Women’s History Month
What an interesting Women’s History Month. They must have hired a new publicist. It’s as if Mad Men’s plucky Peggy Olsen took over the account and decided to shake things up. I don’t know how the new branding will play out, but heck, at this point in the war on women, give it a whirl, girl.
No more laser-like, in-depth looks at Planned Parenthood or women’s health or the continued assaults on women in the name of budget-slashing. Hohum. No more gauzy Ken-Burns-effect stories about famous women. Sigh. Even the Tiger Moms and Grizzly Mamas thing is so last decade, so kay-pro feminism.
They are trying a new direction. The new plan is to keep the focus on men for Women’s History Month, to put a face on misogyny and violence against women, to make individual men the “that’s-what-I’m-talking about” cases in point.
Though I was skeptical at first, I for one love what they are doing with the whole Charlie Sheen thing. Even a catfight between Kathy Griffin and Sarah Palin can’t break through the wall of Charlie’s Sheen. He is an abusive, narcissistic, violent, insane boor who likes to beat the women he loves. The good news: he promises no more children.
I really expected the daring Charlie Sheen maneuver would have backfired by now. If a woman NPR exec at a Starbucks, idly trash-talking Teabaggers – and she might just have been chai-ist – can get the ax so swiftly wouldn’t you think some straight white brotherhood dudes would have already done a face-saving intervention? “Sorry Charlie, we don’t want lunatics with bad taste.”
It’s not even the Ides of March. We’ll check the metrics at the end of the month and re-evaluate, but I’m impressed.