L'Ombre de l'Olivier

The Shadow of the Olive Tree

being the maunderings of an Englishman on the Côte d'Azur

29 September 2006 Blog Home : September 2006 : Permalink

Defending Malkin

Well not really - she don't need no defending from no one no how - but commenting on it.

Michelle Malkin's latest column is about some british girl who used to sing nice church music but now lets it all hang out singing dire girly pop. Not terribly surprisingly, Michelle feels that it would be nice if this bimbo had remained in her previous role as "nice girl" and thinks that the make over is a bad idea.

The corruption of Charlotte Church is a sorry little sign of how innocence and grace have lost their mass appeal — even as parents claim to want age-appropriate role models for their daughters. A survey of 1,010 mothers with daughters 4 to 9 years old, released this week, reported that 90 percent of the moms "believe there are not enough wholesome role models, celebrities, characters and brands for young girls to emulate." Some 85 percent of those polled said they are "tired of the 'sexpot' dolls/characters" currently available.

They say that — and yet, the doll market is clogged with best-selling Bratz babies in thongs and Barbies with bling.

The survey was commissioned by AG Properties, owners of the wholesome Strawberry Shortcake, Care Bears and Holly Hobbie toy lines. Perhaps it's time for moms lamenting the skankification of their little girls' world to put their money where their mouths are.

Not that it's so easy. I confess I broke down and let my 6-year-old daughter have a Bratz lunchbox. Now she wants to be a Bratz doll for Halloween, an idea that warrants only one word (a word not said often enough): "No."

Charlotte's fall was not inevitable. But good girls need grown-ups to keep them from going out of style.

Wonkette and Prof Eric Muller think that Mrs Malkin is being a hypocrite because in 1992 she was pictured in a bikini indoors in some mystery location at spring break (well actually they have a photo that might be her, but Michelle strongly implies that is isn't, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume the picture is real and explain that it doesn't matter).

Assuming (note disclaimer above) that photo is of Michelle it is rather a feeble way to counter her point. You see there are a couple of teensy weensy differences between the putative behavior of Michelle and the behaviour she is complaining about. At the date the photo is supposed to have been taken Michelle was 21 and a bit by my calculations. According to Wikipedia (yeah I know but it has more details than Michelle's own page) in March 1992 she was an ADULT, and also, as far as I know, both single and a student at Oberlin. Hence entitled to go on a vacation with friends where she could get a tan and consume alcoholic beverages. She was also not, at that moment, intending to make an appearence of Fox news in her bikini or otherwise corrupt the morals of anyone - mind you the girl in the photo looks real nice and one that in 1992 I'd have been pleased to date but that is not the issue. You see there is the key difference between Charlotte Church and Michelle Malkin - a lack of TV cameras, paparazzi and interviewers. In other words Mrs Malkin (or Miss Maglalang as she was then) was a private citizen having fun on her own dime whereas Ms Church is being paid to strut her stuff in front cameras and tittilate millions.

Oh and the "all you can drink wristband" - from my European experience (different I know, but I suspect related) - if you are in a large group you don't get admittance to certain reserved places without a wristband - the wristband may also entitle you to booze but the more important thing is it lets you go in and party with your friends so possession of a wristband does not require you to be passed out naked at 3am and it also does not mean you associate with those who do end up in that state.

It seems to me that Wonkette and Muller and their trib believe that anyone who thinks that there is too much sex on TV ought to dress like a nun (or an islamic lady in a burqa) and never show more than a hint of femininity to anyone and above all should never ever have fun. That, if you will excuse me, is a stupid argument and shows their lack of understanding of moral or religious thought. There are, no doubt, some religious people who think that way (they tend to speak Arabic), but that isn't Michelle's view, as would be obvious to anyone who's seen her HotAir productions. As should be obvious to anyone with a university education, let alone someone who teaches in a university, there is a difference between sex all the time, sex at appropriate times and no sex ever. The Wonkette and Muller brigade seem to think that "sex at appropriate times" is not a solution although quite why thexy should think that is a mystery since it has been standard practise throughout most of civilization. What is non standard is today's soft porn on every channel 24x7 and that is what Malkin is complaining about.

In fact, while it would probably cause both groups to swoon to think that they had something in common, it isn't much different to viewpoint of the feminists who decry the way that modern media shows only the skinny models and in perfectly made up airbrushed poses at that. Skinny slutty models and pop stars are not in fact doing girls any favours and are sending them dangerously wrong messages. Unless you believe that it is good for 14 year old girls to dress like prostitutes and throw up after every meal in order to stay thin then you might want to stop to think what she is complaining about instead of mocking someone behaving like a student when she was a student.

PS La Shawn makes a similar point in her post on the subject.

I despise l'Escroc and Vile Pin