sexy is feminist. Because, in fact,
anything to do with gals, including reducing them to their breasts/nipples/
crotches, is feminist—even if it’s not.

So a feminist is anyone who isn’t a true gal.

A true gal is a gal who never has an
independent thought or action who is smart without being threatening while
also not being a lawyer or anything else while giving reassuring hugs to
children and fetching chicken for her Secret Service agent.
                       Z