»» Columnists

The Daily Caller‘s James Poulos Defends ‘What Are Women For?’ On Up With Chris Hayes

video

by Frances Martel | 12:09 pm, February 25th, 2012

» 32 comments

Earlier in the week, the Daily Caller‘s James Poulos penned a piece on modern feminism entitled “What are Women For?,” arguing that the idea that the left is united on the feminism front was problematic and, in turn, that the liberal tendency to tell people what to do naturally challenges the feminist idea that women shouldn’t need to do anything in general. Naturally, this didn’t go over too well with, well, almost anyone, but Poulos found arguably the least hospitable venue to go an defend his work: Up with Chris Hayes, where the panel tried to deconstruct every element of his argument and explain why it was received so coldly by readers.

The column ventures all over the place as far as the point of feminism– save the divides in Republican feminism, a point panelist Victoria DeFrancesco Soto argued. Poulos begins arguing that the birth control issue is still evolving from the positions of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, but pivots from the courts to the culture wars and hits on Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon telling, “The New York Times Sunday Magazine exactly what establishment liberals don’t want to hear when it comes to the sexual politics of women — ‘you don’t get to define my gayness for me.’” While many have argued that the key line of the piece is either the title or the colorfully alliterative phrase “the purpose of lifting the left’s Potemkin skirts is not to score tits for tats,” the bigger issue raised in the piece seems more aptly summarized in this line: “The left’s culture of celebration is hamstrung by the very assertions of should and shouldn’t that contemporary women have inevitably come to make — as the ongoing debate over the advisability of marriage reveals.” In other words, the rejection of “live and let live” philosophy on the left necessarily clashes with what Poulos describes as a “culture of celebration” of diversity in thought and objective.

The title of the piece took up much of the beginning of the chat, however, as host Chris Hayes explained his problems with the presentation of the work, particularly the title: “It seems, I think, an odd question to ask about human beings. who are presumably for whatever their own ends are for.” He noted that many readers perceived it as a natural slippery slope decline from asking whether women can control their sexuality to, ultimately, “the essential humanity of women.”

Poulos explained that the questions he posed revolved around the culture battles regarding reproductive rights and why they persisted. He explained that his answer to this question was “because there is a deep argument in this country about sort of what the relationship is between our biological bodies as men and as women and how that biology relates to what it is we do in society, and what our different roles are.” Hayes was comfortable with that answer, save for the fact that “it doesn’t seem that the ‘as men’ part gets as much attention,” to which Poulos replied there simply “isn’t as much disagreement” as to what men are supposed to do.

Michelle Goldberg vehemently disagreed with this premise. “When you say ‘what are women for?’ you’re necessarily implying, ‘in relation to who?’” She added that a similarly posed question about minorities would be met with scorn, to which Hayes joked, “I wrote a column the other day, ‘What Are Jews For?’, it didn’t seem to get much controversy.” Goldberg saw his piece as symptomatic of something bigger on the right, as the perception of feminism (and civil rights) “as a once worthy movement that has attained all of its goals and has become superfluous.” As mentioned before, DeFrancesco Soto argued that the piece was too one-sided, that as far as it discussed feminism, it ignored the debate on the right between Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlafly feminism. Poulos ceded the point as “insightful” but noted later that the bigger issue was where this led the culture wars, that it was “a deep-seeded political difficulty” and “we’re going to be stuck in this cultural situation regardless of the respective merits of the issue.”

While Poulos did not seem to convince anyone of his point– though proved that it may be a significantly more convoluted than the simplistic title implies– he did prove, at the least, that Up with Chris Hayes can host a conservative polemic on sensitive cultural issues and have a heated conversation without it disintegrating into a shouting match no matter how offensive some of the panelists might find his work. In fact, Goldberg, who appeared the most put off by Poulos’ piece, was the one to praise him the most for defending it after the fact, later tweeting, “The “What Are Women For?” piece was egregious, but I give @jamespoulos credit for braving such an unfriendly audience to talk about.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

Bob Herbert, chris hayes, daily caller, James Poulos, Michelle Goldberg, msnbc, Up with Chris Hayes, Victoria Defrancesco Soto

The Big Glovebowski

Strange discussion. Chicks can do about anything.

A tomato might even win the Daytona 500 tomorrow, which would be swell.
Anonymous

A tomato? Maybe. Danica Patrick? Never.

*calls bookie to hedge*
http://www.sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

I love that Chris says he wants to give James a chance to defend himself, and then allows him two ~:30 chances to speak…
Anonymous

Mr. Paulo’s is just glad someone read the article even if it’s Liberals. I can’t imagine his intended audience was Consevative.
Keane

You’re right. I wanted to hear more from Poulos. But that’s the problem when you have five people sitting around and talking about something in front of TV cameras. Everyone wants a chance to say something, and by the time everyone’s done trying to be profound and stand out, nothing has really been said at all.
Anonymous

There aren’t biological differences between races, but there are between genders. Comparing the two is pretty dumb.
Ben

Props to him for going on UP of all places to defend his column,but honestly,it’s still a POS article.from the title to the last line.
He may be “brave”,but he’s still a moron if you ask me.
No wonder he’s writing for that DC rag.
The Real Royal Emperor

I agree with you. And, as much as I admire the work of Mr. Hayes as a reporter, I find his show choppy and difficult to follow. The panel is a nig part of the problem.
The Real Royal Emperor

Don’t fret too much, dear. I am sure you can find any number of clips and articles echoing your own low opinion of women.
The Real Royal Emperor

Indeed.
http://www.riseofthecenter.com/ Solomon Kleinsmith

It’s a great show. I hope to be on it some day.
Anonymous

If skin tone is a phenotypical expression, and phenotypical expressions are biological, ergo there are “biological differences between races.”
Anonymous

the daily caller proves itself to be the voice of all that is stupid once again.
Anonymous

I’m surprised that the conversation was somewhat deep because the article was mental masturbation at its worst.
Anonymous

Women are for guys telling them what they are for. I decided, I’m a guy.
Anonymous

Yes Keane (and Sara), the whole discussion had a very rushed through quality. I could barely contemplate what one person said and another was speaking at a mile a minute. I got the feeling they all had cabs double parked outside, waiting for them–with the exception of Poulos who has a rather complex way of speaking and writing. Less commenters, or just slowing down would have been helpful here.

I do dislike it when they try to shoe–horn a complicated idea into a format that can’t begin to address the subjects its taking on. Frequently, this is done with complex medical information which only suceeds in misinforming the viewer.
Anonymous

I must admit as I read Poulos’s comments I thought to myself, there has to be a better way to express the ideas he’s presenting and then eventually concluding no, it’s the ideas themselves. They’re intellectually all dressed up, with nowhere to go.

I would suggest the greatest amount of caution and sensitivity, as a male, if one is going to comment on feminism.
http://www.facebook.com/bruce.kennedy3 Bruce Kennedy

Ciao Bella!
huffnnoccupyn

Nice one-letter-to-the-right typo, there. I’m glad I won’t make the same typo when I write that Michelle Goldberg didn’t hew from her traditional perspective ;)
Anonymous

You have a point, albeit one based on subtleties of definition. I think the idea being expressed was that we’re the same species. There are some very interesting differences between male and female; for instance, the brain. Each gender has it’s strengths, and I think the sexes compliment each other in an almost incredible way, making us stronger as a whole.
Hout Bosques

Look at Poulos’ vacuous gaze. He doesn’t give a shit. His article was inane because it was intended to be inane – it’s how his bosses want it. DAILY CALLER, PEOPLE – DING DING DING! This group was way too civilized to Poulos; he’s friggin jerkwad & nothing more.
Anonymous

phenotypical expressions don’t innately change someone’s behaviour, that’s why racism is illogical. Differences in gender are a completely different matter… testosterone being the obvious one which completely changes how people react and function in society.
Anonymous

http://youtu.be/CjD6AAuVtho

The onslaught of crazy legislation continues as the House GOP of Utah
passed a bill that allows schools to skip on sex education classes, and
prohibits instruction in the use of contraception, sex outside marriage
or homosexuality. But it’s not just happening on a state level. Lately,
we’ve been hearing a lot coming from the GOP and the Presidential
candidates in particular, over issues of contraception. So what is the
GOP’s ultimate goal here? James Poulos, Host of The Bottom Line and
Reform School on PJTV weighs in.
Anonymous

It sounds like your anti women too.
Anonymous

5 people 7 minutes debated the title of an article, not the actual article, just the title. ”it was egregious”…

The punditry shotgun unloaded all over that studio, the article stood untouched.

Poulos is spot-on, the left will allow women to do whatever they want as long as it fits the liberal template. Women who don’t play ball are destroyed or ignored. Condoleeza Rice is the zenith of what feminism and post racial America has achieved but….. she doesn’t have a Mao tattoo on her bicep so she doesn’t count

It’s all politics, feminism despite it’s important role in our society is just a pawn, eh.. maybe a rook in the political game… sad..

It’s just like racism, no progress will ever be made, because progress isn’t really the goal, manipulation is the goal.
Anonymous

Great now I have to do a punnett square before I can decide who to hate and profile..

It was so much easier when I could just hate whitey and men.

But since you brought it up… people with blue eyes are super creepy…. who is with me???
http://www.facebook.com/people/Neil-Murphy/100000566621491 Neil Murphy

There is no issue of contraception. Weak libturd talking point. Use it, like it, love it.

There is an issue about sex education i public schools, the Depatment of Education has gone so far beyond “the birds and the bees” its appalling.

Sex Ed was very contreversial when I was in public school, it started in 4th grade and was strictly birds and the bees. In the 9th grade some football player came and spoke abote STDs and gave away free condoms. What we have now is so far beyond that it makes parents vomit, detailed instructions on “kinky” sex in most forms, oral sex, anal sex. Forget tolerance, the teachers unions openly advocate for homosexuality and they are pushing this at a lower and lower age.

Did you see the school in California where they eventually “removed” the whole staff?(you cant actually fire a teacher) Investigating a sexual abusse case, investigators foound a problem so widespread that 4 people have been CHARGED.(the caps indicate that there may be more against whom the case cant be proven).

Of course the MSM is in the bag on this as well, for example Maddow has the president of the teachers union on spitting fire at the evil republicans for trying to get rid of these teachers without ever once mentioning any of the poor children getting buttfucked by teachers and janitors. This is a scandal the extent of which wont be know for years but will likely dwarf the Catholics.

I submit if you can find 4 childmolesters in one school on the government dole, that EVERY school needs to be investigated. The democrat party has been totally coopted by these scumbag public unions and the teachers unions are the worst of the worst. Even the ones that ARENT buttfucking little kids seem to be in fovor of a teachers right to do it, and be paid welll for it.
http://www.sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

care to back that up?
http://www.sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

insane much? you praise his comment, yet lie and smear me, for saying the same thing?

you are a sexist misogynistic pig, as evidenced every time you reply to my comments.
http://www.sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

*eyeroll*
Anonymous

First, the tattoo reference is just ridiculous.
May I suggest that you visit any liberal site that is discussing Condoleeza Rice and then go to any con site that is discussing Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton and compare. You will want to bathe after visiting the right wing site.
Anonymous

Condoleeza Rice is the zenith of what feminism has accomplished? Thankfully that’s not at all the case. Rice is, in fact, a perfect example of what happens when a president values personally loyalty over competence. She was appointed as National Security Advisor because she was personally loyal to Bush. She was a failure in that position. The result? She was promoted to Secretary of State. Where she was once again ineffective. To the point that the Israelis openly mocked her for doing nothing but call meetings without actually doing anything in the meetings.